DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This is the first office action regarding application number 17/990,914, filed 11/21/2022.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 15-20, in the reply filed on 10/27/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the battery of claim 15 can only be made by the method of claim 1 and there is no significant additional burden. However, this is not persuasive, as the method of claim 1 does not require an inert gas environment, such that the battery of claim 15 could be made by a materially different process. Additionally, since claim 15 is directed to a product as well as includes an inert gas environment, each invention requires non-overlapping search evidenced by the different classifications in the restriction mailed 08/27/2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Accordingly, claims 1-14 are withdrawn for being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claims 15-20 have been fully considered in examination.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US-20230361264-A1) in view of Um (US-20150072236-A1).
Regarding claim 15,
Li teaches a battery electrode ([0041], [0044], “electrode”) manufactured by a method comprising:
casting (see [0043], wherein a slurry is cast onto a current collector, see https://www.wordreference.com/defihttps://www.wordreference.com/definition/castnition/cast wherein cast can be defined as “to deposit”) battery electrode ([0041], [0044], “electrode”) from a slurry ([0043], “slurry”) including electrode particles ([0043], “active material”),
a binder ([0043], “binder”),
and a solvent ([0043], “solvent…water”),
wherein residual solvent ([0043], wherein solvent is frozen such that it remains after the casting) after the casting ([0043], wherein solvent remains after casting the slurry onto the current collector such that it may later be frozen);
and the binder ([0043], “binder”; [0046], “rubber (SBR)”) remains at least partially elastic ([0046], “rubber (SBR)”, wherein rubber is elastic),
freezing ([0043], “freeze-casting”) the solid ([0043], “solid”) battery electrode ([0041]; [0044], “electrode”) such that the residual solvent ([0043], “frozen solvent”) in the electrode forms ice ([0043], “ice”) having a pattern ([0043], “ice templating”, wherein ice is used as a template thus having a certain pattern);
and removing the ice ([0043], “the frozen solvent is vaporized to leave a porous structure”) from the solid battery electrode ([0041], “electrode”),
thereby rearranging the electrode particles (see [0043], “porous structure”) and the binder ([0043], wherein binder is mixed into slurry) into a microstructure that represents a geometric negative of the pattern of the ice ([0043], wherein the ice is sublimed leaving behind pores in its, such that a geometric negative of the ice is formed)
Li is silent to whether the freezing is flash freezing and to whether the ice is dendritic ice. Um teaches flash-freezing ([0030], where pouring liquid nitrogen is consistent with flash-freezing) to form dendritic ice ([0030], “ice dendrites”). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use flash-freezing to form dendritic ice, as suggested by Um, as Um teaches dendritic ice leaves behind channel-like pores, which help provide an active contact between the electrolyte and active material during charging and discharging, improving battery functioning.
Regarding claim 16,
Li in view of Um teaches the battery electrode according to claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), wherein the dendritic (Um, [0030], “ice dendrites”) ice (Li, [0043], “ice”) is removed ([0043], “subliming the solvent portion”) by drying ([0043], “subliming the solvent portion”, wherein sublimation is a form of drying).
Regarding claim 17,
Li in view of Um teaches the battery electrode according to Claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16 above), wherein a temperature ([0043], “temperature”) and pressure ([0043], “pressure”) of freezing and drying (see [0043]) are adjusted to modify the microstructure ([0043], “by controlling the temperature (increased temperature) and/or vacuum level (reduced pressure) around the second layer, the frozen solvent is vaporized to leave a porous structure with unidirectional channels”, which describes temperature and pressure affecting microstructure) of the battery electrode ([0041], “electrode”).
Regarding claim 18,
Li in view of Um teaches the battery electrode according to Claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16 above), wherein the dendritic (Um, [0030]) ice (Li, [0043]) is removed by vacuum drying ([0043], “vacuum pressure necessary for sublimation”).
Regarding claim 19,
Li in view of Um teaches the battery electrode according to Claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18 above), but Li fails to teach wherein the flash-freezing and vacuum drying are performed in an inert gas environment. However, Um teaches flash-freezing ([0030], [0057]) and vacuum drying [0057] are performed in an inert gas environment [0057-0059]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to perform the flash-freezing and vacuum drying in an inert gas environment as Um suggests it prevents the oxidation of foam [0059].
Regarding claim 20,
Um teaches the battery electrode according to Claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), wherein the electrode ([0041], “electrode”) particles ([0043], “active material”) comprise graphite ([0014], “graphite”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL WYROUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-4806. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10am-5pm.
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, TIFFANY LEGETTE can be reached on (571) 270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL CHRISTIAN ST WYROUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 1728 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723