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 claims 1 and 10; and canceled claim 20. The pending claims are claims 1-19.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ansari et al., US 2022/0102713, in view of Gentischer Harald et al., WO 2021245166A1.
Regarding claim 1, Ansari et al., teaches a battery electrode (abstract), the electrode comprising: an electrode coating layer on a current collector (abstract), the electrode coating layer comprising silicon (abstract), aqueous-based polyamide-imide (PAI) (0101; 0118), and aqueous-based polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) (0147-0148; 0061), and wherein the aqueous-based PAI and the aqueous-based PVA are pyrolyzed (0042-0043; 0101) into carbon (0101); a silicon to carbon ratio of the electrode is approximately 9 to 1 (“the amount of pyrolytic carbon may be less than or equal to 30%; or be less than or equal to 15%”) (0138); (“After pyrolysis process the final composition will be close to 90% Si with the remainder being pyrolyzed carbon derived from the aqueous binder” (0164).
Ansari et al., teaches ratio of aqueous-based PAI and aqueous-based PVA is approximately 60:40 (0127), the PVA contributing approximately 25% of pyrolytic carbon (25.41%).
Although Ansari does not teach PAI/PVA is about 3 to 1, Ansari et al., teaches a ratio of the PAI to the PVA in the pyrolyzed carbon is greater than one (Table 2; Table 7; 0185).
Additionally, Gentischer Harald et al., teaches the amount of the carbon compound is preferably selected such that a mass ratio of carbon to silicon is “particularly preferably about 1:5 or about 1:9, results in the composite material.” (0074; 0080).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to insert the teachings of Gentischer Harald et al., into the teachings of Ansari et al., because the mass ratio of carbon to silicon provides a simple and economical process (0078) and has a high specific capacity (0003-0004).
Regarding claim 2, Ansari et al., teaches wherein an amount of the aqueous- based PVA modifies a viscosity of the electrode coating layer (0042; 0107).
Regarding claim 3, Ansari et al., teaches wherein the aqueous-based PAI has a carbon yield upon pyrolysis of greater than about 30% and the aqueous-based PVA has a lower carbon yield upon pyrolysis than the aqueous-based PAI (0042-0043; 0101; 0103; 0106; 0118).
Regarding claim 4, Ansari et al., teaches wherein the electrode yields a thickness of less than approximately 85 um including the current collector (0131).
Regarding claim 5, Ansari et al., teaches wherein the electrode active material coating yields a porosity of approximately 45-55% (Table 16).
Regarding claim 6, Ansari et al., teaches wherein the electrode coating layer further comprises one or more surfactants (abstract; 0044; 0099).
Regarding claim 7, Ansari et al., teaches wherein the one or more surfactants when present comprise less than about 1% of the electrode coating layer (0113; 0115).
Regarding claim 8, Ansari et al., teaches wherein the electrode is in electrical and physical contact with an electrolyte, the electrolyte comprising a liquid, solid, or gel (0030-0032; 0066).
Regarding claim 9, Ansari et al., teaches wherein the battery electrode is in a lithium ion battery (abstract; 0068).
Regarding claim 10, Ansari et al., teaches a method of forming an electrode (abstract; 0005; 0100), the method comprising:
creating an electrode coating layer (abstract; 0009) from an electrode slurry comprising silicon (0041-0042), aqueous-based polyamide-imide (PAI) (0010; 0016; 0146), and aqueous-based polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) (0098; 0147), wherein adjusting an amount of the aqueous-based PVA modifies a viscosity of the electrode coating layer (0148); fabricating a battery electrode by coating the slurry on a current collector (abstract; 0026); and pyrolyzing the aqueous-based PAI (0099; 0106; 0144) or the aqueous-based PVA of the electrode coating layer into pyrolytic carbon (0147); and wherein the aqueous-based PAI has a carbon yield upon pyrolysis of greater than about 30% (0101), and wherein silicon to pyrolyzed carbon ratio of the electrode is approximately 9 to 1 (0138; 0164) following pyrolysis of the PAI and/or PVA (0098; 0101; 0147); a silicon to carbon ratio of the electrode is approximately 9 to 1 (“the amount of pyrolytic carbon may be less than or equal to 30%; or be less than or equal to 15%”)(0138); (“After pyrolysis process the final composition will be close to 90% Si with the remainder being pyrolyzed carbon derived from the aqueous binder” (0164).
Ansari et al., teaches ratio of aqueous-based PAI and aqueous-based PVA is approximately 60:40 (0127), the PVA contributing approximately 25% of pyrolytic carbon (25.41%).
Although Ansari does not teach PAI/PVA is about 3 to 1, Ansari et al., teaches a ratio of the PAI to the PVA in the pyrolyzed carbon is greater than one (Table 2; Table 7; 0185).
Additionally, Gentischer Harald et al., teaches the amount of the carbon compound is preferably selected such that a mass ratio of carbon to silicon is “particularly preferably about 1:5 or about 1:9, results in the composite material.” (0074; 0080).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to insert the teachings of Gentischer Harald et al., into the teachings of Ansari et al., because the mass ratio of carbon to silicon provides a simple and economical process (0078) and has a high specific capacity (0003-0004).
Regarding claim 11, Ansari et al., teaches wherein the aqueous-based PVA has a lower pyrolytic carbon yield than the aqueous-based PAI (0159; 0178).
Regarding claim 12, Ansari et al., teaches wherein the aqueous-based PVA contributes less than approximately 30% of the pyrolytic carbon of the electrode coating layer (0101).
Regarding claim 13, Ansari et al., teaches wherein the concentration of components yields a slurry with a viscosity greater than 1500 cP (0127; 0134; 0145; 0148).
Regarding claim 14, Ansari et al., teaches wherein the concentration of components yields a slurry with a pH of approximately 7 (0154).
Regarding claim 15, Ansari et al., teaches further comprising creating the electrode coating layer by adding one or more surfactants (abstract; 0044; 0099).
Regarding claim 16, Ansari et al., teaches wherein the one or more surfactants when present comprise less than about 1% of the electrode coating layer (0113; 0115).
Regarding claim 17, Ansari et al., teaches further comprising contacting the electrode with an electrolyte, the electrolyte comprising a liquid, solid, or gel (0030-0032; 0066).
Regarding claim 18, Ansari et al., teaches wherein the battery electrode is in a lithium ion battery (abstract; 0068).
Regarding claim 19, Ansari et al., teaches wherein the electrode is defined by a resistance of less than 5 ohms (0151; 0186).
Response to Arguments
5. .Applicant's arguments filed 9/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that “Paragraphs 0187 and 189 of Ansari do not disclose or suggest the claimed wherein the pyrolyzed carbon from the aqueous-based PAI is approximately 75% of the total pyrolyzed carbon, and the aqueous-based PVA is approximately 25% of the total pyrolyzed carbon. Rather, Ansari describes a secondary resin as contributing at least 30% pyrolytic carbon. See e.g., Ansari at 0119: “The secondary resin should have a significantly lower carbon yield compared with the main resin (e.g. PAI or PI) and contributes <30% of the pyrolytic carbon.”
However, Ansari teaches “The composite material can be formed by pyrolyzing a polymer precursor. The amount of carbon obtained from the precursor can be about 50 weight percent by weight of the composite material. In certain embodiments, the amount of carbon from the precursor in the composite material is about 10% to about 25% by weight.” (0061).
Additionally, “The polymer binder is pyrolyzed into carbon during making of the electrode. These materials are the primary component of the binder and may function alone, or contain various additives (see below). The primary polymers (main resins) may have a carbon yield upon pyrolysis of greater than about 30%; in some embodiments the carbon yield may be 40-50% or more.” (0101).
6. 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
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727