DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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)(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.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Nakayama (US20220278330A1; EFD 8/29/2019) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nakayama (US20220278330A1; EFD 8/29/2019) in view of Wu (US20150031830A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nakayama teaches a binder composition for an electrical storage device (claim 1), comprising:
a polymer (A) (claim 1);
and a liquid medium (B) (claim 1; liquid medium (B) may be water, [0029]),
wherein, with respect to 100 mass% in total of repeating units contained in the polymer (A), the polymer (A) contains: 15 mass% to 60 mass% of a repeating unit (a1) derived from a conjugated diene compound (claim 1, polymer (A) comprises a conjugated diene compound (a1) in a range of 20 to 60 parts by mass);
and 1 mass% to 30 mass% of a repeating unit (a2) derived from an unsaturated carboxylic acid (claim 1, polymer (A) comprises an unsaturated carboxylic acid (a3) in a range of from 1 to 10 parts by mass).
Thus, Nakayama teaches a polymer within the same compositional space as the claimed invention because Nakayama explicitly teaches a polymer prepared via emulsion polymerization that uses conjugated diene and unsaturated carboxylic acid repeating monomer units present in amounts that overlap with the claimed mass% ranges. However, Nakayama is silent as to the number of tan δ peaks (i.e. glass transition temperature or Tg peaks) exhibited by the resulting polymer.
Since the structural chemical composition and the mass percentages of Nakayama are identical or substantially identical to the polymer composition of instant claim 1, the disclosed polymer of Nakayama must inherently exhibit the same physical and thermodynamic properties, including the claimed multi-peak Tg profile (see MPEP §2112 and MPEP §2112.01). The claiming of an unrecognized, inherent property or result does not patentably distinguish an otherwise identical composition over the prior art (see MPEP §2144.05). Accordingly, the burden shifts to the Applicant to provide comparative evidence demonstrating that the prior art polymer of Nakayama, when prepared within the overlapping ranges, does not possess the claimed Tg profile.
If the claimed multi-peak Tg profile is not deemed inherent to Nakayama, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama in view of Wu. To the extent that the claimed 3 Tg peaks represent a specific multi-phase morphology not inherently produced by the polymerization method of Nakayama, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art to tune the specific monomer ratios of Nakayama to achieve the desired multi-peak Tg properties in view of Wu.
Wu teaches a polymer binder generated via emulsion polymerization where the polymer is formulated with distinct "hard" and "soft" polymer phases (claim 1). Wu further teaches that phase-separated polymers having "hard" and "soft" phases may display multiple distinct Tg peaks depending their domains ([0013]-[0016]), and that tuning the monomer percentages is a standard methodology to manipulate these thermal phases to achieve distinct Tg peaks ([0015]). Wu further states that the Tg value difference between the hard and soft polymer phases should be successfully separated by more than 50°C-110°C to provide a polymer binder that includes different and distinct phase structure emulsion particles ([0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polymer composition of Nakayama (hereby referred to as “modified Nakayama”) using the phase optimization techniques of Wu to tune the hard and soft phase separation in order to optimize the resulting glass transition temperatures (Tg) to arrive at the specific Tg profile for the desired binder performance. The selection of specific monomer ratios within the overlapping ranges of Nakayama to achieve multiple distinct Tg peaks would represent the routine optimization of known result-effective variables (see MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 2, modified Nakayama teaches all features of claim 1, but does not expressly teach a binder polymer wherein the tan δ’s have peak intensities that satisfy relationships of the following expressions (1):
Peak intensity of tan δ2/peak intensity of tan δ1 > 1.0 (1)
Peak intensity of tan δ3/peak intensity of tan δ2 > 1.0 (2).
As discussed above, modified Nakayama (in view of Wu) teaches a polymer comprising the claimed repeating units within the claimed ranges expected to exhibit multiple Tg peaks resulting from phase-separated hard and soft polymer domains, because Wu teaches that such thermal transitions arise from distinct polymer phases and that the thermal behavior of the polymer is dependent upon polymer composition and phase domain architecture in terms of the hard and soft polymer phase segments. Accordingly, the polymer of modified Nakayama would reasonably be expected to exhibit multiple Tg peaks corresponding to the respective hard and soft phase domains. The additional claimed relationships (1) and (2) of the Tg peak intensities above represent characteristics arising from the phase separated morphology of the polymer and does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the combination of Nakayama and Wu (i.e. “modified Nakayama”) as also discussed above in the alternative 103 rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, modified Nakayama teaches all features of claim 1, and further teaches the polymer (A) further contains 35 mass% to 75 mass% of a repeating unit (a3) derived from an aromatic vinyl compound (claim 1, aromatic vinyl compound (a2) is in the range of 35 to 75 parts by mass), and wherein a total amount of the repeating unit (a1), the repeating unit (a2), and the repeating unit (a3) is 80 mass% or more (pg. 14-15, Table 1, “Number of parts in composition” section, examples 1-10 have repeating units (a1)-(a3) corresponding to conjugated diene, aromatic vinyl, and unsaturated carboxylic acid compounds, respectively, of the polymer (A) at 80% or more).
Regarding claim 4, modified Nakayama teaches all features of claim 1, and further teaches the polymer (A) further contains at least one of a repeating unit (a4) derived from an unsaturated carboxylic acid ester ( [0054]) or a repeating unit (a5) derived from an a, β - unsaturated nitrile compound ([0059]), and wherein a total amount of the repeating unit (a1), the repeating unit (a2), the repeating unit (a4), and the repeating unit (a5) is 65 mass% or more (pg. 15, Table 1, example 7 has repeating units (a1)-(a4) and (a6) corresponding to BD as the conjugated diene (a1), ST as the aromatic vinyl (a2), TA, AA, and MAA as the unsaturated carboxylic acid (a3), EDMA as the unsaturated carboxylic acid ester (a4), and AN as the a, β - unsaturated nitrile (a6) compounds of the polymer (A) at 65% mass or more).
Regarding claim 5, modified Nakayama teaches all features of claim 1, including a polymer comprising conjugated diene and unsaturated carboxylic acid repeating units that overlap with the claimed mass% ranges of each respective constituent, thereby teaching a polymer within the same compositional scope as the claimed invention. The limitation “…wherein the polymer (A) has an electrolytic solution swelling ratio of 150% or more and 450% or less when the polymer (A) has been immersed in a solvent formed of ethylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, and ethyl methyl carbonate at a volume ratio of 1:1:1 under conditions of 70°C and 24 hours,” the recited immersion conditions merely define the conditions under which the swelling property is evaluated. Since modified Nakayama teaches a polymer having the same repeating monomer units in overlapping amounts, the recited swelling behavior would have been expected for a polymer having such composition. Accordingly, the recited swelling ratio does not patentably distinguish the claimed polymer from the polymer of modified Nakayama; thus, modified Nakayama inherently teaches all limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, modified Nakayama teaches all features of claim 1, and further teaches the polymer (A) is polymer particles, and wherein the polymer particles have a number average particle diameter of 50 nm or more and 500 nm or less (claim 4).
Regarding claim 7, modified Nakayama teaches all features of claim 1, and further teaches the liquid medium (B) is water (claim 5).
Regarding claim 8, modified Nakayama teaches a slurry for an electrical storage device electrode comprising the binder composition for an electrical storage device of claim 1 and an active material (claim 6).
Regarding claim 9, modified Nakayama teaches all features of claim 8, and further teaches the slurry for an electrical storage device electrode wherein the active material contains a silicon material (claim 7).
Regarding claim 10, modified Nakayama teaches all features of claim 8, and further teaches an electrical storage device electrode comprising a current collector and an active material layer formed on a surface of the current collector by applying and drying the slurry for an electrical storage device electrode (claim 8).
Regarding claim 11, modified Nakayama teaches an electrical storage device comprising the electrical storage device electrode of claim 10 (claim 9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sonobe (US2015132644A1): appears to disclose a binder resin including a polymer latex formed of a hetero-phase structure having two or more glass transition temperatures, where the polymer has a glass transition temperature in dynamic viscoelasticity measurement with at least one peak at −100°C to 10°C and at least one peak at 10°C to 100°C.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXIS R OSTWALT whose telephone number is (571)272-8650. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-5pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 5712707692. 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.
/A.R.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights