DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 includes terms “X(A)” and “X(B)” that are referred to as “mixing ratio(s)” and put into relation with a volumetric term—a cubed ratio of particle diameters—and terms “N(A)” and “N(B)” which are referred to as “a number of” polymer particles A or B. It is unclear what the mixing ratio is and how it is measured. The as-filed specification appears to refer to it off-handedly without specifying what it is, exactly, or how it is to be measured (US 2025/0149587 at ¶ 0013 and 0120). The claim has been interpreted broadly as a ratio of volumes, masses, moles, or other quantities.
Claim 1 further includes a ratio “N(A)/N(B)” that is initially defined as a ratio of “a number” of particles A over B. Then, the ratio of a number of particles is redefined as a relationship between median particle diameters and an undefined “mixing ratio.” It is unclear what, exactly, N(A)/N(B) is defined to be: a measured ratio of particle numbers in a mixture, or an artificially determined number based only on measured median particle diameters and some kind of mixing ratio. If the latter, it is unclear why N(A) and N(B ) are defined as “a number” in a separate limitation, if that limitation is only a kind of gloss on the real metes and bounds set forth later (which are also indefinite, because the mixing ratio is indefinite). The claim has been interpreted for purposes of examination to refer to a range between 50 and 400 for the value of claimed formula 2. The reference to “a number” of particles is not interpreted to limit or constrain the claim.
The dependent claims are rejected for depending on claim 1.
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda (US 2017/0256800 to Kaneda et al.) in view of Asai (JP 2017-098202 to Asai, the Office cites to provided machine translation), or vice versa, with reference to Park (US 2016/0156038 to Park et al.) for evidence of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 1, Kaneda teaches:
a binder composition for a secondary battery (abstract)
comprising two particulate polymers, including a first particulate polymer having a core-shell structure (abstract, Fig. 1)
a second particulate polymer that is non-core-shell (¶ 0111-0112)
wherein the average particle diameter for the first particulate polymer is greater than 100 nm (¶ 0098) and the average particle diameter for the second particulate polymer is between 100 nm and 200 nm (¶ 0119)
wherein the ratio of the first polymer to the second is 3:7 to 19:1 (¶ 0151)
Asai, meanwhile, teaches:
a binder composition for a secondary batter comprising a first particulate polymer comprising a core-shell structure and a second particulate polymer without a core-shell structure (p. 3)
wherein the average diameter of the particles is 100 nm to micron-sized (p. 3), with a specific embodiment wherein the average diameter of the first particles (i.e. “second” in the reference) is 600 nm, and the average diameter of the second particles (i.e. “first” in the reference) is 1 micron (Example 7 Table 1)
wherein the composition of the first polymer to the second varies from 3:2 to 4:1 (Table 1)
Neither Kaneda nor Asai explicitly teach that the value of (DB/DA)3·XA/XB falls between 50 and 400. Both render obvious particles sizes in the few to several hundreds of nanometers, with smaller core-shell particles in at least some contemplated embodiments. Park is cited here for teaching a core-shell particulate binder wherein the particle diameters vary from around 130-500 nm (Table 1, claim 16).
The prior art therefore teaches core-shell particles with diameters of a few hundred nanometers, and non-core-shell particles with diameters of several hundred nanometers or more. A value of DB/DA, such as 2, wherein the non-core-shell particulate is larger, is therefore obvious, absent evidence of unexpected results for that value relative to e.g. 1 or 1.5. Similarly, the prior art appears to render obvious XA/XB values of 2-19. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). The prior art therefore appears to render obvious values for claimed Formula 2 falling in a range of 50 to about 152 (or 23·19).
Regarding Claim 2, Kaneda and Asai render obvious:
core-shell particle average diameters of 100 nm (see above)
Regarding Claim 3, Kaneda and Asai teach:
total average diameters of 400 nm or smaller (Kaneda at ¶ 0098 and 0119 and Asai at p. 3)
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, Kaneda teaches:
glass transition temperatures of less than 0 °C (¶ 0057 and 0111)
Regarding Claim 6, Kaneda teaches:
wherein the core comprises a methacrylic acid ester monomer in an amount of 20 wt% to over 90 wt%, that can include ethylenically unsatured carboxylic acid monomers, conjugated diene monomers, or other monomers (¶ 0060-0072)
Regarding Claim 7, Kaneda teaches:
the diene monomer comprising 20-70 wt%, with methacrylic acid ester monomer of 15 wt% or less (¶ 0074)
Regarding Claim 8, Kaneda teaches:
styrene-based monomers included (¶ 0076)
These monomers commonly included styrene-butadiene latex. See also Park at ¶ 0065 and 0073-0078. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 9, Kaneda teaches:
vinyl-based monomers in the shell polymer (¶ 0084)
Regarding Claim 10, Kaneda teaches:
methacrylic-based monomers, vinyl-based monomers, and unsaturated carbonic acid-based monomers (¶ 0081-0093)
Kaneda does not teach the claimed ester-based-dominant composition. Park, however, also regarding a shell-core polymer binder, teaches a shell portion with 59 g of butyl acrylate, 30 g of styrene, 2 g of glycidyl methacrylate, 8 g of acrylic acid and itaconic acid, with a crosslinking agent and emulsifier. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]).
Regarding Claims 11-12, Kaneda and Asai render obvious:
electrodes and batteries containing the binder (abstracts, backgrounds, etc.)
Regarding Claim 13, Kaneda teaches:
1,3-butadiene (¶ 0072)
Regarding Claim 14, Kaneda teaches:
two or more of 1,3-butadiene and chloroprene (¶ 0072-0073)
Regarding Claim 15, Kaneda teaches:
aliphatic monoacrylates (¶ 0062)
Regarding Claim 16, Kaneda teaches:
styrene (¶ 0076)
Regarding Claim 17, Kaneda teaches:
acrylamides (¶ 0076)
Regarding Claim 18, Kaneda teaches:
acrylonitrile (¶ 0069)
Regarding Claim 19, Kaneda teaches:
maleic acid (¶ 0066)
Regarding Claim 20, Kaneda teaches:
methyl acrylate (¶ 0062)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2016/0233512 – a conjugated diene latex binder composition with two particle sizes
US 2019/0044147 – two particulate binders
US 2019/0319236 – core-shell binder composition
US 2020/0194792 – binder with latex particles and carboxylic acid monomer-based particles
US 2021/0305573 – core-shell binder composition
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights