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 .
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted June 20, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1, 5, 10, and 12 are amended, and claims 12-20 are withdrawn from consideration, resulting in claims 1-11 pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the” is recited twice in line 1 (“wherein the the”)
“the conductive additive selected” should be amended to recite “the conductive additives are selected” to be consistent with claim 1 and to resolve the grammatical error
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 6 and 8 are 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.
Regarding claims 6 and 8, some of the chemical structures provided are illegible thus making it unclear what exact structures are being claimed.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 10 are rejected under U.S.103 as being unpatentable over Bae (US 2017/0155151 A1) in view of Fukui (US 20030235762 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bae teaches a method of forming an electrode structure (manufacture of anode, Example 1-1 [149-152]) comprising: forming a slurry (anode slurry, Example 1-1 [150]) comprising a polyamic precursor (polyamic acid, Example 1-1 [150]), one or more anode active materials (Si-C composite, Example 1-1 [150]), and a conductive additive (Example 1-1 artificial graphite); depositing a thin film of the slurry on a substrate (anode slurry was coated on a Cu foil current collector, Example 1-1 [151]); and exposing the thin film and substrate to thermal processing to form the electrode structure (the coated anode plate was dried at 110°C for 1 hour, followed by further drying in a vacuum oven at 150°C for 2 hours, Example 1-1 [151]).
Bae does not teach the slurry comprising more than one conductive additive. However, Bae teaches that the conductive additive “may be any conductive agent generally used in lithium batteries”, with examples including carbon black, acetylene black, Ketjen black, carbon fibers, … and mixtures thereof ([111]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a mixture of conductive additives to the slurry of Bae in order to obtain an electrode with suitable electrical conductivity and performance for a desired application.
Bae further teaches that “the amounts of the conductive agent may be appropriately adjusted” (Bae [111]). Bae does not teach the conductive additives having a concentration of about 1% to about 10% by weight.
Fukui teaches a method of forming a negative electrode comprising forming a slurry comprising a polyamic acid binder, silicon powder, and a conductive additive (silver powder, Fukui [85]). Fukui teaches that the addition of the conductive additive improves cycle characteristics (Fukui [86]) and results in “an electrically conductive network formed around the particles of the active material to increase current collectability of the electrode” (Fukui [29]). Fukui teaches that the conductive additive (electrically conductive powder) can be a material similar to the metal foil, elements such as copper, nickel, iron, titanium, cobalt, and the like, or an electrically conductive carbon powder (Fukui [29]).
Fukui further teaches that the amount of conductive agent “is preferably not greater than 50 weight % of the total weight of the electrically conductive powder and the particles of the active material” and that, if the amount of conductive agent is too high, the charge and discharge capacity of the electrode is reduced (Fukui [30]).
Since Bae teaches that the amount of conductive additive may be adjusted and Fukui teaches that the amount of conductive additive impacts charge and discharge capacity of an electrode, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the amount of conductive additives in the slurry of Bae, including amounts within the claimed range of about 1 % to about 10 % by weight, in order to obtain an electrode with suitable charge and discharge capacity and electrical conductivity for a desired electrical application.
Regarding claim 2, Bae in view of Fukui teaches all features of claim 1. Bae further teaches the thermal processing being selected from a thermal drying process, a vapor deposition process, or a combination thereof (the coated anode plate was dried at 110°C for 1 hour, followed by further drying in a vacuum oven at 150°C for 2 hours, Example 1-1 [151]; thermal drying process).
Regarding claim 4, Bae in view of Fukui teaches all features of claim 1. Example 1-1 of Bae teaches the anode active material comprising a Si-C composite (Bae [150]). However, Example 1-1 of Bae does not explicitly teach the one or more active materials being selected from SiOx, silicon, graphite, or a combination thereof.
Bae further teaches that silicon active materials, such as Si and SiOx, and silicon-carbon active materials are suitable for use as anode active materials to be used in the invention of Bae (Bae [106]). Since Bae teaches that silicon-carbon active materials and SiOx are both suitable anode active materials, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the Si-C of Bae Example 1-1 for SiOx in order to achieve the predicable result of an anode comprising a suitable anode active material. The simple substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to someone of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2413(I)(B).
Regarding claim 5, Bae in view of Fukui teaches all features of claim 1. Bae further teaches the conductive additive selected from natural graphite, artificial graphite, carbon black, acetylene black, ketjen black, a carbon fiber, or a combination of (artificial graphite, Example 1-1 [150]). Bae also teaches that the conductive additive “may be any conductive agent generally used in lithium batteries”, with examples including carbon black, acetylene black, Ketjen black, carbon fibers, … and mixtures thereof ([111]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add carbon black, acetylene black, Ketjen black, carbon fibers, or mixtures thereof to the slurry of Bae in order to obtain an electrode with suitable electrical conductivity and performance for a desired application.
Regarding claim 6, Bae in view of Fukui teaches all features of claim 1 (Bae example 1-1). However, Example 1-1 of Bae does not teach the polyamic precursor selected from those provided in claim 6 of applicant’s disclosure. However, Bae teaches the synthesis of polyamic acid by reacting a tetracarboxylic dianhydride and diamine together (Bae [58]). Example 1-1 describes the synthesis of polyamic acid (Bae Formula 9) using 4,4'-oxydianiline (diamine) and pyromellitic dianhydride (tetracarboxylic dianhydride).
Bae further teaches that 3,3',4,4'-benzophenonetetracarboxylic dianhydride (CAS: 2421-28-5) is a suitable tetracarboxylic dianhydride for polyamic acid synthesis (Bae [59]). Using 3,3',4,4'-benzophenonetetracarboxylic dianhydride instead of pyromellitic dianhydride in the synthetic process of Example 1-1, would result in a polyamic acid structure claimed by applicant in claim 6, as shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
948
814
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Since Bae teaches that polyamic acid can be synthesized using 3,3',4,4'-benzophenonetetracarboxylic dianhydride as the tetracarboxylic dianhydride and used in battery electrodes, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the tetracarboxylic dianhydride used in Example 1-1 of Bae (pyromellitic dianhydride) for 3,3',4,4'-benzophenonetetracarboxylic dianhydride in order to achieve the predictable result of an anode slurry containing polyamic acid suitable for use in battery electrodes. The simple substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to someone of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2413(I)(B).
Regarding claim 10, Bae in view of Fukui teaches a method of forming a battery (lithium battery, Example 1-1 [149-152]) comprising: forming a slurry (anode slurry, [150]) comprising a polyamic precursor (polyamic acid, [150]), one or more anode active materials (Si-C composite, [150]), and a conductive additive (Example 1-1 artificial graphite); depositing a thin film of the slurry on a substrate (anode slurry was coated on a Cu foil current collector, [151]); and exposing the thin film and substrate to thermal processing to form the electrode structure (the coated anode plate was dried at 110°C for 1 hour, followed by further drying in a vacuum oven at 150°C for 2 hours, [151]); and combining the electrode structure with a positive electrode structure (Li metal as a counter electrode, [152]), a second current collector contacting the electrode structure (Cu foil current collector, [151]) and a separator positioned between the positive electrode structure and a negative electrode structure (polypropylene separator, anode, [152]).
Bae does not teach the slurry comprising more than one conductive additive. However, Bae teaches that the conductive additive “may be any conductive agent generally used in lithium batteries”, with examples including carbon black, acetylene black, Ketjen black, carbon fibers, … and mixtures thereof ([111]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a mixture of conductive additives to the slurry of Bae in order to obtain an electrode with suitable electrical conductivity and performance for a desired application.
Bae further teaches that “the amounts of the conductive agent may be appropriately adjusted” (Bae [111]). Bae does not teach the conductive additives having a concentration of about 1% to about 10% by weight.
Fukui teaches a method of forming a negative electrode comprising forming a slurry comprising a polyamic acid binder, silicon powder, and a conductive additive (silver powder, Fukui [85]). Fukui teaches that the addition of the conductive additive improves cycle characteristics (Fukui [86]) and results in “an electrically conductive network formed around the particles of the active material to increase current collectability of the electrode” (Fukui [29]). Fukui teaches that the conductive additive (electrically conductive powder) can be a material similar to the metal foil, elements such as copper, nickel, iron, titanium, cobalt, and the like, or an electrically conductive carbon powder (Fukui [29]).
Fukui further teaches that the amount of conductive agent “is preferably not greater than 50 weight % of the total weight of the electrically conductive powder and the particles of the active material” and that, if the amount of conductive agent is too high, the charge and discharge capacity of the electrode is reduced (Fukui [30]).
Since Bae teaches that the amount of conductive additive may be adjusted and Fukui teaches that the amount of conductive additive impacts charge and discharge capacity of an electrode, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the amount of conductive additives in the slurry of Bae, including amounts within the claimed range of about 1 % to about 10 % by weight, in order to obtain an electrode with suitable charge and discharge capacity and electrical conductivity for a desired electrical application.
Bae Example 1-1 does not teach a first current collector contacting the positive electrode structure.
However, Bae discloses that “lithium batteries may be classified as lithium ion batteries, lithium ion polymer batteries, and lithium polymer batteries according to the types of separator and electrolyte included therein” and “the lithium battery manufactured may be either a lithium primary battery or a lithium secondary battery” (Bae [136]). Bae further discloses that a cathode active material capable of “enabling intercalation and deintercalation of lithium may be used” such as a “lithium-containing metal oxide that is commonly used in the art” (Bae [117]); this active material being coated or laminated on a cathode current collector (Bae [125-126]), thus resulting in a first current collector contacting the positive electrode structure.
Given the teaching that the cathode active material be coated or laminated on a cathode current collector (Bae [125-126]), it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electrode structure (anode) of Bae Example 1-1 with a positive electrode structure (cathode active material on a current collector) contacting a first current collector in order to achieve the predictable result of a battery with desired performance for a target electrical application.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Bae in view of Fukui, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Jeong (US 9,200,116 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Bae in view of Fukui teaches all features of claim 1. Example 1-1 of Bae is silent regarding the coating method used to deposit a thin film of the slurry (anode slurry, Example 1-1 [149-151]) on a substrate (Cu foil current collector, Example 1-1 [149-151]).
Jeong teaches that a slurry comprising binder and electrode active material may be coated on a current collector using “screen printing, spray coating, coating using a doctor blade, gravure coating, deep coating, silk screening, painting, and coating using a slot die, according to the viscosity of slurry” (Jeong Col. 13 lines 18-26).
Since Jeong teaches that slot die coating is a known and suitable method for coating a substrate with a slurry containing binders and electrode active materials for use in batteries, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used slot die coating in Bae Example 1-1 to coat the current collector with the anode slurry in order to achieve the predictable result of a current collector (substrate) coated with a slurry comprising binders and anode active materials.
Claims 7-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae in view of Fukui, as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and in further view of Herle (US 2019/0013516 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Bae in view of Fukui teaches all features of claim 1. Bae does not teach the method further comprising exposing the polyamic precursor to a high temperature lithium deposition process to convert the polyamic precursor to a polyimide binder and form a composite electrode comprising the polyimide binder and lithium.
However, Herle teaches that silicon blended graphite anodes, as used in Bae Example 1-1, “suffer from first cycle capacity loss”, which leads to “a need for lithium metal deposition to replenish first cycle capacity loss of silicon blended graphite anodes” (Herle [3]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a high temperature lithium deposition process, as described in Herle, to the anode manufacture process of Bae (Bae Example 1-1, [149-152]) in order to “compensate for the irreversible loss of lithium metal during the first cycle of a battery” (Herle [8]), while also converting the polyamic precursor to a polyimide binder to form a composite electrode comprising the polyimide binder and lithium.
Regarding claim 8, Bae in view of Fukui and Herle teaches all features of claims 1 and 7, as described above. Bae further teaches an electrode comprising a polyimide derived from partially lithiated polyamic acid (Bae claim 9), with the polyimide being formed after exposing partially lithiated polyamic acid (Bae Formula 9) to thermal processing (Bae Example 1-1 [149-152]), and a method of forming the electrode (Bae claim 13). As described above for instant claim 6, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the tetracarboxylic dianhydride used in Example 1-1 of Bae (pyromellitic dianhydride) for 3,3',4,4'-benzophenonetetracarboxylic dianhydride in order to achieve the predictable result of an anode slurry containing polyamic acid suitable for use in battery electrodes. After thermal processing, partially lithiated polyamic acid is converted to lithiated polyimide (Imidization ratio, Bae Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that, after thermal processing, a polyimide binder comprising a lithiated polyimide would be formed with a structure claimed by applicant in claim 8 that corresponds to the lithiated polyamic acid precursor described in the modified Bae Example 1-1 method presented above for instant claim 6.
Regarding claim 9, Bae in view of Fukui and Herle teaches all features of claims 1 and 7, as described above.
Example 1-1 of Bae does not explicitly state the composite electrode can be used for fabricating a lithium-ion battery (lithium battery, Bae Example 1-1 [149-152]). However, Bae discloses that “lithium batteries may be classified as lithium ion batteries, lithium ion polymer batteries, and lithium polymer batteries according to the types of separator and electrolyte included therein”, “the lithium battery manufactured may be either a lithium primary battery or a lithium secondary battery” (Bae [136]), and “the lithium battery may be a lithium ion battery” (Bae [137]). Bae further discloses that a cathode active material capable of “enabling intercalation and deintercalation of lithium may be used” such as a “lithium-containing metal oxide that is commonly used in the art” (Bae [117]).
Given the teaching of Bae that the electrode of Bae can be used to manufacture lithium batteries such as lithium ion batteries, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the composite electrode (anode) of Bae Example 1-1 to fabricate a lithium ion battery in order to produce a battery capable of fulfilling a desired electrical use.
Regarding claim 11, Bae in view of Fukui teaches all features of claim 10, as described above. However, Bae does not teach the method further comprising exposing the polyamic precursor to a high temperature lithium deposition process to convert the polyamic precursor to a polyimide binder and form a composite electrode comprising the polyimide binder and lithium.
However, Herle teaches that silicon blended graphite anodes, as used in Bae Example 1-1, “suffer from first cycle capacity loss”, which leads to “a need for lithium metal deposition to replenish first cycle capacity loss of silicon blended graphite anodes” (Herle [3]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a high temperature lithium deposition process, as described in Herle, to the anode manufacture process of Bae (Bae Example 1-1, [149-152]) in order to “compensate for the irreversible loss of lithium metal during the first cycle of a battery” (Herle [8]) while also converting the polyamic precursor to a polyimide binder to form a composite electrode comprising the polyimide binder and lithium.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Objections
The objection to claim 5 due to informalities presented in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on February 21, 2025 is overcome by Applicant’s amendments to claim 5 in the response received June 20, 2025. The previous objection to claim 5 is withdrawn. However, in light of the amendments to the claims, new objections to claim 5 have been applied above.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 112
On page 8 of the response received June 20, 2025, Applicant appears to allege that the images of claims 6 and 8 are legible and clear.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The images of claims 6 and 8 are not fully legible and are blurry in some locations. See annotated images below showing examples of regions not fully legible. The Examiner notes that the circled regions are not inclusive of all regions not fully legible in the images of claims 6 and 8, rather they are representative examples. The rejections of claims 6 and 8 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 are maintained.
PNG
media_image2.png
860
1398
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
514
1223
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 102 and 103
The rejections of claims 1-2 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bae (US 2017/0155151 A1) are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments to independent claim 1 in the response received June 20, 2025.
Applicant’s arguments filed June 20, 2025 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On page 9 of the response, Applicant appears to allege that Bae fails to teach "forming a slurry comprising a polyamic precursor, one or more anode active materials, and conductive additives, the conductive additives having a concentration of about 1% to about 10% by weight," as amended independent claim 1 recites.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the conductive additive concentration of claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
On page 9 of the response, Applicant appears to allege that Bae does not teach a slurry or “forming a slurry comprising…conductive additives”.
The Examiner respectively disagrees. Example 1-1 of Bae teaches a slurry (anode slurry, [150]) and forming a slurry comprising a conductive additive (Bae [150]). Specifically, Bae teaches mixing an anode active material, artificial graphite, and water-soluble polyamic acid to prepare an anode slurry, wherein artificial graphite is a conductive additive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/J.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789