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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 8-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 includes the limitation “and the binder composition for a non-aqueous secondary battery functional layer according to claim 1” that should be corrected to “and the binder composition for the non-aqueous secondary battery functional layer according to claim 1”;
Claim 10 includes the limitation “using the slurry composition for a non-aqueous secondary battery functional layer according to claim 8” that should be corrected to “using the slurry composition for the non-aqueous secondary battery functional layer according to claim 8”;
Claim 11 includes the limitation “comprising the functional layer for a non-aqueous secondary battery according to claim 8” that should be corrected to limitation “comprising the functional layer for the non-aqueous secondary battery according to claim 8;”
Claims 9 and 12 are also objected to as being dependent on objected claims 8 and 11 above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over St. John (US-5131982-A), hereinafter St. John.
Regarding claim 1, St. John teaches a binder composition for a non-aqueous secondary battery functional layer comprising a water-soluble polymer (col. 3, lines 58-68; St. John teaches a polymer comprising diallyl dimethyl ammonium chloride (DADMAC) and acrylamide, which is inherently a water-soluble polymer as evidenced by examples 1 and 3-6 of Table 1 in the instant application).
St. John does not explicitly teach that the water-soluble polymer satisfies formula (1), shown below,
0.300 ≤ (E5 - E50)/E5 ≤ 0.990 --- (1)
given that E5 is a storage elastic modulus of the water-soluble polymer at a temperature of 50°C and a relative humidity of 5% and E50 is a storage elastic modulus of the water- soluble polymer at a temperature of 50°C and a relative humidity of 50%. However, St. John does teach a water-soluble polymer with a weight average molecular weight of 100,000 to 1,500,000 (St. John col. 3, lines 58-68), an acrylamide in a weight range of as much as 75-80 wt% compared to the entire polymer (St. John col. 5, lines 52-61), and a DADMAC is in a weight range of as little as 20-25 wt % of the polymer (St. John col. 5, lines 52-61). Given that these ranges taught by St. John overlap with the values taught by examples 1 and 3-6 and the ranges of a weight-average molecular weight of 700,000 or less (instant specification paragraph [0029]), a content of the amide group being preferably 75 mass% or more (instant specification paragraph [0032]), and a content of the ionic functional group being 20 mass% or less (instant specification paragraph [0035]), it would be expected that the polymer of St. John would inherently satisfy formula (1), as the water soluble polymer of St. John includes identical components in overlapping average molecular weight and proportional content in mass% to the examples of 1 and 3-6 given in Table 1 and the ranges given in instant specification paragraphs [0039], [0032], and [0035].
St. John does not explicitly teach wherein the water-soluble polymer has a 10% molecular weight of 100,000 or less. However, St. John does teach that the average molecular weight of the polymer is 100,000 to 1,500,000 (St. John col. 3, lines 58-68). It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that given an average molecular weight within the range taught by St. John, particularly on the lower end, the 10% molecular weight would be expected to fall within a molecular weight of 100,000 or less. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, modified St. John teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. St. John also teaches wherein the water-soluble polymer has a weight-average molecular weight of 700,000 or less (100,000 to 1,500,000; col. 3, lines 58-68)). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, modified St. John teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. St. John also teaches wherein the water-soluble polymer includes an amide group-containing monomer unit (col. 3, lines 58-68 acrylamide)
Regarding claim 4, modified St. John teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. St. John also teaches wherein the water-soluble polymer has a glass-transition temperature of 150°C or higher (given an identical composition, as discussed in the art rejection of claim 1 above, the polymer of St. John would inherently have a glass transition temperature of 150°C of higher).
Regarding claim 5, modified St. John teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. St. John also teaches wherein the storage elastic modulus E5 has a value of 3 x 108 Pa or more (given an identical composition, as discussed in the art rejection of claim 1 above, the polymer of St. John would inherently have a storage elastic modulus E5 has a value of 3 x 108 Pa or more).
Regarding claim 6, modified St. John teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. St. John also teaches wherein the water-soluble polymer includes a monomer unit including an ionic functional group (col. 3, lines 58-68; diallyldimethyl ammonium chloride).
Regarding claim 7, modified St. John teaches all of the limitations of claim 6. St. John also teaches wherein the ionic functional group is a cationic group of a quaternary ammonium salt (col. 3, lines 58-68; diallyldimethyl ammonium chloride).
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over St. John as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US-20130309572-A1), hereinafter Zhang, and Shimooka et al. (US-2022028204-A1), hereinafter Shimooka.
Regarding claim 8, modified St. John teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. St. John fails to teach a slurry composition for a non-aqueous secondary battery functional layer comprising: inorganic particles having a volume-average particle diameter of not less than 0.05 µm and not more than 0.50 µm; a solvent; and the binder composition for a non-aqueous secondary battery functional layer according to claim 1.
Using the copolymer of DADMAC and acrylamide is known in the battery art. Zhang is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries ([0015]). Zhang teaches that a copolymer of acrylamide and diallyldimethyl ammonium chloride can be used as a binder in an electroactive material layer ([0029]). As such, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the copolymer of acrylamide and diallyldimethyl ammonium as a binder in a battery such as in Zhang. Doing so is known in the art and would yield a predictable result of binder functionality in an electroactive layer in a battery (Zhang [0029]).
As such, modified St. John teaches a slurry composition for a non-aqueous secondary battery functional layer comprising (Zhang [0036] slurry): inorganic particles (Zhang [0027] sulfur containing cathode material of sulfur and lithium polysulfide salts); a solvent (Zhang [0047] a slurry using a different binder uses NMP; Zhang [0037] binders used with a solvent); and the binder composition for a non-aqueous secondary battery functional layer according to claim 1 (Zhang [0027] electroactive layer is interpreted as the functional layer).
Modified St. John fails to teach inorganic particles having a volume-average particle diameter of not less than 0.05 µm and not more than 0.50 µm.
Shimooka is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries ([0507]). Shimooka teaches that the inorganic particles ([0989]-[0990] and [0997] the positive electrode material may be a sulfur-based material such as simple sulfur or a metal sulfide) having a volume-average particle diameter of not less than 0.05 µm and not more than 0.50 µm ([1012] average primary particle size of 0.05 µm to 5 µm; [1017] average secondary particle size of 40 µm or less). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified St. John such that the inorganic particles having a volume-average particle diameter of not less than 0.05 µm and not more than 0.50 µm. Doing so allows for avoiding problems of poor charge and discharge reversibility (Shimooka [1012]).
Regarding claim 9, modified St. John teaches all of the limitations of claim 8. Modified St. John also teaches wherein the inorganic particles have a specific surface area of not less than 3.5 m2/g and not more than 20 m2/g (Shimooka [1014] 0.1 m2/g to 50 m2/g). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 10, modified St. John teaches all of the limitations of claim 8. Modified St. John also teaches a functional layer for a non-aqueous secondary battery formed using the slurry composition for a non-aqueous secondary battery functional layer according to claim 8 (Zhang [0027] electroactive layer is interpreted as the functional layer).
Regarding claim 11, modified St. John teaches all of the limitations of claim 10. Modified St. John also teaches a non-aqueous secondary battery member comprising the functional layer for a non-aqueous secondary battery according to claim 10 (Zhang [0027] electroactive layer is interpreted as the functional layer and is part of the cathode, interpreted as the non-aqueous secondary battery member).
Regarding claim 12, modified St. John teaches all of the limitations of claim 11. Modified St. John also teaches a non-aqueous secondary battery comprising the non-aqueous secondary battery member according to claim 11 (Zhang [0015]-[0017] wherein the electrolyte can be a solid polymer electrolyte).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights