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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/510,987 (simply 510,987) in view of Matsuo et al. (US 20190379050 A1), hereafter referred to simply as Matsuo.
Regarding Claim 1, claim 1 of the copending application 510,987 discloses a composition for forming an anode of a lithium secondary battery comprising:
an anode active material (“an anode active material”),
a conductive material (“a conductive material”)
and a binder, wherein the binder comprises: a triblock copolymer (“a first binder comprising a triblock copolymer”)
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 (“comprises a soft block derived from aliphatic or cycloaliphatic diene-based monomers and exhibiting a rubber phase at room temperature, and a first hard block and a second hard block each connected to ends of the soft block, derived from an aromatic ring-containing ethylenically unsaturated monomer, and exhibiting a glass phase at room temperature”)
Copending application 510,987 does not disclose in its claim 1 that the binder includes particles having an average diameter (D5o) of about 1 µm or greater and 50 µm or less. However, Matsuo does teach that 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 notes that the benefit of such a range is that “when the volume-average particle diameter of the particulate polymer A is 0.6 μm or more, the particulate polymer A can more favorably follow expansion and contraction of an electrode active material associated with repeated charging and discharging through good adhesion to the electrode active material. This can further inhibit electrode swelling associated with repeated charging and discharging and further improve secondary battery cycle characteristics. On the other hand, when the volume-average particle diameter of the particulate polymer A is 2.5 μm or less, secondary battery cycle characteristics can be further improved,” paragraph 81.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take claim 1 of the copending application and further modify it to include particles with the average particle size within the range taught by Matsuo in order to inhibit electrode swelling without allowing the particle size to be so large that battery cycle characteristics are adversely affected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 9-11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuo.
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).
Regarding Claim 4, 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 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 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 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 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 further teaches an anode of a lithium secondary battery comprising a composition of claim 1 (“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 further teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising an anode of claim 14 (“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. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Matsuo. Netzch (“SB: Styrene/Polybutadiene copolymer”) is used as evidence, hereafter referred to simply as Netzch.
Regarding Claim 3, as mentioned previously, 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].
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo in view of Sbriglia et al. (US-2025-0266460-A1), hereafter referred to simply as Sbriglia.
Regarding Claim 2, 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. Please see MPEP 2144.04 regarding changes in shape.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo in view of Kurata et al. (US-2015-0357647-A1), hereafter referred to simply as Kurata.
Regarding Claim 6, Matsuo does further teach 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, 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 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, 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, 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 Tian et al. (US-2024-0304815-A1), hereafter referred to simply as Tian.
Regarding Claim 12, Matsuo 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, 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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo in view of Li et al (“Effect of Binder Content on Silicon Microparticle Anodes for Lithium-Ion Batteries”), hereafter referred to simply as Li.
Regarding Claim 13, Matsuo 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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo in view of Ralls et al. (“The Role of Lithium-Ion Batteries in the Growing Trend of Electric Vehicles”), hereafter referred to simply as Ralls.
Regarding Claim 16, Matsuo 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 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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights