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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 27 and 28 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 28 and 27, respectively. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
In particular, the distinction between the claims comes down to the words “radically polymerizing, in an aqueous medium” at Lines 2-3 of Claim 28 compared to “polymerizing” at Line 2 of Claim 27. However, both claims expressly recite that “polymer P is produced by radically initiated aqueous emulsion polymerization” at Lines 1-2 thereof; therefore, the “radically polymerizing, in an aqueous medium” recitation of Claim 28 amounts to a slight difference in wording since the associated concepts are otherwise recited in Claim 27.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the aqueous dispersion of polymer P" in limitation A thereof. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as while Claim 15 is to a method for producing an aqueous dispersion of a polymer P, the method steps as presented in Claim 15 do not expressly disclose an aqueous dispersion of a polymer P as a result of the disclosed method. See e.g. Claim 22 in comparison, which claims the compound as “the polymer produced according to Claim 15”.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 15-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kajiwara ‘588 (U.S. PGPub 2013/0323588).
Claim 15 – Kajiwara ‘588 teaches a method for producing an aqueous dispersion of a polymer P by radically initiated emulsion polymerization, the method comprising (Example 13, Table 3): polymerizing
(a) 20 parts by weight of at least one vinylaromatic compound (styrene),
(b) 49 parts by weight of at least one conjugated aliphatic diene (butadiene),
(c) 3.8 parts by weight of at least one ethylenically unsaturated monomer containing acid groups (acrylic acid and itaconic acid),
(d2) 12 parts by weight of acrylonitrile,
(e) 0 parts by weight of monoethylenically unsaturated monomer having at least one epoxy, hydroxyl, N-methylol or carbonyl group, and
(f) 15.2 parts by weight of at least one other monoethylenically unsaturated monomer (methyl methacrylate and hydroxyethyl methacrylate),
wherein the polymerization temperature is in the range of 70 to 80 °C (PG 0066 discloses polymerization temperature ranges of 40 to 80 degrees C. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of the cited temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
The cited example does not expressly teach or disclose the claimed parts by weight of the compounds commensurate with elements (a), (d1), and (d2). (a) is claimed to be 40 to 75 parts by weight, (d1) is claimed to be 1 to 5 parts by weight of acrylamide and/or methacrylamide, and (d2) is claimed to be 1 to 10 parts by weight. However, PG 0051 expressly contemplates the addition of acrylamide and/or methacrylamide. Choosing to include a polymer component expressly stated by the reference to be suitable for the intended purpose is held as prima facie obvious, and choosing concentrations for the components within the claimed ranges is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results accruing from the selection.
Claim 16 – Kajiwara ‘588 renders obvious the method according to claim 15, wherein monomer (e) is selected from the group comprising N-methylolacrylamide and N-methylolmethacrylamide (PG 0051, N-methylolacrylamide; choosing to include a polymer component expressly stated by the reference to be suitable for the intended purpose is held as prima facie obvious).
Claim 17 – Kajiwara ‘588 renders obvious the method according to claim 15, wherein the polymer P is produced by polymerizing
(a) 20 parts by weight of at least one vinylaromatic compound (styrene),
(b) 49 parts by weight of at least one conjugated aliphatic diene (butadiene),
(c) 3.8 parts by weight of at least one ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid (acrylic acid and itaconic acid),
(d2) 12 parts by weight of acrylonitrile,
(f) 15.2 parts by weight of at least one other monoethylenically unsaturated monomer (methyl methacrylate and hydroxyethyl methacrylate),
wherein the polymerization temperature is in the range of 70 to 80 °C (PG 0066 discloses polymerization temperature ranges of 40 to 80 degrees C. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of the cited temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
The cited example does not expressly teach or disclose the claimed parts by weight of the compounds commensurate with elements (a), (d1), (d2), and (e). (a) is claimed to be 45 to 68.9 parts by weight, (d1) is claimed to be 1 to 3 parts by weight of acrylamide, (d2) is claimed to be 1 to 8 parts by weight, and (e) is claimed to be 0.1 to 4 parts by weight of monoethylenically unsaturated monomer having at least one N-methylol group. However, PG 0051 expressly contemplates the addition of acrylamide and/or N-methylolacrylamide. Choosing to include a polymer component expressly stated by the reference to be suitable for the intended purpose is held as prima facie obvious, and choosing concentrations for the components within the claimed ranges is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results accruing from the selection.
Claim 18 – Kajiwara ‘588 renders obvious the method according to claim 15, wherein the polymerization temperature is in the range of 75 to 90 0C (PG 0066 discloses polymerization temperature ranges of 40 to 80 degrees C. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of the cited temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Claim 19 – Kajiwara ‘588 renders obvious the method according to claim 15, wherein the radically initiated emulsion polymerization takes place in the presence of a seed latex (PG 0068, latex stabilizers).
Claim 20 – Kajiwara ‘588 renders obvious the method according to claim 15, wherein the radically initiated emulsion polymerization takes place in the presence of < 1 parts by weight of free-radical chain transfer agent, based on 100 parts by weight of total monomers (PG 0064, e.g. benzoyl peroxide; choosing concentrations for the components within the claimed ranges is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results accruing from the selection).
Claim 21 – Kajiwara ‘588 renders obvious the method according to claim 15, wherein the polymer P has a breaking stress of at least 8 N/mm2 and the strain is at least 150 % (Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See further MPEP 2112.01(I).).
Claim 22 – Kajiwara ‘588 renders obvious an electrode slurry composition for anodes, comprising the polymer P produced according to claim 15 (PG 0100, electrode binder composition), an anode active material (PG 0100-0101, active material), a conductive material (PG 0102, anionic surfactant which provides ions for conduction), a co-binder (PG 0102, thickener), and a dispersing medium (PG 0102, dispersant).
Claim 23 – Kajiwara ‘588 renders obvious the electrode slurry composition for anodes of claim 22, comprising a dispersing medium and
0.5 to 20 % by weight of polymer P,
50 to 98 % by weight of anode active material,
0.01 to 20 % by weight of conductive material, and
0.5 to 20 % by weight of co-binder
based on 100 % by weight solid content of the electrode slurry composition for anodes (choosing concentrations for the components within the claimed ranges is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results accruing from the selection).
Claim 24 – Kajiwara ‘588 renders obvious a method for preparing an anode of secondary batteries (PG 0109, secondary batteries rendered obvious choices for anode formation commensurate with the reference), the method comprising
(a) combining the aqueous dispersion of polymer P of claim 15, an anode active material, a conductive material, a co-binder, and a dispersing medium to form an electrode slurry composition (PG 0100 – 0102 as discussed mutatis mutandis in the rejections of Claim 15 and 22);
(b) providing a current collector (PG 0105);
(c) coating the current collector with the electrode slurry composition (PG 0107);
(d) drying the coated collector (PG 0107); and
(e) optionally molding the coated collector (PG 0108; pressing is commensurate with molding as claimed).
Claim 25 – Kajiwara ‘588 renders obvious a method for producing an anode of secondary batteries (PG 0109, secondary batteries rendered obvious choices for anode formation commensurate with the reference), the method comprising:
(a) applying the electrode slurry composition for anodes according to claim 22 onto a current collector (PG 0100 – 0102 and 105 as discussed mutatis mutandis in the rejections of Claim 15 and 22); and
(b) drying the negative electrode slurry composition (PG 0107).
Claim 26 – Kajiwara ‘588 renders a method lithium ion secondary battery comprising the anode of secondary batteries of claim 25 (PG 0109, anode as disclosed in reference contemplated for use in LI secondary batteries).
Claim 27 – Kajiwara ‘588 renders obvious the method according to claim 15, wherein polymer P is produced by radically initiated aqueous emulsion polymerization (PG 0064, the listed initiators comprise peroxides which are known free radical initiators), the method comprising: polymerizing
(a) 20 parts by weight of at least one vinylaromatic compound (styrene),
(b) 49 parts by weight of at least one conjugated aliphatic diene (butadiene),
(c) 3.8 parts by weight of at least one ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid (acrylic acid and itaconic acid),
(d2) 12 parts by weight of acrylonitrile,
(f) 15.2 parts by weight of at least one other monoethylenically unsaturated monomer (methyl methacrylate and hydroxyethyl methacrylate),
wherein the polymerization temperature is in the range of 70 to 80 °C (PG 0066 discloses polymerization temperature ranges of 40 to 80 degrees C. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of the cited temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
The cited example does not expressly teach or disclose the claimed parts by weight of the compounds commensurate with elements (a), (d1), and (d2). (a) is claimed to be 40 to 75 parts by weight, (d1) is claimed to be 1 to 5 parts by weight of acrylamide and/or methacrylamide, and (d2) is claimed to be 1 to 10 parts by weight. However, PG 0051 expressly contemplates the addition of acrylamide and/or methacrylamide. Choosing to include a polymer component expressly stated by the reference to be suitable for the intended purpose is held as prima facie obvious, and choosing concentrations for the components within the claimed ranges is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results accruing from the selection.
Claim 28 – Kajiwara ‘588 renders obvious the method according to claim 15, wherein polymer P is produced by radically initiated aqueous emulsion polymerization (PG 0064, the listed initiators comprise peroxides which are known free radical initiators), the method comprising: radically polymerizing, in an aqueous medium (PG 0064, water-soluble initiators render obvious the presence of water for the radical polymerization)
(a) 20 parts by weight of at least one vinylaromatic compound (styrene),
(b) 49 parts by weight of at least one conjugated aliphatic diene (butadiene),
(c) 3.8 parts by weight of at least one ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid (acrylic acid and itaconic acid),
(d2) 12 parts by weight of acrylonitrile,
(f) 15.2 parts by weight of at least one other monoethylenically unsaturated monomer (methyl methacrylate and hydroxyethyl methacrylate),
wherein the polymerization temperature is in the range of 70 to 80 °C (PG 0066 discloses polymerization temperature ranges of 40 to 80 degrees C. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of the cited temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
The cited example does not expressly teach or disclose the claimed parts by weight of the compounds commensurate with elements (a), (d1), and (d2). (a) is claimed to be 40 to 75 parts by weight, (d1) is claimed to be 1 to 5 parts by weight of acrylamide and/or methacrylamide, and (d2) is claimed to be 1 to 10 parts by weight. However, PG 0051 expressly contemplates the addition of acrylamide and/or methacrylamide. Choosing to include a polymer component expressly stated by the reference to be suitable for the intended purpose is held as prima facie obvious, and choosing concentrations for the components within the claimed ranges is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results accruing from the selection.
References of Record
Examiner cites EP ‘747 (EP 3,748,747) as a comparable piece of prior art to Kajiwara ‘588, drawn to binders for negative electrodes (PG 0090-0091) and disclosing a binder composition at PG 0090 that aligns in purpose with that of Kajiwara ‘588 (the butadiene, styrene, methyl methacrylate, and acrylic/itaconic acids map directly, while the sulfonate is analogous to a group f compound in the claimed invention). PG 0031 renders obvious the inclusion of (meth)acrylamide, while PG 0032 renders obvious the inclusion of (meth)acrylonitrile. EP ‘747 is not cited as a basis for any pending rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL G MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/MICHAEL G MILLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712