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 amended independent claims 1 and 20 and dependent claim 3; and canceled claims 2, 4, 5, 12, 14, 15, 21-23; and withdrew claims 11, 13, 16-19. The pending claims are claims 1, 3, 6-10, 20.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loveridge et al., US 2012/0094178, in view of Luo et al., US 2010/0129704, and in further view of Park et al., US 2014/0170482.
Regarding claim 1, Loveridge et al., teaches a battery electrode (abstract; 0042), the electrode comprising:
an electrode coating layer (0062, 0084) on a current collector (abstract; 0006, 0062), the electrode coating layer formed from an electrode slurry (0062; 0065) comprising silicon (0070; 0074-0078) and a water soluble PAA-based (polyacrylic acid PAA) (Table 2) polymer blend (mixture of one or more ) (0052; 0062) wherein said water soluble PAA-based polymer blend comprises PAA (polyacrylic acid) (Table 2-3; 0052; 0056; 0059) and one or more additional water-soluble polymer components; wherein said one or more additional water-soluble polymer components comprises a polymer containing one or more functional groups selected from the group consisting of -OH (hydroxide or hydroxyl; 0053-0054) or carboxyl (-COOH; abstract; 0042-0045); wherein the electrode slurry (“slurry or dispersion of the electroactive material in a liquid carrier; the liquid carrier may be a solution of a binder in a suitable solvent”) (0125), is formed in water (0056; claim 12) without phase separation (0125); and wherein said electrode slurry has a slurry viscosity (0056) of 1000 to 2500 MPa/s (0068); and a binder comprising PAA blend (0052; 0056).
Luo et al., teaches a binder (0009) having a tertiary system: “The binder comprises a first polymer, a second polymer, and a third polymer. The first polymer comprises a fluorine-containing monomer. The second polymer comprises a monomer selected from the group consisting of acrylonitrile, methacrylonitrile, acrylates, methacrylates, and combinations thereof. The third polymer is selected from the group consisting of polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyalkylidene glycol, polyacrylamide, polyethylene glycol, and combinations thereof.” (0009; 0024).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Luo into the teachings of Loveridge because it would be desirable to develop an improved binder in order to improve the performance of batteries (0008).
Loveridge et al., does not teach wherein the water soluble PAA-based polymer blend is a tertiary system comprising PAA, phenolic resin, and a third water-soluble polymer components.
Park et al., teaches one or more additional water-soluble polymer components is phenolic resin (0050; 0056).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Park into the teachings of Loveridge because “The mixture can include a variety of different components. The mixture can include one or more precursors. In certain embodiments, the precursor is a hydrocarbon compound. For example, the precursor can include polyamic acid, polyimide, etc. Other precursors include phenolic resins, epoxy resins, and other polymers.” (0050). Additionally, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to include phenolic resin because “a composite material can form a self-supported monolithic electrode. The pyrolyzed carbon phase (e.g. hard carbon phase) of the composite material can hold together and structurally support the particles that were added to the mixture.” (0059).
Regarding claim 3, Loveridge et al., modified by Luc, does not teach the concentration of said phenolic resin in the water soluble PAA-based polymer blend is about 30 wt.%.
Park et al., does not teach the concentration of said phenolic resin in the water soluble PAA-based polymer blend is less than 30 wt.% . "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Park into the teachings of Loveridge because the amount of phenolic resin in the polymer blend would be conducive to providing the most efficient electrode.
Regarding claim 6, Loveridge et al., teaches the electrode coating layer further comprises conductive additives (0101; 0111; 0115).
Regarding claim 7, Loveridge et al., teaches the current collector comprises one or more of a copper (0062; 0073-0074), in electrical contact with the electrode coating layer (0073-0074).
Regarding claim 8, Loveridge et al., teaches the electrode coating layer comprises more than 70% silicon (15 to 100% silicon) (0108).
Regarding claim 9, Loveridge et al., teaches the electrode is in electrical and physical contact with an electrolyte (0057), the electrolyte comprising a liquid (liquid electrolyte; 0121), solid (solid; 0130), or gel (gel; 0068).
Regarding claim 10, Loveridge et al., teaches the battery electrode is in a lithium ion battery (0049).
Regarding claim 20, Loveridge et al., teaches a battery (abstract; 0042), the electrode comprising:
an electrode coating layer (0084) on a current collector (abstract; 0006), the electrode coating layer formed from an electrode slurry (0062; 0065) comprising silicon (0070; 0074-0078) and a water soluble PAA-based (polyacrylic acid PAA) (Table 2) polymer blend (mixture) (0052; 0062) wherein said water soluble PAA-based polymer blend comprises PAA (polyacrylic acid) (Table 2-3; 0052; 0056; 0059) and one or more additional water-soluble polymer components; wherein said one or more additional water-soluble polymer components comprises a polymer containing one or more functional groups selected from the group consisting of -OH (hydroxide or hydroxyl; 0053-0054) or carboxyl (-COOH; abstract; 0042-0045); wherein the electrode slurry (“slurry or dispersion of the electroactive material in a liquid carrier; the liquid carrier may be a solution of a binder in a suitable solvent”) (0125), is formed in water (0056; claim 12) without phase separation (0125);
and wherein said electrode slurry has a slurry viscosity (0056) of 1000 to 2500 MPa/s (0068); and a binder comprising PAA blend (0052; 0056); wherein the water soluble PAA-based polymer blend is a tertiary system comprising PAA and two additional water-soluble polymer components.
Luo et al., teaches a binder (0009) having a tertiary system: “The binder comprises a first polymer, a second polymer, and a third polymer. The first polymer comprises a fluorine-containing monomer. The second polymer comprises a monomer selected from the group consisting of acrylonitrile, methacrylonitrile, acrylates, methacrylates, and combinations thereof. The third polymer is selected from the group consisting of polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyalkylidene glycol, polyacrylamide, polyethylene glycol, and combinations thereof.” (0009; 0024).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Luo into the teachings of Loveridge because it would be desirable to develop an improved binder in order to improve the performance of batteries (0008).
Loveridge et al., does not teach wherein the water soluble PAA-based polymer blend is a tertiary system comprising PAA, phenolic resin, and a third water-soluble polymer components.
Park et al., teaches one or more additional water-soluble polymer components is phenolic resin (0050; 0056).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Park into the teachings of Loveridge because “The mixture can include a variety of different components. The mixture can include one or more precursors. In certain embodiments, the precursor is a hydrocarbon compound. For example, the precursor can include polyamic acid, polyimide, etc. Other precursors include phenolic resins, epoxy resins, and other polymers.” (0050). Additionally, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to include phenolic resin because “a composite material can form a self-supported monolithic electrode. The pyrolyzed carbon phase (e.g. hard carbon phase) of the composite material can hold together and structurally support the particles that were added to the mixture.” (0059).
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The “Applicant has elected to amend the claims to include the limitation that the claimed water soluble PAA-based polymer blend is a tertiary system comprising PAA (polyacrylic acid) (Table 2-3; 0052; 0056; 0059), phenolic resin and a third water-soluble polymer component. Neither Loveridge nor Luo, alone or together, teach or suggest the claimed tertiary system comprising PAA, phenolic resin and a third water-soluble polymer component.
However, Loveridge teaches water soluble PAA-based polymer blend (mixture of one or more ) (0052; 0062); water soluble PAA-based (polyacrylic acid PAA) (Table 2) is a tertiary system.
Additionally, Park et al., teaches one or more additional water-soluble polymer components is phenolic resin (0050; 0056).
The Applicant argues that “There is nothing in Loveridge about a blend of polymers, and specifically the reference does not teach or suggest the claimed tertiary system comprising PAA, phenolic resin and a third water-soluble polymer component.”
However, the Park et al., reference teaches a phenolic resin which is combined with the PAA and a water-soluble polymer.
Applicant argues that “while Luo may teach a binder comprising three polymers, the polymers of Luo do not meet the claimed requirements of a tertiary system comprising PAA, phenolic resin and a third water-soluble polymer component.”
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Luo into the teachings of Loveridge because it would be desirable to develop an improved binder in order to improve the performance of batteries (0008).
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Park et al., US 2014/0170482.
8. 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
Prosecution Insights