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 submitted March 16, 2026 and claim amendments submitted April 30, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1, 7, 10, and 11 are amended and claims 12-20 are withdrawn from consideration, resulting in claims 1-11 pending for examination.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 7 and 11: “high temperature” is interpreted as being any temperature that results in the polyamic precursor converting to a polyimide.
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 2003/0235762 A1) and Herle (US 2019/0013516 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, 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 conductive additives (Example 1-1 artificial graphite); and depositing a thin film of the slurry on a substrate (anode slurry was coated on a Cu foil current collector, Example 1-1 [151]).
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 and 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”, 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 does not teach exposing the thin film and substrate to thermal processing by in-situ forming the electrode structure while depositing 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]). Herle further teaches that coating an anode with a thin film of lithium can “compensate for the irreversible loss of lithium metal during the first cycle of the battery” (Herle [8]). Herle teaches that a physical vapor deposition process such as evaporation using a thermal evaporator is a suitable method for depositing the lithium (Herle [63-64]).
It is noted that paragraph [0049] of the instant specification recites that “a prelithiation process by vapor deposition of lithium generates heat, which can be taken by the polyamic precursor to form (or partially form) thermally stable polyimide in composite electrodes”.
Since Herle teaches it is desirable to deposit lithium on an anode in order to compensate for the irreversible loss of lithium metal during the first cycle and that lithium deposition may be performed using thermal evaporation, and the instant specification discloses that vapor deposition of lithium generates heat and results in the conversion of polyamic acid to polyimide, 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 thermal evaporation, which is a type of vapor deposition (instant claim 2), to deposit lithium on the thin film in the method of Bae in order to “compensate for the irreversible loss of lithium metal during the first cycle of a battery” (Herle [8]), thus resulting in the conversion of the polyamic precursor to a polyimide binder and the exposure of the thin film and substrate to thermal processing by in-situ forming the electrode structure while depositing lithium.
Regarding claim 4, Bae in view of Fukui and Herle teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. 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 and Herle teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Bae further teaches the conductive additives being artificial graphite (Example 1-1 [150]).
Regarding claim 6, Bae in view of Fukui and Herle teaches all features of claim 1 (Bae example 1-1), as described above. 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 claims 10, 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 conductive additives (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 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 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 and 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”, 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 does not teach exposing the thin film and substrate to thermal processing by in-situ forming the electrode structure while depositing 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]). Herle further teaches that coating an anode with a thin film of lithium can “compensate for the irreversible loss of lithium metal during the first cycle of the battery” (Herle [8]). Herle teaches that a physical vapor deposition process such as evaporation using a thermal evaporator is a suitable method for depositing the lithium (Herle [63-64]).
It is noted that paragraph [0049] of the instant specification recites that “a prelithiation process by vapor deposition of lithium generates heat, which can be taken by the polyamic precursor to form (or partially form) thermally stable polyimide in composite electrodes”.
Since Herle teaches it is desirable to deposit lithium on an anode in order to compensate for the irreversible loss of lithium metal during the first cycle and that lithium deposition may be performed using thermal evaporation, and the instant specification discloses that vapor deposition of lithium generates heat and results in the conversion of polyamic acid to polyimide, 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 thermal evaporation, which is a type of vapor deposition (instant claim 2), to deposit lithium on the thin film in the method of Bae in order to “compensate for the irreversible loss of lithium metal during the first cycle of a battery” (Herle [8]), thus resulting in the conversion of the polyamic precursor to a polyimide binder and the exposure of the thin film and substrate to thermal processing by in-situ forming the electrode structure while depositing lithium.
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 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 and Herle, 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 and Herle 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 the method of Bae 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 and Herle, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Yoon (Yoon, T. et al. Thermal Decomposition of the Solid Electrolyte Interphase (SEI) on Silicon Electrodes for Lithium Ion Batteries. Chemistry of Materials. 29, 3237-3245 (2017)).
Regarding claim 7, Bae in view of Fukui and Herle teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Modified Bae does not explicitly disclose that the polyamic precursor “fully converts” to polyimide.
Yoon teaches an electrode comprising silicon and polyimide (Yoon Section 2.3 Electrode and Coin Cell Preparation). Yoon further teaches that polyimide has the benefits of “outstanding thermal stability” and “compatibility with silicon electrodes” (Yoon pg. 3238 left column paragraph 2) and that it is suitable to fully convert a polyamide binder to a polyimide binder (Yoon Section 2.3 Electrode and Coil Cell Preparation).
Since modified Bae and Yoon both teach electrodes comprising silicon and a polyimide binder and Yoon teaches that polyimide has the benefits of “outstanding thermal stability” and “compatibility with silicon electrodes” and that it is suitable to fully convert a polyamide binder to a polyimide binder, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bae such that the polyamide binder is fully converted to polyimide, thus resulting the formation of a composite electrode comprising the polyimide binder and lithium, in order to achieve improved thermal stability and compatibility with silicon electrodes.
Regarding claim 8, Bae in view of Fukui, Herle, and Yoon teaches all features of claims 1 and 7, as described above.
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.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that, after the high temperature lithium deposition process, as described above for claim 7, a polyimide binder comprising a lithiated polyimide would be formed with a structure claimed 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, Herle, and Yoon 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 and Herle teaches all features of claim 10, as described above. Modified Bae does not explicitly disclose that the polyamic precursor “fully converts” to polyimide.
Yoon teaches an electrode comprising silicon and polyimide (Yoon Section 2.3 Electrode and Coin Cell Preparation). Yoon further teaches that polyimide has the benefits of “outstanding thermal stability” and “compatibility with silicon electrodes” (Yoon pg. 3238 left column paragraph 2) and that it is suitable to fully convert a polyamide binder to a polyimide binder (Yoon Section 2.3 Electrode and Coil Cell Preparation).
Since modified Bae and Yoon both teach electrodes comprising silicon and a polyimide binder and Yoon teaches that polyimide has the benefits of “outstanding thermal stability” and “compatibility with silicon electrodes” and that it is suitable to fully convert a polyamide binder to a polyimide binder, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bae such that the polyamide binder is fully converted to polyimide, thus resulting the formation of a composite electrode comprising the polyimide binder and lithium, in order to achieve improved thermal stability and compatibility with silicon electrodes.
Response to Arguments
Response – Specification Objection
The objection to the specification due to language of the abstract is overcome by Applicant’s amendments to the abstract in the response filed April 30, 2026. This objection is withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 7-9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement are overcome by Applicant’s amendments to claims 7 and 11 in the response filed April 20, 2026. These rejections of claims 7-9 and 11 are withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed March 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 13 of the response, Applicant appears to allege that the combination of Herle, Bae, and Fukui, as presented in the Non-Final rejection, does not render obvious “exposing the thin film and substrate to thermal processing by in-situ forming the electrode structure while depositing lithium to convert the polyamic precursor at least in part to a polyimide binder”. Applicant appears to support this allegation by stating that Herle does not disclose polyamic acid or depositing lithium over polyamic acid and that Bae and Fukui do not disclose “any type of lithium deposition over polyamic acid”.
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As described above, Herle teaches that it is desirable to deposit lithium on an anode in order to compensate for the irreversible loss of lithium metal during the first cycle and that lithium deposition may be performed using thermal evaporation. 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 used thermal evaporation to deposit lithium on the thin film in the method of Bae in order to compensate for the irreversible loss of lithium metal during the first cycle of a battery.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fujikawa (US 2009/0042097 A1): Fujikawa appears to disclose depositing lithium on an anode in order to supplement “with lithium corresponding to the irreversible capacity in the initial charge/discharge” (Fujikawa [132]).
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
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights