Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/869,875

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR THERMAL CURING OF WATER SOLUBLE POLYMERS FOR SILICON DOMINANT ANODES

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jul 21, 2022
Examiner
TADAYYON ESLAMI, TABASSOM
Art Unit
1718
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Enevate Corporation
OA Round
4 (Final)
50%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
77%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 50% of resolved cases
50%
Career Allow Rate
384 granted / 776 resolved
-15.5% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
65 currently pending
Career history
841
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
60.2%
+20.2% vs TC avg
§102
15.7%
-24.3% vs TC avg
§112
20.7%
-19.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 776 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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. Claims 1-7, 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahul R. Kamath et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2019/0355966, here after 966), further in view of Nabae Yuta et al (Japanese Patent: 2015-229119, here after 119). Claims 1-2 are rejected. 966 teaches a method of forming an electrode [abstract line 1], the method comprising: creating an electrode coating layer from an electrode slurry comprising silicon and a polymer (carbon precursor, polyimide or polyamic acid); fabricating a battery electrode by coating the slurry on a current collector [abstract, 0014, 0009, 0011]; drying(curing) step [0016] increasing a temperature applied to the slurry and maintain the temperature for a time [0049]; and increasing to a pyrolyzation temperature from the curing temperature target(110C) and pyrolyzing to yield a stable carbon matrix in a mechanically stable electrode structure [0035, 0051, 0079]. 966 teaches a drying step (step one curing) and a further drying step and applying pressure at 200C (step 2 curing) [0049], therefore teaches drying(curing) happened incrementally over a plurality of curing temperature targets, wherein one or more curing temperature targets of the plurality of curing temperature targets correspond to a give component of the slurry (NMP), and maintaining each curing temperature target for a predetermined dwell time incrementally over a plurality of curing temperature targets [0049]. 966 does not teach three or more curing stages. 119 teaches to avoid melting polyamic acid in carbonizing step gradually raise the temperature in step of imidization comprising heating at 80-150C, then at 200- 500, and adding steps of heating to 5 steps and prior to carbonizing(pyrolyzing) [page 10 first paragraph]. Therefor it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the method of 966 where the curing of polyamic acid is done in 3(2-5) stages between 100-400, because it helps avoiding melting during pyrolyzing. Claim 3 is rejected as 966 teaches the pyrolyzation temperature is greater than 400 degrees centigrade [0051]. Claim 4 is rejected as 966[0049], and 119 teach increasing a temperature applied (from room temperature) to a first drying(curing) temperature target, and inherently by a first temperature ramp rate (to ramp the temperature from room temperature to first temperature) [page 10 first paragraph]. Claim 5 is rejected as 966 and 119 teach increasing the temperature applied to from the first curing temperature target to a second curing temperature target [0049 of 966, and page 10 first paragraph of 119] of the plurality of curing temperature targets and inherently by a second temperature ramp rate. Claim 6 is rejected. 119 teaches increasing the temperature applied to from the second temperature target to a third (curing) temperature target of the plurality of curing temperature targets [page 10 first paragraph] and inherently by a third temperature ramp rate. Claim 7 is rejected. 119 teaches heating in 3 or 5 steps [page 10 first paragraph], which in fact an ordinary skill in art can adjust the steps (temperature and duration) to have same heating rate (for first and second steps) in absence of criticality. Claim 9 is rejected. 119 teaches maintaining each curing temperature target for the predetermined dwell time comprises the first curing temperature target for a first dwell time [page 10 first paragraph]. Claim 10 is rejected as 119 teaches maintaining the second curing temperature target for a second dwell time [page 10 first paragraph]. Claim 11 is rejected. 119 teaches heating in 3 or 5 steps [page 10 first paragraph], which in fact an ordinary skill in art can adjust the steps (dwell time or duration) to have same duration (for first and second steps) in absence of criticality. Claim 12 is rejected as 119 teaches heating time of 3 min to 3 hours [page 10, first paragraph], and an ordinary skill can choose the first dwell time less than the second dwell time within 3 min-3 hrs is absence of criticality. Claim 13 is rejected as 966 teaches maintaining the pyrolyzation temperature for a third dwell time (1 hr) [0051]. Claim 14 is rejected as polyimide is an aqueous-based polymer. Claim 15 is rejected. 966 teaches a method of forming an electrode, the method comprising: creating an electrode coating layer from an electrode slurry comprising silicon and a polymer (carbon precursor, polyimide or polyamic acid) [abstract, 0014]; fabricating a battery electrode by coating the slurry on a current collector; increasing temperature applied to the slurry to a first curing(drying) temperature target(110C), wherein the first curing temperate target corresponds to a first component of the first slurry (NMP) [0049]; maintaining the first curing temperature target for a first dwell time (2 hrs); increasing the temperature applied to the slurry to a second curing temperature target(200C), wherein the second curing temperature target corresponds to a second component of the slurry (polyamic acid); maintaining the second curing temperature target fora second dwell time (8-16 hrs)[0049]; and increasing the temperature applied to the slurry toa pyrolyzation temperature [0051] which in fact yield a stable carbon matrix in a mechanically stable electrode structure[0079]. 966 does not teach three or more curing stages. 119 teaches to avoid melting polyamic acid in carbonizing step gradually raise the temperature in step of imidization comprising heating at 80-150C, then at 200- 500, and maintain the temperature for 3 in-3 hrs and adding steps of heating to 5 steps and prior to carbonizing(pyrolyzing) [page 10 first paragraph]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the method of 966 where the curing of polyamic acid is done in 3(2-5) stages between 100-400, and maintain the temperature for 3 in-3 hrs because it helps avoiding melting during pyrolyzing. Claims 16-17 are rejected as 699 teaches creating the electrode coating layer further comprises including a conductive additive such as CNT's [0048]. Claim 18 is rejected as 699 teaches adding a solvent such as organic solvent (NMP or dimethyl ether) [0049, 0047]. Claim 19 is rejected as polyimide is an aqueous-based polymer. Claim 20 is rejected as 119 teaches the temperature is applied is thermal energy source (heating in nitrogen atmosphere requires oven, chamber or tube with heating source) [page 10 first paragraph]. Claims 8, and 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahul R. Kamath et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2019/0355966, here after 966), Nabae Yuta et al (Japanese Patent: 2015-229119, here after 119), further in view of Tian-xi Liu et al (Chinese Patent: 105923622, here after 622). Claim 8 is rejected. 966, and 119 teach the limitation of claim 15. 119 teaches curing polyimide acid in 3-5 steps, and teaches dwell time in each step is 3 min to 3 hrs [page 10 first paragraph], but did not teach the ramp rate. 622 teaches imidization(curing) and carbonization process by heating rate or 1.5-2.5 degree/min (in each step) [page 4 paragraph 6 lines 2-end]. Therefor it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of making electrode as 966, and 119 teach first and second ramping temperature is 1.5- 2.5 degree/min, because it is suitable rpm rate for heating substrate for curing polyimide film and reaching to pyrolyzing step. It is to skill of an ordinary person in art to choose the first temperature ramp less than the second one (within 1.5-2.5 degree/min) in absence of criticality. Claim 21 is rejected. 966, and 119 teach the limitation of claim 15. 119 teaches curing polyimide acid in 3-5 steps, and teaches dwell time in each step is 3 min to 3 hrs [page 10 first paragraph], but did not teach the ramp rate. 622 teaches imidization(curing) and carbonization process by heating rate of 2 degree/min (in each step) and then heating rate of 5 degree /min to reach pyrolyzing temperature [page 7 lines 16-20]. Therefor it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of making electrode as 966, and 119 teach first and second ramping temperature is 2 degree/min, and ramp to pyrolyzing temperature is based on 622, because it is suitable rpm rate for heating substrate for curing polyimide film and reaching to pyrolyzing step. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 11/17/25, with respect to 35 U.S.C 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C 112(b) of claim 2 has been withdrawn. Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues Nabae does not teach first, second and third curing temperatures during single curing step. The examiner disagrees, Nabae clearly teaches breaking the curing step to 2-5 steps as claims require increasing temperature applied over three or more curing temperature targets between 100-400 degrees, and clearly claim do not require the target temperatures not to be identical. Nabae teaches increasing temperature at 80-150 for 3 minutes and then 200-500, and about 2 to 5 steps so that the operation where total time for heating at 80 ° C. or more and less than 500 ° C. is preferably 1 to 24 hours. Therefore there can be additional heating steps in between. 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 TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6. 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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. /TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 21, 2022
Application Filed
May 30, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 22, 2024
Response Filed
Nov 29, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Jun 04, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 07, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 17, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599968
METHOD OF PRODUCING AN ADDITIVE MANUFACTURED OBJECT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600634
2D AMORPHOUS CARBON FILM ASSEMBLED FROM GRAPHENE QUANTUM DOTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601049
AG- AND/OR CU- CONTAINING HARD COATINGS WITH ANTIBACTERIAL, ANTIVIRAL AND ANTIFUNGAL PROPERTIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590372
LASER INDUCED FORWARD TRANSFER OF 2D MATERIALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585183
METHOD OF FORMING AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE ON A FLEXIBLE SUBSTRATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
50%
Grant Probability
77%
With Interview (+27.1%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 776 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