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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/29/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-11, 25, 26, and 28-35 remain pending in this application. Claims 25, 26, and 28-35 remain withdrawn. The examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claims 2, 3, 12-24, and 27. The examiner acknowledges no new matter has been added.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims has overcome the objections to claims 4, 6, 9, 16, 18, and 22 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 8/29/2025.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Halalay et al. (US 2021/0020899 A1). Halalay et al. was cited in the IDS filed 10/17/2023.
Regarding claim 1, Halalay et al. teaches an anode formulation (see e.g. anode host materials 13 in Para. 33) for forming an anode (see e.g. anode 11 in Para. 34) for use in an electrochemical energy storage device (see e.g. battery cell 10 in Para. 34), the anode formulation comprising:
a plurality of active Si-carbon composite material particles (see e.g. silicon particles in Para. 35 that may be composite as shown by the compounds in Para. 36 that are inherently active. Para. 42 notes the heat treatment step carbonizes the polymeric binder(s) to create a carbon layer 132 around the silicon particles 131 to buffer silicon particle 131 expansion and further anchor the carbon fibers 133 to the silicon particles 1331, the current collector 12, and optionally the carbon nanotubes 134 in Para. 42. This is further seen in Fig. 3 by the carbon coating 132 around the silicon particles 131 forming silicon-carbon composite particles);
a plurality of conductive carbon particles (see e.g. the carbon fibers 133 and carbon nanotubes 134 in Para. 38, 42, and Fig. 3 that are inherently conductive); and
at least one polymer binder that undergoes a cyclization reaction when heated (see e.g. the polymeric binder in Para. 35 that upon the heat treatment step 110 in Para. 34, would cyclize as further noted in Para. 43).
Regarding claim 4, Halalay et al. teaches the anode formulation of claim 1, wherein the active Si-carbon composite material particles comprises particles in a range of from about 1 nm to about 100 µm (see e.g. Halalay et al. teaches the silicon-carbon composite particles in Fig. 3 and Para. 42 made up of the silicon particles 131 with carbon layer 132. Thus, the silicon-carbon composite particles comprise silicon particles 131. The silicon particles may have an average particle diameter of about 50 nm to 10 µm which resides within the claimed range of about 1 nm to about 100 µm in Para. 37. It is worth noting the current phrasing of the claim limitations recites “comprises particles in a range” not “comprises active Si-carbon composite material particles in range.” Therefore, the particles that meet this range may be interpreted more broadly such as the silicon particles within the composite particles).
Regarding claim 5, Halalay et al. teaches the anode formulation of claim 1, wherein the at least one polymer binder comprises polyacrylonitrile (see e.g. the polymeric binder may be polyacrylonitrile in Para. 38).
Regarding claim 9, Halalay et al. teaches the anode formulation of claim 1, wherein the plurality of conductive carbon particles comprises nanoparticles of vapor grown carbon fibers (VGCF), carbon black, carbon nanotubes, or a mixture thereof (see e.g. the carbon nanotubes 134 in the anode in Para. 39, Para. 42, and Fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halalay et al. (US 2021/0020899 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Halalay et al. teaches the anode formulation of claim 1, wherein the plurality of active Si-carbon composite particles comprises from about 10% to about 90% by weight of the anode formulation (See e.g. Halalay et al. teaches the dry fraction of the coating slurry in Para. 35 can include about 75 wt.% to about 85 wt.% of silicon particles that may be Li2Si, a composite silicon, in Para. 37. In Para. 38 it is taught that the one or more polymeric binders can include polyacrylonitrile from about 5 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of the dry fraction. In Para. 40, Halalay et al. teaches that upon the drying step 105, the solvent is removed. Therefore, it is expected that the results of the weight % of the coating on the anode after the drying step is approximately that of the dry fraction. Para. 42 explains the heat treatment step results in creating a carbon layer 132 around the silicon particles 131 by carbonizing the polymeric binder(s). Para. 42-44 explain after the two rounds of heat treatment, the final formulation is devoid of polymer, all that remains is the carbon backbone. Knowing that PAN is not purely carbon, the Si-carbon composite formulation that results from heat treatment must be greater than 75 wt.%, because the carbon backbone surrounding the Li2Si has mass, and less than 95 wt.%, because the polyacrylonitrile used to surround the Li2Si is not entirely made of carbon. This overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05)).
Regarding claim 7, Halalay et al. teaches the anode formulation of claim 1, wherein the plurality of conductive carbon particles comprises from about 0.1 wt. % to about 5 wt. % of the anode formulation (See e.g. the dry fraction of the coating slurry in Para. 35 comprises includes about 2 wt.% to about 15 wt.% of carbon fibers and optionally carbon nanotubes in Para. 39. In Para. 40, Halalay et al. teaches that upon the drying step 105, the solvent is removed. Therefore, it is expected that the results of the weight % of the coating on the anode formulation after the drying step is approximately that of the dry fraction and therefore the weight % of the carbon fibers and carbon nanotubes would be about 2 wt.% to about 15 wt.% of the anode formulation after the drying step which overlaps the claimed range of “0.1 wt.% to about 5 wt.% of the anode formulation” in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05)).
Regarding claim 8, Halalay et al. teaches the anode formulation of claim 1, wherein the at least one polymer binder comprises from about 10 % to about 40 % by weight of the anode formulation (see e.g. wherein the dry fraction of the coating slurry in Para. 35 comprises includes about 10 wt.% of polymeric binders in Para. 38. In Para. 40, Halalay et al. teaches that upon the drying step 105, the solvent is removed. Therefore, it is expected that the results of the weight % of the coating on the anode after the drying step is approximately that of the dry fraction and therefore the weight % of the polymeric binders of the anode formulation after the drying step would be about 10 wt.% which falls within the claimed range of “about 10 % to about 40 % by weight of the anode formulation.”).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halalay et al. (US 2021/0020899 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Nakagaki et al. (WO 2017/179411 A1). Nakagaki et al. was cited in the Non-Final Rejection filed 8/29/2025.
Regarding claim 10, Halalay et al. teaches the anode formulation of claim 1, and in Para. 32 that the binder may include an acid binder.
Halalay et al. fails to explicitly teach further comprising an acid binder comprising from about 0.01 wt. % to about 2 wt. % of the anode formulation.
However, Nakagaki et al. teaches adding a polymeric binder containing an acid such as malic acid in Para. 138 to a negative electrode active material in an amount of 1: 0.005 to 1:0.3 in terms of mass ratio of the negative electrode active material in Para. 141 Nakagaki et al. teaches adding it in this amount because if the binder is too small, the moldability of the electrode decreases, and when the binder is too large, the energy density of the electrode decreases in Para. 141.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative active material of Halalay et al. to adjust the amount of acid-based binder, as taught by Nakagaki et al., in order to optimize moldability and energy density as established in Para. 141 of Nakagaki et al.
Regarding claim 11, Halalay et al. in view of Nakagaki et al. teaches the anode formulation of claim 10, and teaches in Para. 32 that the binder may include an acid binder.
Halalay et al. individually fails to explicitly teach wherein the acid binder comprises oxalic acid, citric acid, maleic acid, tartaric acid, 1,2,3,4-butanetetracarboxylic acid or mixture thereof.
However, Nakagaki et al. teaches adding a polymeric binder containing an acid such as maleic acid in Para. 138 to a negative electrode active material. Nakagaki et al. teaches adding a polymer with two or more carboxyl groups in one molecule and having a high acidity is in the binder, it can more easily trap lithium ions before an electrolytic solution decomposition reaction occurs during charging and improve initial efficiency and input-output characteristics in Para. 140.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the acid binder of the previous combination of references of Halalay et al. in view of Nakagaki et al., to be maleic acid, as taught by Nakagaki et al., to more easily trap lithium ions before an electrolytic solution decomposition reaction occurs during charging and improve initial efficiency and input-output characteristics as established by Nakagaki et al. in Para. 140.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues in paragraphs 1-3 of page 6 of Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks the teaching of Halalay et al. of carbon-coated Si particle in the solid anode formed after heating an anode slurry does not equate to the claimed anode formulation including an Si-carbon composite particle. Amended claim 1 requires an anode formulation, i.e., a slurry that has not yet been heated to solidify the anode formulation and create a solid anode structure. Applicant notes the claim recitation of “at least one polymer binder that undergoes a cyclization reaction when heated” was chosen to convey the anode formulation is a slurry that has not yet been heated. Applicant argues the carbon coating is only present after heating of the formulation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner has interpreted “an anode formulation” as a product claim, not a method claim. Thus, arguments made about when or when not a step occurs are not necessarily applicable. Applicant argues an anode formulation is essentially a slurry that has not been heated. However, the term “anode formulation” is broad. Additionally, the examiner does not see a special definition for the phrase in the instant specification. Thus, the examiner has interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) as anode composition. The examiner recommends further defining “anode formulation” explicitly in the claim recitation if the alleged definition is critical to the Applicant.
Under BRI “at least one polymer binder that undergoes a cyclization reaction when heated” is functional language following the phrase “polymer binder.” The examiner, very reasonably, had not interpreted it as further defining that the formulation has not yet been heated or could not yet be heated in order to meet the claim limitations. This is partially because the Applicant is arguing a limitation not explicitly in the claims, the applicant appears to be arguing methodology in a product claim, and because functional language is based on what a material is reasonable capable of, not when the function is completed.
For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not found persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0259184 A1 teaches a fluorinated carbonate electrolyte. This was cited in the Non-Final Rejection filed 8/29/2025.
US 2013/0130118 A1 teaches an oxalic acid binder. This was cited in the Non-Final Rejection filed 8/29/2025.
US 2021/0313617 A1 teaches an acid binder. This was cited in the Non-Final Rejection filed 8/29/2025.
US 2021/0376382 A1 teaches a fluorinated carbonate electrolyte. This was cited in the Non-Final Rejection filed 8/29/2025.
EP 2,757,626 A1 teaches an over lithiated transition metal oxide for a positive electrode. This was cited in the Non-Final Rejection filed 8/29/2025.
US 2019/0267617 A1 teaches Si, carbon, polyacrylonitrile composite for an anode. This was cited in the IDS filed 12/29/2025.
JP 2014/120459 A teaches silicon-based active material with carbon covering the core. This was cited in the IDS filed 12/29/2025.
US 2008/0044733 A1 teaches negative electrode with silicon composite and carbon materials and heating of binder that may be polyacrylonitrile.
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.
/KATHERINE J. METZGER/
Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
April 1, 2026