Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/558,132

AQUEOUS BASED POLYMERS FOR SILICON DOMINANT ANODES

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 21, 2021
Examiner
MARTIN, ANGELA J
Art Unit
1727
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Enevate Corporation
OA Round
9 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
9-10
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; withdrew claims 16-18, 20, 22-30; and canceled claims 4, 6, 19, 21. The pending claims are claims 1-3, 5, 7-15, 32, 33. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/29/2025 has been entered. Claim Objections Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: There is no “claim 31” in the listing of the amended claims. 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. 6. Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-15, 32, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al., US 2020/0220154, in view of Feaver et al., US 2019/0097222, and in further view of Sasaki, WO 2011013756 (CN 102549693 as translation). Regarding claim 1, Xiao et al., teaches a battery electrode (abstract; 0049), the electrode comprising: an electrode coating layer on a current collector (0080; 0086), the electrode coating layer comprising homogeneous micron-sized silicon particles (0057; 0067; 0069; 0079), a polymer (0020-0022), and a second polymer (0096-0097) wherein secondary polymer are pyrolyzed into carbon during making of the electrode (0022); and further the micron-sized silicon particles (0079-0080) have a median particle size between about 5 um and about 20 um (size less than or equal to about 50 um) and are substantially silicon (“consists essentially of silicon” 0079) (0079 states that the material is silicon thus is substantially silicon); wherein electrode coating layer is pyrolyzed (abstract; 0071); and current collector is a metal foil (0003; 0065) and electrode coating layer is directly coated on the metal foil (0065). Regarding the silicon particles, Xiao et al., teaches: “In certain aspects, the electroactive material may include silicon. Such a material may be silicon, lithium-silicon, silicon oxide (SiO.sub.x), and/or silicon containing binary and ternary alloys. By way of example, binary and ternary alloys may include SiSn, SiSnFe, SiSnAl, SiFeCo, SiFeC, and the like. In certain variations, the electroactive material consists essentially of silicon (rather than alloys of silicon).” (0079). Xiao et al., does not teach an aqueous-based polymer (Xiao teaches a non-aqueous liquid electrolyte; 0059-0060). However, Xiao teaches aqueous based polymer comprises polyimides (0020), phenolic resins (0020; 0082), polyvinyls (0020; 0065; 0082); and having an electrolyte comprising a liquid (0059; 0060). Feaver et al., teaches both aqueous and non-aqueous-based polymers (0101). Additionally, Feaver teaches that the aqueous and non-aqueous polymers are interchangeable: “Energy storage materials are capable of being charged and discharged. Examples of energy storage materials include, but are not limited to carbon, for example activated carbon, silicon, sulfur lithium, and combinations thereof. Energy storage materials may be used in the form of particles, or combinations of inter-and/or intra-particle blends of particles, Energy storage particles can be assembled into electrodes employing dry processing or aqueous or non-aqueous slurry processing.” (0093). “Polymer gel” refers to a gel in which the network component is a polymer; generally a polymer gel is a wet (aqueous or non-aqueous based) three-dimensional structure comprised of a polymer formed from synthetic precursors or polymer precursors.” Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Feaver into the teachings of Xiao because although Xiao only teaches non-aqueous polymers, Feaver gives more flexibility in the type of polymer since the polymer may be non-aqueous or aqueous. Additionally, Xiao does not teach a carbon yield upon pyrolysis of greater than about 30% and secondary polymer has a lower carbon yield upon pyrolysis than the aqueous-based polymer. Xiao et al., teaches “The first pyrolyzed carbon composition may be greater than the second pyrolyzed carbon composition. The first polymer composition may be less than the second pyrolyzed carbon composition.” (0097). Feaver teaches a carbon yield upon pyrolysis of greater than about 50% (0213) and secondary polymer (0272) has a lower carbon yield upon pyrolysis than the aqueous-based polymer (0212-0213). Additionally, Feaver et al., teaches “an activated carbon yield from a pyrolzyed carbon material can be about 50%.” (0213). *Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Feaver into the teachings of Xiao because although Xiao only teaches non-aqueous polymers, Feaver gives more flexibility in the type of polymer since the polymer may be non-aqueous or aqueous. Although the prior art does not teach, “and wherein said electrode coating layer has a homogeneous distribution of polymeric components in water without phase separation,” A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Xiao does not teach a surfactant. Feaver et al., teaches a surfactant (SPAN 80) (0229), wherein the surfactant is a non-ionic surfactant (Google definition). Feaver does not teach the surfactant is selected from the group consisting of non-ionic polymer fluorosurfactants; anionic surfactants; cationic surfactants, and zwitterionic surfactants. Sasaki teaches a non-ionic surfactant (0070; 0242), anionic surfactant (0032; 0070), cationic surfactant (0070), Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Sasaki into the teachings of Feaver because Feaver teaches a non-ionic surfactant and Sasaki teaches a non-ionic surfactant as well as an anionic surfactant and a cationic surfactant, thus these surfactants can be interchanged in the electrode of Feaver. Additionally, Sasaki teaches that “among these surfactants, anionic surfactants and nonionic surfactants are preferred, and anionic surfactants are particularly preferred from the viewpoint of excellent durability of the electrochemical element.” (0070). Xiao does not teach aqueous-based polymer comprises polyimides, phenolic resins, polyvinyls, and derivatives. Sasaki teaches an aqueous dispersion of polymer particles (0129; 0246) of polyimide resin (0006) or polyamideimide resin (0006; 0054), polyurethane (0006; 0054; 0103). Regarding claim 2, Xiao et al., teaches secondary polymer contributes less than 30% of the pyrolytic carbon (0098-0099). Regarding claim 3, Xiao et al., teaches electrode coating layer further comprises strengthening additives (0073). Regarding claim 5, Xiao et al., teaches aqueous-based polymer is polyimide (0020). Regarding claim 7, Feaver et al., teaches pH modifiers (0229). Regarding claims 8, Feaver et al., teaches acidic pH modifiers (0229). Regarding claim 9, Feaver et al., teaches basic pH modifiers (0229). Regarding claim 10, Feaver et al., teaches viscosity (thickness) modifiers (0373; 0431). Regarding claim 11, Xiao et al., teach one or more additional component comprises one or more strengthening additives (0073; 0094). Regarding claim 13, Feaver et al., teaches additional components when present comprise the amounts of: less than about 50% pH modifier (0138; 0229; 0324). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Xiao et al., because Feaver teaches the advantages of modifiers: “The silicon was further coated with resin employing an emulsion process, with the advantage and aim for creating a primary particle of sufficiently low size to preclude the need for further article size reduction (for example, via jet milling) to yield a final composite particle.” (0433).Regarding claim 14, Xiao et al., teaches the electrode is in electrical and physical contact with an electrolyte, the electrolyte comprising a liquid (0059-0060). Regarding claim 15, Xiao et al., teaches the battery electrode is in a lithium ion battery (0045-0052; 0067-0069). Xiao et al., teaches a battery electrode as described above. Xiao does not teach the modifiers of claims 7-10, 12, 13. Regarding claims 32 and 33, Feaver et al., does not teach the surfactant is present in amount of less than about 10% surfactant. However, "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 7. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al., US 2020/0220154, in view of Feaver et al., US 2019/0097222, in further view of Sasaki, WO 2011013756 (CN 102549693 as translation), and still in further view of Bae et al., US 2019/0067699. Regarding claim 12, Xaio in view of Feaver et al., do not teach anti-foaming agents. Bae et al., teaches an anti-foaming agent (0098). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to insert the teachings of Bae into the teachings of Xaio modified by Feaver and Sasaki, because Bae et al., teaches that “The binder may further include an antifoaming agent. The antifoaming agent may be an antifoaming agent capable of suppressing formation of bubbles caused by polyvinyl alcohol in the binder. By using the antifoaming agent, surface roughness of an electrode plate may further be reduced and physical properties of the electrode plate may further be improved. Thus, initial efficiency, Coulombic efficiency, discharge capacity, and capacity retention of a lithium battery may further be improved.” (0098). Response to Arguments 8. Applicant's arguments filed 8/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Xiao et al., “does not specifically teach or suggest the claimed micron-sized silicon particles with a median particle size between about 5 and about 20 um that are substantially silicon.” However, Xiao, (0079), teaches particles having an average diameter of “greater than or equal to about 50 nm to less than or equal to about 50 um (greater than or equal to about 50 nm to less than or equal to about 500 nm or greater than or equal to about 500 nm to less than or equal to about 10 um (0079). Additionally, Xiao et al., teaches "In certain aspects, the electroactive material may be in the form of a plurality of electroactive material particles. In some variations, the electroactive material particles may be nanoparticles. The electroactive material particles may have an average diameter of greater than or equal to about 50 nm to less than or equal to about 50 µm (e.g., greater than or equal to about 50 nm to less than or equal to about 500 nm, or greater than or equal to about 500 nm to less than or equal to about 50 m), or optionally greater than or equal to about 500 nm to less than or equal to about 10 µm." (0079). Therefore, Xiao et al. teaches some general ranges for particles, and suggests the claimed micron-sized silicon particles with a median particle size between about 50 nm and about 50 um that are substantially silicon. Additionally, “it is advantageous to insert the teachings of Xiao into the teachings of Feaver because The negative electrode may be a composite electrode. Composite electrodes, and particularly composite electrodes including silicon and pyrolyzed carbon (e.g., hard carbon), advantageously have energy densities that are as good or better than typical lithium-ion batteries, high specific capacities, and are capable of fast charge (e.g., under 15 minutes)” (0069). Conclusion 9. 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 21, 2021
Application Filed
Mar 07, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 10, 2022
Response Filed
Jun 16, 2022
Final Rejection — §103
Aug 29, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 02, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 26, 2022
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 27, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 22, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 27, 2023
Response Filed
Feb 24, 2023
Final Rejection — §103
May 09, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
May 16, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 08, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 12, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 07, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 02, 2024
Response Filed
Jan 04, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 11, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 16, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 11, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 12, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 02, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 07, 2025
Response Filed
May 27, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jul 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 29, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 02, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 28, 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

9-10
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