Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/546,354

AQUEOUS BASED POLYMERS FOR SILICON DOMINANT ANODES

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 09, 2021
Examiner
MARTIN, ANGELA J
Art Unit
1727
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Enevate Corporation
OA Round
8 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
8-9
OA Rounds
4y 1m
To Grant
35%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
586 granted / 868 resolved
+2.5% vs TC avg
Minimal -32% lift
Without
With
+-32.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 1m
Avg Prosecution
81 currently pending
Career history
949
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
64.1%
+24.1% vs TC avg
§102
26.0%
-14.0% vs TC avg
§112
7.9%
-32.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 868 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . The Applicant has amended independent claim 1 and canceled claims 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 18, 22, 26; withdrawn claims 15, 17, 19-21; 23-25, 27, 28. The pending claims are claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-11, 13, 14. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/14/2025 has been entered. 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. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 9-11, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feaver et al., US 2019/0097222. Regarding claim 1, Feaver et al., teaches a battery electrode (abstract; 0005), the electrode comprising: an electrode coating layer on a current collector, the electrode coating layer comprising micron-sized silicon particles (0137; 0236), an aqueous-based polymer (0263), and one or more additional components (0263); wherein said additional components comprise pH modifiers (0229), strengthening additives, surfactants (0229); wherein the aqueous-based polymer comprises a polyimide or polyamideimide (0448); wherein the micron-sized silicon particles have a median particle size (0330-0331; 5 to 15 microns) are between about 5 um (0137; 0331) and about 20 um (0137; 0294-0295); electrode coating layer is pyrolyzed by heating to 350 to 550 deg. C (0265; 0269) and 950 deg. C (0449); and wherein current collector is a metal foil (0447) and electrode coating layer is coated on the metal foil (0447). Although Feaver et al., does not recite “directly” coating the metal foil, it does teach coating the foil (0447); it does not teach another layer inbetween the foil and the electrode coating; thus, it would be obvious that the electrode coating would be coated directly on the metal foil. Regarding the amendment, “micron-sized silicon particles have a median particle size between about 5 um and about 20 um”, the amount of silicon in Feaver appears to have a similar sized silicon particles in a similar amount or range (0330-0331). Feaver et al., teaches one or more additional component comprises one or more viscosity (thickness) modifiers (0373; 0431); and the viscosity modifier comprises a complexing amine (methyldiethanolamine) (0194) or (triethanolamine (0194). Regarding claim 3, Feaver et al., teaches aqueous-based polymer is pyrolyzed into carbon during making of the electrode (0040; 0068) and has a carbon yield upon pyrolysis of greater than about 30% (about 50%) (0212). Regarding claim 5, Feaver et al., teaches one or more additional component comprises one or more pH modifiers (0229). Regarding claim 6, Feaver et al., teaches pH modifiers (0229) are acidic pH modifiers (0229). Regarding claim 7, Feaver et al., teaches pH modifiers (0229) are basic pH modifiers (0229). Regarding claim 9, Feaver et al., teaches said one or more additional component comprises one or more strengthening additives (0274; 0290; 0325; 0426). Regarding claim 10, Feaver et al., teaches one or more additional component comprises one or more surfactants (0229). Regarding claim 11, Feaver et al., does not teach said additional components when present comprise the amounts of: less than about 50% pH modifier, less than about 30% strengthening additive, less than about 50% viscosity modifier, less than about 10% surfactant, less than about 10% anti-foaming agent. However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine, through routine experimentation, the appropriate ranges of each of the additives in order to improve the electrochemical properties of the battery. Regarding claim 13, Feaver et al., teaches the electrode is in electrical and physical contact with an electrolyte, the electrolyte comprising a liquid (0423), solid (0298). Regarding claim 14, Feaver et al., teaches the battery electrode is in a lithium ion battery (0001; 0005; 0041; 0157). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that “Feaver does not teach or suggest the specifically claimed micron-sized silicon particles, where micron-sized silicon particles are between about 5 um and about 20 um.” However, Feaver teaches micron-sized silicon particles have a median particle size (0330-0331; 5 to 15 microns) are between about 5 um (0137; 0331) and about 20 um (0137; 0294-0295). Applicant has amended claim 1 to require that the polymer comprises a polyimide or polyamideimide. Feaver teaches polyimide and polyamideimide as seen in paragraph (0048) and the imides are in physical contact of electrodes in a container made of polyamide. The Applicant argues that Feaver “discusses the composite material comprising a porous silicon material and not a silicon particle alone. However, Feaver teaches silicon particles throughout the reference (for example: 0016-0022; 0454). Applicant argues that “the electrode coating layer being pyrolyzed by heating to 500-1000 deg C further differentiates from Feaver.” However, “pyrolyzed by heating” in the battery electrode claim is a product-by-process, although Feaver teaches pyrolization of electrode active material (0266; 0269; 0449). Applicant argues that Feaver teaches “that their porous silicon material may include various surface treatment or properties .” However, “surface treatment” is not recited in Feaver. However, Feaver teaches an “etched silicon surface to provide a silicon oxide surface layer.” (0135). Applicant argues that “Feaver describes electrodes created using their composite material and does not teach or suggest the claimed electrode coating layer.” However, the composite in Feaver is part of the electrode material (0447; 0449). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm. 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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. ANGELA J. MARTIN Examiner Art Unit 1727 /ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 09, 2021
Application Filed
Feb 26, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 03, 2022
Response Filed
Jun 14, 2022
Final Rejection — §103
Aug 17, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 18, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 19, 2022
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 25, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 29, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 06, 2023
Response Filed
Jan 14, 2023
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 24, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 24, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 28, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 17, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 17, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 25, 2024
Response Filed
Jan 08, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 14, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 14, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 15, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 15, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597613
NEGATIVE ELECTRODE COMPOSITION, NEGATIVE ELECTRODE SLURRY, NEGATIVE ELECTRODE PLATE, AND SECONDARY BATTERY AND ELECTRICAL DEVICE CONTAINING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592429
HEAT EXHANGER AND BATTERY SYSTEM INCLUDING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586866
High-Strength Separator
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12562370
Electrode for Lithium Secondary Battery, Method of Preparing the Same and Lithium Secondary Battery Including the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12548862
ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY AND BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

8-9
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
35%
With Interview (-32.4%)
4y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 868 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month