Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed September 25, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-16 remain pending in the application. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2 and 13 have been canceled by the applicant. The Double Patenting provisional rejection has been overcome by the amendments made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 9-11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo in view of Sbriglia and in further view of Li (all previously cited).
Regarding Claim 1, Matsuo teaches a composition for forming an anode of a lithium secondary battery comprising:
an anode active material (“an electrode active material,” paragraph 24; “particularly suitable for use in formation of a negative electrode of a non-aqueous secondary battery,” paragraph 36),
a conductive material (“composition may further contain a conductive material,” paragraph 64),
and a binder, wherein the binder comprises: a triblock copolymer (“The copolymer forming the particulate polymer A,” paragraph 64; “a triblock structure including three block regions,” paragraph 64)
which has a soft block derived from an aliphatic or alicyclic diene-based monomer and forming a rubbery phase at a room temperature; and a first hard block and a second hard block connected to both ends of the soft block, respectively, derived from an aromatic ring-containing ethylenically unsaturated monomer and forming a glassy phase at a room temperature [“three block regions (for example, a structure including an aromatic vinyl block region composed of styrene units, another region composed of 1,3-butadiene units, and an aromatic vinyl block region composed of styrene units),” paragraph 64],
and wherein the binder includes particles having an average diameter (D5o) of about 1 µm or greater and 50 µm or less (“The volume-average particle diameter of the particulate polymer A obtained as set forth above is preferably 0.6 µm or more, more preferably 0.7 µm or more, and even more preferably 0.8 µm or more, and is preferably 2.5 µm or less,” paragraph 81).
Matsuo does not explicitly teach that the binder is a spherical shape and has an average sphericity of about 0.7 or greater and about 1.0 or less. However, Sbriglia teaches a binder for a composition of an electrode where the binder is a spherical shape and has an average sphericity of about 0.7 or greater and about 1.0 or less (“a binder system including fibrillated UHMWPE particles, where the UHMWPE particles includes a median Da from about 5 microns to about 300 microns, a median sphericity from about 0.820 to about 0.880,” paragraph 33).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the composition for forming an anode taught in Matsuo, including the binder, and form the binder into the shape taught by Sbriglia.
Matsuo also does not explicitly teach that the composition comprises the binder in an amount of about 3 to 15 % by weight based on the total weight of the composition. However, Li discusses the effects of binder content on silicon-based anodes and teaches that “There is a wide range of binder contents utilized in literature for silicon electrodes, ranging from 8 to 44 wt%,” paragraph 5 of the Introduction. They teach that the reasoning for this balance is that “Generally, more binder is shown to be beneficial to improving electrode capacity and durability and insufficient carbon content can hinder electron transport,” paragraph 5 of the Introduction. They further state that “excess binder impeded access to silicon particles and resulted in lower charge capacities and rate sensitivity,” paragraph 2 of the Conclusion.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the composition for forming an anode taught in Matsuo and adjust the weight percentage of the binder compared to the total weight to fall within the range taught by Li (and Li’s references cited for that range). Doing so would have the predictable effect of improving the anode’s capacity and durability, without adding so much binder as to impede electron transport, charge capacity, and rate.
Regarding Claim 4, Matsuo modified by Sbriglia and Li teaches the composition of claim 1, wherein Matsuo further teaches that the soft block is derived from an aliphatic diene-based monomer containing one or more selected from the group consisting of a butadiene-based monomer, a pentadiene-based monomer, and a hexadiene-based monomer (“aliphatic conjugated diene monomer unit of the other region in the particulate polymer A include conjugated diene compounds having a carbon number of 4 or more such as 1,3-butadiene, isoprene, 2,3-dimethyl-l , 3-butadiene, and 1,3-pentadiene,” paragraph 57).
Regarding Claim 5, Matsuo modified by Sbriglia and Li teaches the composition of claim 4, wherein Matsuo further teaches that the soft block is derived from a butadiene-based monomer that comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of 1,2-butadiene, 1,3-butadiene, isoprene, and chloroprene (“such as 1,3-butadiene, isoprene, 2,3-dimethyl-l , 3-butadiene, and 1,3-pentadiene,” paragraph 57).
Regarding Claim 9, Matsuo modified by Sbriglia and Li teaches the composition of claim 1, wherein Matsuo further teaches that the anode active material comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of a carbon-based active material, a silicon-based active material, a metal-based active material capable of alloying with lithium, and a lithium- containing active material (“Examples of negative electrode active materials for lithium-ion secondary batteries include carbon-based negative electrode active materials,” paragraph 119).
Regarding Claim 10, Matsuo modified by Sbriglia and Li teaches the composition of claim 1, wherein Matsuo further teaches the conductive material comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of a graphite, an activated carbon, a carbon black, an acetylene black, a Ketjen black, a carbon nanotube, a graphene, and a carbon fiber (“The slurry composition may further contain a conductive material such as carbon black,” paragraph 131).
Regarding Claim 11, Matsuo modified by Sbriglia and Li teaches the composition of claim 1, wherein Matsuo further teaches that the composition comprises the first hard block and the second hard block in a combined amount of about 10 to 60 % by weight based on the total weight of the triblock copolymer (“the particulate polymer A preferably includes the aromatic vinyl monomer unit in a proportion of not less than 10 mass% and not more than 70 mass%,” paragraph 18).
Regarding Claim 14, Matsuo modified by Sbriglia and Li teaches the composition of claim 1, wherein Matsuo further teaches an anode of a lithium secondary battery comprising such a composition (“a negative electrode for a non-aqueous secondary battery comprising a negative electrode mixed material layer,” paragraph 26; “In a case in which the secondary battery is a lithium-ion secondary battery,” paragraph 115).
Regarding Claim 15, Matsuo modified by Sbriglia and Li teaches the anode of claim 14, wherein Matsuo further teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising such an anode (“Another objective of the present disclosure is to provide a non-aqueous secondary battery having excellent cycle characteristics,” paragraph 12; “In a case in which the secondary battery is a lithium-ion secondary battery,” paragraph 115).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo in view of Sbriglia and in further view of Li. Netzch (previously cited) is used as evidence.
Regarding Claim 3, Matsuo modified by Sbriglia and Li teaches the composition of claim 1, wherein Matsuo teaches a triblock polymer consisting of two blocks comprising styrene on either side of a butadiene-based block (“a structure including an aromatic vinyl block region composed of styrene units, another region composed of 1,3-butadiene units, and an aromatic vinyl block region composed of styrene units,” paragraph 64). Netzch teaches an inherent property of such blocks [“copolymer from styrene and butadiene (and sometimes additional components), in which the individual monomers are lined up either in block form (block copolymer),” paragraph 1] is such that the first and second glass transition temperatures corresponding to the first hard block and the second hard block, respectively, are about 50 0C or higher and about 120 0C or lower [“-90 to -50 / 80 to 110°C,” in Properties table; “The glass transition at 98°C (2 heating, red, midpoint) is due to the styrene component,” paragraph under subheading Evaluation], and the third glass transition temperature corresponding to the soft block is about -120 0C or higher and about -50 0C or lower [“-90 to -50 / 80 to 110°C,” in Properties table; “The glass transition in the low-temperature range (here in both heatings at -84°C, midpoint) is due to the butadiene component,” paragraph under subheading Evaluation].
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo in view of Sbriglia, in further view of Li, and in further view of Kurata (previously cited).
Regarding Claim 6, Matsuo modified by Sbriglia and Li teaches the composition of claim 1, wherein Matsuo further teaches that the first hard block and the second hard block are each independently derived from an aromatic ring-containing ethylenically unsaturated monomer containing one or more of a styrene-based monomer [“three block regions (for example, a structure including an aromatic vinyl block region composed of styrene units, another region composed of 1,3-butadiene units, and an aromatic vinyl block region composed of styrene units),” paragraph 64]. Matsuo does not teach including an aromatic (meth)acrylic-based monomer in the first and second hard blocks.
However, Kurata does teach a binder containing one or more of a styrene-based monomer and an aromatic (meth)acrylic-based monomer [“A binder for a lithium ion secondary battery electrode according to an embodiment (hereinafter, simply referred to as a “binder” in some cases) is obtained by emulsion polymerization of an ethylenically unsaturated monomer,” paragraph 30; “The ethylenically unsaturated monomer is composed of specific amounts of styrene, an N atom-containing ethylenically unsaturated monomer, an ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid,” paragraph 30; “Examples of the ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid esters include (meth)acrylic acid esters such as methyl(meth)acrylate, ethyl(meth)acrylate, n-propyl(meth)acrylate, isopropyl(meth)acrylate, n-butyl(meth)acrylate, iso-butyl(meth)acrylate, tert-butyl meth)acrylate, n-hexyl(meth)acrylate, 2-ethylhexyl(meth)acrylate, lauryl(meth)acrylate, stearyl(meth)acrylate, cyclohexyl(meth)acrylate, isononyl(meth)acrylate, isobornyl(meth)acrylate, and benzyl(meth)acrylate,” paragraph 49]. Kurata teaches that the benefit of including this in the binder composition along with styrene is “for developing the binding properties of the binder between active materials and between an active material and a current collector and for improving emulsion polymerization stability,” paragraph 42.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the composition for forming an anode taught in Matsuo and modified by Sbriglia and Li, including the binder’s first and second hard blocks, and include an aromatic (meth)acrylic-based monomer in the hard blocks’ composition to (1) better facilitate binding of the active materials both between the binder and the current collector, and (2) improve polymerization stability, as taught by Kurata.
Regarding Claim 7, Matsuo modified by Sbriglia, Li, and Kurata teaches the composition of claim 6, wherein Matsuo further teaches that the styrene-based monomer comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of styrene, a-methylstyrene, p- methylstyrene, p-methoxystyrene, p-ethoxystyrene, t-butoxystyrene, p-acetoxystyrene, p- chlorostyrene, p-bromostyrene, 2,4-dimethylstyrene, 3,5-dimethylstyrene, and 2,4,6- trimethylstyrene (“the aromatic vinyl block region in the particulate polymer A include styrene, styrenesulfonic acid and salts thereof, a-methylstyrene, p-t-butylstyrene, butoxystyrene, vinyltoluene, chlorostyrene, and vinylnaphthalene,” paragraph 49).
Regarding Claim 8, Matsuo modified by Sbriglia and Li teaches the composition of claim 6, wherein Kurata further teaches that the aromatic (meth)acrylic-based monomer comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of benzylacrylate, benzylmethacrylate, phenoxyacrylate, phenoxymethacrylate, phenylacrylate, phenylmethacrylate, phenylethylacrylate, and phenylethylmethacrylate [“A binder for a lithium ion secondary battery electrode according to an embodiment (hereinafter, simply referred to as a “binder” in some cases) is obtained by emulsion polymerization of an ethylenically unsaturated monomer,” paragraph 30; “The ethylenically unsaturated monomer is composed of specific amounts of styrene, an N atom-containing ethylenically unsaturated monomer, an ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid,” paragraph 30; “Examples of the ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid esters include (meth)acrylic acid esters such as methyl(meth)acrylate, ethyl(meth)acrylate, n-propyl(meth)acrylate, isopropyl(meth)acrylate, n-butyl(meth)acrylate, iso-butyl(meth)acrylate, tert-butyl meth)acrylate, n-hexyl(meth)acrylate, 2-ethylhexyl(meth)acrylate, lauryl(meth)acrylate, stearyl(meth)acrylate, cyclohexyl(meth)acrylate, isononyl(meth)acrylate, isobornyl(meth)acrylate, and benzyl(meth)acrylate,” paragraph 49]. Kurata teaches that the benefit of including this in the binder composition along with styrene is “for developing the binding properties of the binder between active materials and between an active material and a current collector and for improving emulsion polymerization stability,” paragraph 42.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the composition for forming an anode taught in Matsuo and modified by Sbriglia and Li, including the binder’s first and second hard blocks, and include benzyl(meth)acrylate in the hard blocks’ composition to (1) better facilitate binding of the active materials both between the binder and the current collector, and (2) improve polymerization stability, as taught by Kurata.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo in view of Sbriglia, in further view of Li, and in further view of Tian (previously cited).
Regarding Claim 12, Matsuo modified by Sbriglia and Li teaches the composition of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that a weight average molecular weight of each of the first hard block and the second hard block is about 9,000 g/mol or greater and about 20,000 g/mol or less. However, Tian teaches a triblock copolymer where the end blocks are derived from styrene (“In embodiments, the SBC has the general configuration of A-B, A-B-A,” paragraph 63), and the middle block is derived from diene (. Therein, Tian teaches weight average molecular weight of each of the first hard block and the second hard block is about 9,000 g/mol or greater and about 20,000 g/mol or less (“the block A is selected from para-substituted styrene monomers,” paragraph 50; “the block A has a molecular weight (Mp) of 1000 - 60000 g/mol, or 2000 - 50000 g/mol, or 5000 - 45000 g/mol, or 8000 - 40000 g/mol, or 10000 - 35000 g/mol,” paragraph 52).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the composition for forming an anode taught in Matsuo and modified by Sbriglia and Li, including the hard blocks of the binder, and constrain the average molecular weight of the hard blocks within the ranges to improve the binder composition and optimize the glass transition temperature, as taught by Tian.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Please see MPEP § 2144.05.I: In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo in view of Sbriglia, in further view of Li, and in further view of Ralls (previously cited).
Regarding Claim 16, Matsuo modified by Sbriglia and Li teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 15, wherein Matsuo further teaches that lithium-ion secondary batteries, including those that comprise an anode made via the composition taught by Matsuo, “are used in a wide variety of applications,” paragraph 2. Matsuo does not explicitly state that one such application of lithium secondary batteries is in vehicles. However, Ralls does teach that lithium secondary batteries “have been shown to be the most widely used and reliable source of energy for electric vehicles (EVs),” paragraph 2 of the Introduction. Ralls teaches that one benefit of using lithium secondary batteries in vehicles is “their impressive energy density-to-weight ratios (measuring at 120–220 Wh kg−1), which allows them to outperform other battery technologies such as lead–acid batteries (PbAB) and nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries,” paragraph 1 of the Introduction.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the lithium secondary battery taught by Matsuo and modified by Sbriglia and Li, and incorporate the battery into a vehicle, as taught by Ralls, in order to achieve a much better energy density-to-weight ratio than other battery technologies.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on September 25, 2026 have been fully considered but were not found persuasive. The applicant’s first argument is that the amended claim 1 now overcomes the U.S.C. 102 rejection because Matsuo does not anticipate the amended claim 1. This argument extends to the 102 rejections applied to dependent claims 3-5, 9-11, 14, and 15 by virtue of their dependence on amended claim 1. The Examiner agrees and withdraws the U.S.C. 102 rejections for these claims. New grounds for rejection have been applied to these claims instead (see above).
The applicant’s second argument is that because Sbriglia’s binder is not the same as Matsuo’s binder, it would not be obvious to take the binder sphericity taught by Sbriglia and apply it to Matsuo. However, both binders are in the form of particles that are used as adhesive for the electrode material. A person having ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Sbriglia teaching that a binder particle is ideally near-spherical is a common property translatable to other binder particles used in developing an electrode, such as the one taught by Matsuo.
The applicant’s third argument is that Sbriglia teaches a median sphericity, which is not the same as the claim’s average sphericity. Without indication to the contrary, a person having ordinary skill in the art would assume an approximately normal distribution and, thus, that the average sphericity and median sphericity are similar values.
The applicant’s fourth argument is that Li teaches an optimized binder content range for a binder different from the one taught in Matsuo; thus, it would not be obvious to apply that range to Matsuo. The examiner agrees that Li’s experiments are conducted using a specific binder different from Matsuo’s. However, Li’s Title, Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusion all discuss optimal binder content more generally, either as binders generally (e.g., “We have observed that increasing binder content will decrease porosity and increase electrode resistances but improve electrode cohesion and adhesion. As such, a trade-off between electrode impedances and mechanical robustness must be balanced to achieve optimal electrode performance,” Conclusion, paragraph 1) or polymeric binders (e.g., “The role of polymeric binders is especially critical for electrodes containing high volume change active materials,” Abstract), rather than the specific polyimide binder used in the experiment. Matsuo and the instant application use polymeric binders. Thus, if viewing Li’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply Li’s teachings to other binders, particularly other polymeric binders such as those taught by Matsuo and the instant application.
The applicant’s fifth argument is that Li teaches an optimal binder content for anodes containing silicon; thus, the teachings cannot be reasonably applied to Matsuo or the instant application because they both use graphite-based active materials. The examiner agrees that Li’s teachings are specific to silicon-containing electrode active materials. However, Matsuo teaches that their anode active material can be silicon-based (Matsuo: “the presently disclosed slurry composition for a non-aqueous secondary battery electrode is not limited to the following example,” paragraph 116; “Examples of negative electrode active materials for lithium ion secondary batteries include carbon-based negative electrode active materials, metal-based negative electrode active materials, and negative electrode active materials that are combinations thereof,” paragraph 119; “Of these metal-based negative electrode active materials, active materials containing silicon (silicon-based negative electrode active materials) are preferred. One reason for this is that the capacity of a lithium ion secondary battery can be increased though use of a silicon-based negative electrode active material,” paragraph 126). The instant application does the same (Instant Application: “the anode active material may include one or more selected from the group consisting of a carbon-based active material, a silicon-based active material,” lines 3-4 of page 4). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use Matsuo’s teachings a for silicon-containing anode material and apply Li’s teachings to optimize the binder content of that composition.
The applicant’s final argument is that the claimed binder content range is critical and provide additional examples not previously presented to demonstrate this.
Overcoming a rejection based on unexpected results requires the combination of three different elements: (i) the results must fairly compare with the closest prior art in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, (ii) the claims must be commensurate in scope, and (iii) the results must truly be unexpected. Please see MPEP § 716.02. Additionally, the burden rests with Applicant to establish the results are unexpected and significant. Please see MPEP § 716.02(b).
In this case, none of these conditions are met. For (i), the results are not fairly compared with the closest prior art in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132. For (ii), the claims are not commensurate in scope. For example, results in Table 1 of the specification show a marked difference in tensile strength by changing the film-forming temperature (see both Examples 1), while the binder content is unchanged. This indicate that film-forming temperature is also a highly influential factor. Yet, it is not present in the claims. For (iii), Applicant has not established why the results are unexpected. Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. Please see MPEP § 716.02. The applicant has shown results have some difference (though even on this point, it is unclear to what extent the tensile strength is affected by binder content; for example, in example pairs 1/1 and 4/6 in Table 1, the pairs have the same binder content but notably different tensile strengths), but the Applicant has not explained why these differences are unexpected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN P WILKERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORDAN P WILKERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
