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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I and species claims 11, 18, and 19, inclusive of claims 1-9 and 11-19 in the reply filed on May 26, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 10 and 20-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 26, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 10 (informally, insomuch as claim 10 is currently directed to a non-elected species) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, it is not clear if the claimed slurry is indeed “the slurry” of claim 1 or “the slurry comprising the binding agent, the solvent, the electrode component, and the conductive additive” of claim 2. There are issues with both instances. If claim 3 is referring to “the slurry” of claim 1, there is the issue that the slurry of claim 1 already requires at least five components, so ultimately the providing of such a slurry should not be separated across two distinct claims (see 114 (d) rejection of claim 2, below). While the 112 (d) issue is rectified in claim 3, which includes the missing fifth component of the claim 1 slurry, it is fundamentally improper to first define a five-component slurry (claim 1), then redefine the slurry as having only four components (claim 2), and again refer to the same slurry again having five components (claim 3). The indefiniteness is self-evident. In the second instance, while referencing the four-component slurry of claim 2 in a vacuum is definite, the 112(d) issue of claim 2 (see below) is compounded in claim 3 and actually prompts the confusion as to whether “the slurry” in claim 3 is referencing “the slurry” of claim 1 or “the slurry” of claim 2. Ultimately, the claims 2 and 3 112 issues are considered to be interrelated. The slurry of claim 1 clearly requires at least four components. Claim 2 attempts to define the mixing order of the first four ingredients and claim 3 attempts to require a final step of introducing the fifth component to a mixture comprising the first four components. The issue is that Claims 1, 2 and 3 each refer to “the slurry,” yet claims 2 and 3 go on to change the definition of “the slurry” already established in parent claim 1, which is impermissible.
Claim 10 improperly depends from itself (claim 10). This is considered to be a typographical error and it is understood that claim 10 should instead refer to claim 9. Although this deficiency has been pointed out, it is noted that claim 10 has not been fully examined on the merits as it is still directed toward a non-elected species. Correcting claim 10 would expedite future potential allowance, should a generic claim be found to be in condition for allowance.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Parent claim 1 defines “a slurry” comprising at least five components (i.e. a binding agent, a solvent, an electrode component, a conductive additive, and a foaming agent). Claim 2 attempts to define how “the slurry” is prepared; however, claim 2 only results in a slurry comprising four of said five components (the foaming agent is not included again until claim 3). As “the slurry” of claim 1 comprises at least five components, claim 2 resulting in “the slurry” having only four components is considered to be broadening the scope of “the slurry” having antecedent basis in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. It is recommended that Applicant simply directly incorporate the subject matter of claim 3 into claim 2, as the preparation of the slurry (having five components) should clearly indicate how all five components are incorporated. If Applicant instead wishes keep the subject matter of claims 2 and 3 sequentially dependent, than the language of claim 2 should be amended away from referring to “the slurry” of claim 1, which requires at least five components. “the slurry” in claim 2 could be changed to some form of “a slurry precursor,” so long as there is proper antecedent basis/support in the Specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al (US 2024/0313223).
Regarding claim 1, Yushin teaches foamed electrodes made from a slurry comprising active material particles (considered to constitute the claimed electrode component), a polymerizable binder precursor as well as optionally other binder components (considered to constitute the claimed binding agent), conductive or other functional additives, and foaming agents (par. 117). The use of a slurry implies the presence of a liquid solvent. While Yushin discusses “dry” electrode fabrication (solvent-free) with respect to the “foamed” electrodes, in the same sentence Yushin also describes electrode fabrication with a significantly reduced amount of solvents (par. 115). Again, Yushin clearly teaches the use of a liquid-containing slurry, as previously discussed. The overlapping teachings constitute prima facie obviousness.
Yushin teaches that the precursor electrode composition slurry may be applied via casting upon a current collector (pars. 180-181).
While Yushin only appears to explicitly refer to solvent removal, via evaporation, with regard to conventional batteries (par. 6), it is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art the final electrode material, after fabrication, is no longer in the form of a slurry containing a solvent/liquid component. Such a result is considered to necessitate and thus constitute the claimed solvent removal. In addition, the liquid component is considered to be constantly evaporating, which also constitutes a removal of solvent.
Yushin teaches that the foaming agents are evaporated or otherwise removed from the slurry during subsequent heat treatment, UV treatment, or other polymerization treatments (par. 117). Such treatments are not only considered to cure the binder and obtain the foamed battery electrode, but also would be expected to further remove solvent, if present.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, while Yushin does not expressly limit the order in which the ingredients are added to the slurry, the election of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 IV.C.).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Yushin teaches that various binder materials may be utilized, including polyimides (par. 138).
Regarding claim 6, Yushin teaches evaporative drying as slurry removal technique for conventional batteries (par. 6), and as such use of drying to remove the solvent from the slurry of Yushin would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the claimed invention. Yushin also teaches subsequent heat treatments, as discussed above, which would further remove solvent if still present.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Yushin teaches water and conventional organic solvents as conventional slurry solvent materials (par. 87).
Regarding claim 9, Yushin teaches that the electrode may be either an anode or cathode (par. 28).
Regarding claim 11, Yushin teaches that suitable cathodes to be used may include nickel, manganese, and/or cobalt (par. 78).
Regarding claim 12, Yushin teaches conductive carbon black as a suitable conductive additive (par. 120).
Regarding claim 13, Yushin teaches that the battery anode may comprise a Cu-based or Cu-containing current collector (par. 71), and further teaches that a preferred cathode current collector material is aluminum or aluminum alloy or an aluminum-comprising composite (par. 80).
Regarding claim 14, Yushin generally teaches the use of foaming agents, but does expressly limit such agents to the claimed thermoplastic microspheres which contain a gas. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the claimed invention to utilize conventional foaming agents/pore forming agents, including thermoplastic microspheres that contain a gas, in order to form the electrode pores of Yushin.
Regarding claim 15, Yushin clearly teaches that the foaming agents may be modified or evaporated or otherwise removed from the slurry during subsequent heat treatment, UV treatment, or other polymerization treatments (par. 117). The removal of the foaming agent during a heat treatment, for example, implies that the melt temperature of the foaming agent is less than the thermal treatment, as the purpose is removal of the foaming agent while retaining the electrode material itself.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Yushin teaches throughout the use of graphites as active electrode materials (e.g., pars. 12 and 73).
Regarding claim 18, Yushin teaches infiltration of electrolyte int o the battery or into the respective electrodes of the battery (par. 87), which includes the cathode. Electrolytes are functionally conductors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Yushin is considered to represent the closest related prior art to the claimed invention. While Yushin teaches that the electrodes may by infiltrated with electrolyte, which is considered to be a conductor, Yushin does not teach or suggest the use of antiperovskite, either to be used to infiltrate the electrode(s) or otherwise. According to the instant Specification, selection of different halide groups of the antiperovskite solid electrolytes allow distinct crystallization morphologies within the foamed cathode to be obtained, which wield significant influence over ion transport and, thus, the overall performance of the battery (par. 46, PGPUB).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN W SLIFKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/Colin W. Slifka/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights