DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 7/21/2026, the following has occurred: Claim 1 has been amended; Claims 6 and 19 are cancelled; and new Claims 21-22 have been added.
Claims 1-5, 7-18, and 20-22 are pending. Claims 1-5, 7-18, and 20 are examined in this office action. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the "Amendment" and "Remarks" filed on 7/21/2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 21 and 22 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claim 21 does not require the claimed ferroelectric ceramic material of claim 1 and Claim 22 does not have the same ferroelectric ceramic material as claim 1.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21 and 22 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, 4-5, 9, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107026257 A (“CN’257”) in view of CN 114335709 A (“CN’709”) and Kashid et al., “Pyroelectric Properties of Gd-Doped KVO₃ and LiVO₃” (“Kashid”).
As to Claim 1:
CN’257 discloses a modified positive electrode material comprising an inner core and a cladding layer. In particular, CN’257 discloses an all-solid-state lithium-ion-battery positive-electrode composite material having a core-shell structure, wherein the core comprises a positive-electrode active material and the shell comprises a polymer electrolyte and a sulfide solid electrolyte. CN’257 further discloses coating the surface of the positive-electrode active material with the polymer-electrolyte-containing shell (CN’257, Pgs. 1–3).
CN’257 discloses that the inner core is a positive electrode material because the core is formed from a positive-electrode active material, including LiCoO₂, LiMn₂O₄, LiFePO₄, LiMnPO₄, LiNiPO₄, LiCoPO₄, LiNi₀.₅Mn₁.₅O₄, or Li₃V₃(PO₄)₃ (CN’257, Pgs. 3–4).
CN’257 further discloses that the cladding layer includes a polymer electrolyte body. Specifically, the shell contains a polymer electrolyte selected from a polyoxyethylene-based polymer electrolyte, polyvinylidene-fluoride-based polymer electrolyte, polyacrylonitrile-based polymer electrolyte, polymethyl-methacrylate-based polymer electrolyte, or polyvinyl-based polymer electrolyte. CN’257 explains that the polymer electrolyte is a complex of a polymer and a lithium salt and possesses lithium-ion conductivity, adhesion, and elasticity (CN’257, Pgs. 2–3).
CN’257 also discloses mixing the polymer electrolyte with a sulfide solid electrolyte to form an emulsion, adding the positive-electrode active material to the emulsion, and drying the resulting mixture to obtain the core-shell positive-electrode composite material. Thus, CN’257 teaches an inorganic solid-electrolyte material distributed in a polymer-electrolyte-containing shell surrounding a positive-electrode-material core (CN’257, Pgs. 2–5).
However, CN’257 does not disclose that the inorganic material distributed in the polymer electrolyte body is a ferroelectric ceramic material having the general formula XYO₃, wherein X is one or more selected from Li⁺, Na⁺, K⁺, Mg²⁺, Ca²⁺, Sr²⁺, Pb²⁺, Ba²⁺, and La²⁺, and Y is one or more selected from Zr⁴⁺ and V⁵⁺. Instead, CN’257 employs a sulfide solid electrolyte in combination with the polymer electrolyte (CN’257, Pgs. 2–5).
CN’709 discloses incorporating a ferroelectric inorganic filler into a polymer electrolyte body. Specifically, CN’709 teaches extending ferroelectric material into a polymer-electrolyte solution and drying the solution to obtain a polymer-based solid electrolyte in which the ferroelectric material is introduced into the polymer body (CN’709, Pgs. 1–4). CN’709 explains that the ferroelectric filler reduces crystallinity of the polymer body, promotes movement of the polymer segments, improves contact between the filler and polymer, and provides additional lithium-ion-transport paths. CN’709 further explains that the high dielectric constant of the ferroelectric material promotes lithium-salt dissociation and solvation, produces additional free lithium ions, increases the number of charge carriers, and enhances ionic conduction (CN’709, Pgs. 1, 3–4). CN’709 identifies lead zirconate titanate and barium titanate as exemplary ferroelectric ceramic materials incorporated into the polymer electrolyte (CN’709, Pgs. 6, 10–11).
Kashid discloses lithium vanadate, LiVO₃, as ferroelectric ceramic materials. Kashid expressly describes LiVO₃ as ferroelectric materials, prepares the materials from stoichiometric mixtures containing Li⁺ and vanadium oxide, forms the resulting ceramic materials into pellets, and measures their ferroelectric Curie transitions and pyroelectric properties (Kashid, Pgs. 57–59). KVO₃ and LiVO₃ are species of the claimed general formula XYO₃, respectively providing Li⁺ as X and V⁵⁺ as Y (Kashid, Pgs. 57–59).
CN’257 and CN’709 are analogous art because both concern lithium batteries containing polymer and inorganic solid-electrolyte materials and both address improvement of lithium-ion conduction and electrode/electrolyte interfacial performance (CN’257, Pgs. 1–3); CN’709 (Pgs. 1–4). Kashid is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by CN’709 because Kashid identifies and characterizes particular ferroelectric ceramic materials, KVO₃ and LiVO₃, suitable for consideration under CN’709’s express teaching of incorporating a ferroelectric ceramic filler into a polymer body (Kashid, Pgs. 57–59; CN’709, Pgs. 1–4).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the polymer-electrolyte-containing cladding layer of CN’257 by incorporating a ferroelectric ceramic filler into the polymer electrolyte body, as taught by CN’709, and to select LiVO₃ as the ferroelectric ceramic material, as taught by Kashid.
As to Claim 2:
CN’257, in view of CN’709 and Kashid, discloses the modified positive electrode material according to claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
CN’257 further discloses that a mass of the cladding layer is 0.5 wt%-5 wt% of a mass of the modified positive electrode material. Specifically, CN’257 discloses a core-shell positive-electrode composite material in which the core comprises a positive-electrode active material and the shell comprises a polymer electrolyte and a sulfide solid electrolyte (CN’257, Pgs. 2-3). CN’257 further discloses that the mass ratio of the total amount of the polymer electrolyte and sulfide solid electrolyte, which constitute the shell, to the positive-electrode active material, which constitutes the core, may be 5:95 (CN’257, Pg. 4).
The expressly disclosed 5 wt% value falls within the claimed range of 0.5 wt%-5 wt%. CN’257 further explains that the disclosed proportions of the polymer electrolyte and sulfide solid electrolyte relative to the positive-electrode active material effectively alleviate the electrode/electrolyte interface problem while maintaining the charge-and-discharge efficiency of the positive electrode (CN’257, Pg. 4).
As to Claim 4:
CN’257, in view of CN’709 and Kashid, discloses the modified positive electrode material according to claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
CN’257 further discloses that the polymer electrolyte body is one or more selected from the group consisting of polyethylene oxide, polyethylene glycol, polymethyl methacrylate, polyacrylonitrile, polyvinylidene fluoride, vinylidene fluoride-trifluoroethylene copolymer, vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer, and vinylidene fluoride-chlorotrifluoroethylene copolymer. Specifically, CN’257 discloses that the polymer electrolyte in the cladding layer may be selected from a polyoxyethylene polymer electrolyte, a polyvinylidene-fluoride-based polymer electrolyte, a polyacrylonitrile-based polymer electrolyte, and a polymethyl-methacrylate-based polymer electrolyte (CN’257, Pg. 3). CN’257’s claims similarly identify polyoxyethylene, polyvinylidene-fluoride-based, polyacrylonitrile-based, and polymethyl-methacrylate-based polymer electrolytes as alternatives for the polymer electrolyte of the core-shell composite material (CN’257, Pg. 12). Thus, CN’257 expressly discloses at least polymethyl methacrylate, polyacrylonitrile, and polyvinylidene fluoride alternatives falling within claim 4’s recited Markush group.
As to Claim 5:
CN’257, in view of CN’709 and Kashid, discloses the modified positive electrode material according to claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
In particular, CN’257 discloses a modified positive-electrode material having a core-shell structure, wherein the inner core comprises a positive-electrode active material and the cladding or shell layer comprises a polymer electrolyte and a sulfide solid electrolyte. CN’257 explains that the polymer-electrolyte-containing shell improves the interface between the positive-electrode active material and the inorganic solid electrolyte, provides lithium-ion conductivity and adhesion, and accommodates volume changes of the positive-electrode active material during charging and discharging (CN’257, Pgs. 2-4).
CN’257 further identifies polyoxyethylene-based polymer electrolytes among the preferred polymer electrolytes for the shell layer (CN’257, Pg. 4). In Example 1, CN’257 employs polyoxyethylene having a reported molecular weight of 600,000 to prepare a polymer electrolyte containing a lithium salt, combines that polymer electrolyte with a sulfide solid electrolyte to form an emulsion, and applies the emulsion to LiNi₀.₅Mn₁.₅O₄ positive-electrode active material (CN’257, Pg. 8). Example 2 similarly employs PEO having a reported molecular weight of 600,000 to prepare the polymer-electrolyte-containing coating for the positive-electrode material (CN’257, Pg. 9). The reported molecular-weight value of 600,000 falls numerically within claim 5’s range of 1,500 to 800,000.
As to Claim 9:
CN’257, in view of CN’709 and Kashid, discloses the modified positive electrode material according to claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
CN’257 further discloses that the positive electrode material is any one or more selected from the group consisting of layered positive electrode materials, lithium-rich manganese-based positive electrode materials, spinel lithium manganese nickel oxide positive electrode materials, and conversion positive electrode materials. In particular, CN’257 expressly identifies LiNi₀.₅Mn₁.₅O₄ as a preferred positive-electrode active material (CN’257, Pg. 4). LiNi₀.₅Mn₁.₅O₄ is a spinel lithium manganese nickel oxide positive-electrode material falling within the recited Markush group. CN’257 further describes Examples 1 and 2 in which 750.0 g of LiNi₀.₅Mn₁.₅O₄ is combined with an emulsion containing a polymer electrolyte and a sulfide solid electrolyte to produce a positive-electrode material coated with the composite electrolyte (CN’257, Pgs. 8-9). Accordingly, CN’257 expressly employs a spinel lithium manganese nickel oxide as the positive-electrode-material core of the core-shell composite material.
CN’257 additionally identifies LiAl₀.₀₅Co₀.₁₅Ni₀.₈₀O₂ and LiCoO₂ among its preferred positive-electrode active materials and identifies V₂O₅, MnO₂, TiS₂, and FeS₂ as alternative positive-electrode active materials (CN’257, Pg. 4). Examples 8-10 specifically employ LiCoO₂, V₂O₅, and TiS₂, respectively, as the positive-electrode active material in place of LiNi₀.₅Mn₁.₅O₄ (CN’257, Pgs. 10-11). Nevertheless, because claim 9 requires “any one or more” of the recited alternatives, CN’257’s express use of LiNi₀.₅Mn₁.₅O₄ is sufficient to satisfy the claim 9 limitation.
As to Claim 16:
CN’257, in view of CN’709 and Kashid, discloses the modified positive electrode material according to claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
CN’257 further discloses a positive electrode plate comprising a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode film layer disposed on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector. Specifically, CN’257 discloses preparing a positive electrode slurry containing its positive-electrode composite material and coating the slurry on a surface of a positive current collector, followed by drying to obtain the positive electrode. CN’257 identifies aluminum foil, carbon paper, carbon-nanotube paper, graphene paper, and stainless-steel foil as suitable positive electrode current collectors (CN’257, Pg. 6).
In Example 1, CN’257 mixes a polymer electrolyte and sulfide solid electrolyte to form an emulsion; adds LiNi₀.₅Mn₁.₅O₄ positive electrode active material and carbon nanotubes to form a stable, homogeneous positive electrode slurry; coats the slurry on an aluminum-foil current collector; dries the coating at 80°C; and roller-presses the resulting coating to obtain positive electrode plate A1. The dried and roller-pressed coating on the aluminum-foil current collector constitutes the claimed positive electrode film layer (CN’257, Pg. 8).
CN’257 further discloses that the positive electrode film layer comprises a positive electrode active material that includes the modified positive electrode material. In Example 2, CN’257 mixes LiNi₀.₅Mn₁.₅O₄ with an emulsion containing the polymer electrolyte and sulfide solid electrolyte and dries the mixture to obtain positive electrode active material B. CN’257 then disperses positive electrode active material B and carbon nanotubes in acetonitrile to form a positive electrode slurry, coats the slurry on an aluminum-foil current collector, dries the coating at 80°C, and roller-presses the coating to obtain positive electrode plate A2 (CN’257, Pg. 9). Thus, CN’257 expressly discloses a positive electrode plate having an aluminum-foil current collector and a positive electrode film layer containing the core-shell modified positive electrode material.
As to Claim 17:
CN’257, in view of CN’709 and Kashid, discloses the modified positive electrode material according to claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
CN’257 further discloses a secondary battery comprising the modified positive electrode material. Specifically, CN’257 discloses an all-solid-state lithium-ion battery comprising a battery case and a battery cell. The battery cell includes a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an inorganic solid-electrolyte layer disposed between the positive and negative electrodes, wherein the positive electrode contains CN’257’s core-shell positive-electrode composite material (CN’257, Pgs. 3, 6-8).
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107026257 A (“CN’257”) in view of CN 114335709 A (“CN’709”) and Kashid et al., “Pyroelectric Properties of Gd-Doped KVO₃ and LiVO₃” (“Kashid”), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 2021/0408539 A1 (“US’539”).
As to Claim 3:
CN’257, in view of CN’709 and Kashid, discloses the modified positive electrode material according to claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
In particular, CN’257 discloses a core-shell positive-electrode composite material comprising a positive-electrode-material inner core and a cladding layer containing a polymer electrolyte and an inorganic solid electrolyte (CN’257, Pgs. 2-4). CN’709 discloses incorporating a ferroelectric ceramic material into a polymer electrolyte body and explains that the ferroelectric material reduces polymer crystallinity, promotes polymer-segment movement, improves filler-polymer contact, provides additional lithium-ion-transport paths, promotes lithium-salt dissociation, increases the number of free lithium ions, and enhances ionic conduction (CN’709, Pgs. 1, 3-4, 8-9). Kashid discloses KVO₃ and LiVO₃ as ferroelectric ceramic materials satisfying the XYO₃ formula recited in claim 1, wherein X is K⁺ or Li⁺ and Y is V⁵⁺ (Kashid, Pgs. 57-59).
However, CN’257 does not expressly disclose that the ionic diffusion coefficient of its modified positive electrode material. Although CN’257 explains that its polymer-electrolyte-containing cladding alleviates the electrode/electrolyte interface problem while maintaining positive-electrode charge-and-discharge efficiency, CN’257 does not quantify the Li-ion diffusion coefficient of the resulting core-shell material (CN’257, Pgs. 2-4).
US’539 discloses a modified positive electrode material comprising an NMC positive-electrode-material core coated with an amorphous Li₀.₃₅La₀.₅Sr₀.₀₅TiO₃ (“LLSTO”) solid-electrolyte layer. US’539 explains that the LLSTO coating stabilizes the interface between the NMC positive-electrode material and the sulfide solid electrolyte and provides high ionic conductivity and enhanced reaction kinetics (US’539, [0004], [0034], [0036]-[0037]).
US’539 further discloses investigating the solid-phase Li-ion diffusion kinetics of the coated positive electrode material using the galvanostatic intermittent titration technique. US’539 reports that the LLSTO-coated NMC positive electrode material exhibits a Li-ion diffusion coefficient in the range of about 0.1 × 10⁻¹⁰ to 10 × 10⁻¹⁰ cm²/s (i.e., about 1 × 10⁻¹¹ to 1 × 10⁻⁹ cm²/s). This disclosed range encompasses the interpreted claim 3 range of 1 × 10⁻¹¹ to 1 × 10⁻¹⁰ cm²/s (US’539, [0042]).
US’539 attributes the enhanced Li-ion diffusion coefficient to the high ionic conductivity of the coating and reports that the coated material provides a diffusion coefficient approximately five times greater than that of bare NMC. US’539 also explains that coating thickness affects positive-electrode performance and that a moderate coating thickness of approximately 15-20 nm provides the best performance among the tested coating conditions (US’539, [0041]-[0042]). Thus, US’539 expressly identifies both the claimed numerical diffusion-coefficient range and a coating parameter affecting the performance of the modified positive electrode material.
CN’257, CN’709, and US’539 are analogous art because each concerns coated positive-electrode materials for lithium batteries and addresses ion transport, electrode/electrolyte interfacial performance, and electrochemical performance through an inorganic-electrolyte-containing coating or cladding layer (CN’257, Pgs. 1-4; CN’709, Pgs. 1-4; US’539, [0003]-[0004], [0033]-[0034]). Kashid is reasonably pertinent because it identifies and characterizes specific ferroelectric ceramic materials suitable for selecting a ferroelectric XYO₃ compound in implementing CN’709’s ferroelectric-ceramic/polymer-electrolyte teaching (CN’709, Pgs. 1, 3-4; Kashid, Pgs. 57-59).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the polymer-electrolyte-containing cladding layer of CN’257 by incorporating a ferroelectric ceramic material into the polymer electrolyte body, as taught by CN’709; selecting KVO₃ or LiVO₃ as the ferroelectric ceramic material, as taught by Kashid; and selecting the cladding composition and coating conditions so that the resulting modified positive electrode material exhibits a Li-ion diffusion coefficient within 10⁻¹¹ to 10⁻¹⁰ cm²/s (or 1 × 10⁻¹¹ to 1 × 10⁻¹⁰ cm²/s), as suggested by US’539.
As to Claim 8:
CN’257, in view of CN’709 and Kashid, discloses the modified positive electrode material according to claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
In particular, CN’257 discloses a modified positive-electrode material having a core-shell structure, wherein the inner core comprises a positive-electrode active material and the cladding or shell layer comprises a polymer electrolyte and a sulfide solid electrolyte (CN’257, Pgs. 2-4). CN’257 explains that coating the positive-electrode active material with the polymer-electrolyte-containing shell improves the interface between the positive-electrode material and the inorganic solid electrolyte, provides lithium-ion conductivity and adhesion, and accommodates volume changes of the positive-electrode active material during charging and discharging (CN’257, Pgs. 2-4).
However, CN’257 does not expressly disclose that the thickness of its cladding layer is 2 nm to 40 nm.
US’539 discloses a positive-electrode active material having a nanometer-scale ion-conductive cladding layer with a thickness falling entirely within the range recited in claim 8. Specifically, US’539 discloses an NMC positive-electrode material coated with a thin amorphous Li₀.₃₅La₀.₅Sr₀.₀₅TiO₃ (“LLSTO”) solid-electrolyte layer. The LLSTO layer is formed directly on the NMC surface to stabilize the interface between the NMC positive-electrode material and the sulfide solid electrolyte while providing high ionic conductivity (US’539, [0033]-[0036]).
US’539 further discloses preparing NMC particles having a homogeneous, conformal LLSTO coating. Transmission-electron-microscopy examination of the coated particles establishes that the LLSTO coating has a thickness of approximately 15–20 nm (US’539, [0037]). The disclosed 15–20 nm thickness falls entirely within claim 8’s range of 2–40 nm.
US’539 expressly identifies coating thickness as a parameter that greatly affects positive-electrode performance. US’539 explains that a thinner coating provides only an inconspicuous improvement relative to uncoated NMC, whereas an excessively thick coating produces an additional oxidation plateau attributable to crystallized LLSTO. US’539 concludes that a moderate coating thickness of approximately 15–20 nm provides the best tested performance (US’539, [0041]). US’539 also teaches that the coating thickness can be adjusted by controlling the ratio of NMC positive-electrode material to LLSTO precursor (US’539, [0037], [0106]-[0107]). Thus, US’539 expressly teaches both a coating thickness within the claimed range and a method of controlling that thickness to obtain improved performance.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the polymer-electrolyte-containing cladding layer of CN’257 by incorporating a ferroelectric ceramic material into the polymer electrolyte body, as taught by CN’709; selecting KVO₃ or LiVO₃ as the ferroelectric ceramic material, as taught by Kashid; and forming the resulting cladding layer with a thickness of approximately 15–20 nm, as taught by US’539.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107026257 A (“CN’257”) in view of CN 114335709 A (“CN’709”) and Kashid et al., “Pyroelectric Properties of Gd-Doped KVO₃ and LiVO₃” (“Kashid”), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 2016/0240847 A1 (“US’847”).
As to Claim 7:
CN’257, in view of CN’709 and Kashid, discloses the modified positive electrode material according to claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
In particular, CN’257 discloses a modified positive-electrode material having a core-shell structure, wherein the inner core comprises a positive-electrode active material and the cladding layer comprises a polymer electrolyte and a sulfide solid electrolyte. CN’257 explains that the polymer-electrolyte-containing cladding layer improves the interface between the positive-electrode material and the inorganic solid electrolyte, provides lithium-ion conductivity and adhesion, and accommodates volume changes during charging and discharging (CN’257, Pgs. 2-4).
However, CN’257 does not disclose that a Dv₅₀ particle size of the ferroelectric ceramic material is 5 nm to 100 nm.
US’847 discloses the Dv₅₀ particle-size limitation of claim 7. US’847 discloses ferroelectric particles used with electrode-active-material particles in a nonaqueous-electrolyte secondary battery. The ferroelectric particles reduce reaction resistance between lithium ions and the electrode-active-material particles and thereby improve high-rate characteristics (US’847, [0008]-[0010]).
US’847 identifies barium titanate, lithium niobate, potassium niobate, cadmium niobate, and titanium oxide particles as exemplary ferroelectric particles and states that one or more kinds may be used (US’847, [0038]-[0039]).
US’847 expressly defines “D50” as the particle size corresponding to a cumulative value of 50% in a volume particle-size distribution measured using a laser-diffraction-scattering method. Thus, US’847’s D50 is the claimed volume-median particle size, Dv₅₀. US’847 discloses that the D50 of the ferroelectric particles may be 100 nm to 1.0 μm and explains that the ferroelectric-particle D50 is preferably smaller than the D50 of the electrode-active-material particles to effectively attach the ferroelectric particles to the active-material particles (US’847, [0040]). The expressly disclosed Dv₅₀ value of 100 nm falls within claim 7’s range of 5 nm to 100 nm.
CN’257, CN’709, and US’847 are analogous art because each concerns electrode materials for lithium secondary batteries and addresses improvement of ionic conduction, electrode-interface behavior, or high-rate electrochemical performance through electrolyte or ferroelectric materials associated with electrode-active-material particles (CN’257, Pgs. 1-4; CN’709, Pgs. 1-4; US’847, [0003], [0007]-[0010]).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify CN’257’s polymer-electrolyte-containing cladding layer by incorporating a ferroelectric ceramic material into the polymer electrolyte body, as taught by CN’709; selecting KVO₃ or LiVO₃ as the ferroelectric ceramic material, as taught by Kashid; and selecting a Dv₅₀ particle size of 100 nm for the ferroelectric ceramic material, as taught by US’847.
The resulting modified positive-electrode material would comprise a positive-electrode-material inner core and a cladding layer containing a polymer electrolyte body with KVO₃ or LiVO₃ ferroelectric ceramic particles dispersed therein, wherein the ferroelectric ceramic particles have a Dv₅₀ of 100 nm. Because 100 nm is included within the recited range of 5 nm to 100 nm, the resulting material would satisfy claim 7.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107026257 A (“CN’257”) in view of CN 114335709 A (“CN’709”) and Kashid et al., “Pyroelectric Properties of Gd-Doped KVO₃ and LiVO₃” (“Kashid”), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of CN 111416106 A (“CN’106”).
As to Claim 10:
CN’257, in view of CN’709 and Kashid, discloses the modified positive electrode material according to claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
CN’257 further discloses a preparation method of a modified positive-electrode material. CN’257 prepares a polymer electrolyte by combining a polymer and a lithium salt in an organic solvent; mixes the resulting polymer electrolyte with a sulfide solid electrolyte to form an emulsion; and adds a positive-electrode active material to the emulsion and dries the mixture to obtain a core-shell positive-electrode composite material having a positive-electrode-material core and a shell containing the polymer electrolyte and sulfide solid electrolyte (CN’257, Pgs. 2-5).
More particularly, CN’257 dissolves PEO in anhydrous acetonitrile, adds a lithium salt, and magnetically stirs the mixture to prepare a polymer-electrolyte solution. CN’257 then adds a glassy sulfide solid electrolyte to the polymer-electrolyte solution and stirs the mixture to obtain an emulsion. Positive-electrode active material LiNi₀.₅Mn₁.₅O₄ is added to the emulsion, magnetically stirred, and dried to obtain modified positive-electrode active material B having the polymer-electrolyte-containing cladding layer (CN’257, Pgs. 8-9). Thus, CN’257 discloses preparing a solution of a polymer electrolyte and subsequently mixing and drying that polymer-electrolyte-containing solution with a positive-electrode material to obtain a modified positive-electrode material.
However, CN’257 does not disclose the intervening step of first mixing a ferroelectric ceramic material with the positive-electrode material to obtain a positive-electrode material cladded with the ferroelectric ceramic material and then mixing and drying that previously cladded positive-electrode material with the polymer-electrolyte solution. CN’257 instead combines its sulfide solid electrolyte with the polymer-electrolyte solution before adding the uncoated positive-electrode active material (CN’257, Pgs. 3-5, 8-9).
CN’709 discloses incorporating a ferroelectric ceramic material into a polymer electrolyte body. CN’709 teaches forming a ferroelectric-ceramic/polymer composite electrolyte and explains that the ferroelectric material reduces polymer crystallinity, promotes movement of polymer segments, improves contact between the ferroelectric material and the polymer, provides additional lithium-ion-transport paths, promotes lithium-salt dissociation, increases the concentration of free lithium ions, and improves ionic conductivity (CN’709, Pgs. 1, 3-4, 8-9).
Kashid discloses KVO₃ and LiVO₃ as ferroelectric ceramic materials and evaluates their pyroelectric properties and ferroelectric Curie transitions (Kashid, Pgs. 57-59). KVO₃ satisfies the XYO₃ formula recited in claim 1 because K⁺ constitutes X and V⁵⁺ constitutes Y (Kashid, Pgs. 57-59).
CN’106 discloses preparing a potassium-metavanadate-coated nickel-cobalt-manganese ternary positive-electrode material. CN’106 first prepares a nickel-cobalt-manganese ternary compound precursor, washes and disperses the precursor to obtain slurry A, and then mixes a lithium source and potassium metavanadate—KVO₃—into slurry A. The resulting mixture is homogenized and spray-dried to obtain dry material B, which is calcined to obtain a KVO₃ dispersion-coated nickel-cobalt-manganese ternary positive-electrode material (CN’106, Pgs. 2-3).
In Example 1, CN’106 adds lithium hydroxide and KVO₃ to a slurry containing a Ni₀.₆₅Co₀.₁₅Mn₀.₂₀(OH)₂ precursor, homogenizes the mixture, and spray-dries the mixture to obtain dry material B. CN’106 then calcines dry material B at 800°C to obtain KVO₃ dispersion-coated LiNi₀.₆₅Co₀.₁₅Mn₀.₂₀O₂ positive-electrode material designated Coating-1 (CN’106, Pg. 4). Examples 2 and 3 similarly mix KVO₃ with respective precursor slurries, spray-dry the mixtures, and calcine the dried materials to obtain KVO₃ dispersion-coated NCM positive-electrode materials designated Coating-2 and Coating-3 (CN’106, Pgs. 4-5).
CN’106 confirms by scanning-electron-microscopy testing that the resulting NCM materials have observable potassium-metavanadate dispersion coatings. CN’106 further reports that the KVO₃-coated materials provide improved discharge capacity and capacity retention relative to uncoated NCM (CN’106, Pg. 6).
CN’106 explains that coating KVO₃ on the surface of the ternary positive-electrode material improves surface-structure stability and ion mobility, thereby improving electrochemical performance, lithium-ion diffusion, rate performance, and cycle performance (CN’106, Pgs. 1-3). CN’106 also explains that its homogenization and spray-drying process provides highly dispersed precursor particles, prevents segregation, improves product uniformity and purity, and simplifies production (CN’106, Pg. 3).
CN’257, CN’709, and CN’106 are analogous art because each concerns lithium-battery positive-electrode materials and addresses improving ionic conduction, electrode/electrolyte interfacial behavior, structural stability, or electrochemical performance through an electrolyte-containing or inorganic-material-containing coating (CN’257, Pgs. 1-4; CN’709, Pgs. 1-4; CN’106, Pgs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify CN’257’s preparation method by using the KVO₃ dispersion-coated NCM positive-electrode material produced according to CN’106 as the positive-electrode active material subsequently added to CN’257’s polymer-electrolyte-containing solution and dried, with KVO₃ being identified as an XYO₃ ferroelectric ceramic by Kashid.
More particularly, it would have been obvious to prepare CN’257’s polymer-electrolyte solution; prepare a KVO₃-coated positive-electrode material by mixing KVO₃ with the NCM-forming material, homogenizing and drying the mixture, and calcining it to obtain KVO₃-coated NCM, as taught by CN’106; and then mix and dry the KVO₃-coated NCM with CN’257’s polymer-electrolyte-containing solution to obtain the modified positive-electrode material.
The resulting method would comprise preparing a polymer-electrolyte solution; preparing a KVO₃-cladded positive-electrode material using CN’106’s mixing, drying, and calcining process; and mixing and drying the polymer-electrolyte solution with the KVO₃-cladded positive-electrode material to obtain the modified positive-electrode material. The resulting modified positive-electrode material would have a positive-electrode-material inner core and a cladding layer containing a polymer electrolyte body with KVO₃ ferroelectric ceramic material dispersed therein, thereby satisfying claim 10.
As to Claim 11:
CN’257, in view of CN’709, Kashid, and CN’106, discloses the preparation method according to claim 10, as set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above.
CN’257 further discloses amounts of polymer electrolyte and positive-electrode material that satisfy the numerical relationship recited in claim 11. In Example 2, CN’257 dissolves 7.0 g of PEO in anhydrous acetonitrile and adds 5.0 g of lithium salt to form a polymer electrolyte. CN’257 then adds 228.0 g of sulfide solid electrolyte to obtain an emulsion, mixes the emulsion with 750.0 g of LiNi₀.₅Mn₁.₅O₄ positive-electrode material, and dries the mixture to obtain a modified positive-electrode active material (CN’257, Pg. 9). The mass W2 of the polymer electrolyte, comprising 7.0 g of PEO and 5.0 g of lithium salt, is therefore 12.0 g.
However, CN’257 does not disclose the formula W2/W1 is between 0.5wt% and 5wt%.
CN’106 discloses preparing a KVO₃ dispersion-coated nickel-cobalt-manganese positive-electrode material. CN’106 mixes a lithium source and KVO₃ with a nickel-cobalt-manganese precursor slurry, homogenizes and spray-dries the mixture, and calcines the dried material to obtain KVO₃-coated NCM positive-electrode material (CN’106, Pgs. 2-3).
CN’106 specifically discloses employing a precursor:lithium₃ molar ratio of 1:1.06, wherein n is 0.001 to 0.01 (CN’106, Pg. 3). In Examples 1-3, CN’106 employs respective KVO₃ molar amounts of 0.01, 0.005, and 0.003 relative to the NCM precursor and obtains KVO₃ dispersion-coated NCM positive-electrode materials designated Coating-1, Coating-2, and Coating-3 (CN’106, Pgs. 4-5). CN’106 reports that the KVO₃ coating improves surface-structure stability, ion mobility, lithium-ion diffusion, rate performance, and cycle performance (CN’106, Pgs. 2-3, 6).
When 750.0 g of CN’106’s KVO₃-coated NCM material is substituted for the 750.0 g of uncoated positive-electrode material used in CN’257’s Example 2, the 750.0 g coated material comprises both the positive-electrode material and the ferroelectric ceramic material. CN’257’s 12.0 g polymer electrolyte constitutes W2, while W1 is the combined mass of the polymer electrolyte, positive-electrode material, and ferroelectric ceramic material:
W1 = 12.0 g + 750.0 g = 762.0 g.
Accordingly:
W2/W1 × 100% = 12.0 g/762.0 g × 100% = approximately 1.57 wt%.
The resulting value of approximately 1.57 wt% falls within claim 11’s recited range of 0.5 wt% to 5 wt%. CN’257’s additional sulfide solid electrolyte is not included in this calculation because claim 11 expressly defines W1 as the mass sum of the polymer electrolyte, positive-electrode material, and ferroelectric ceramic material, rather than the total mass of every component present in the resulting composition.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify CN’257’s preparation method by using 750.0 g of the KVO₃ dispersion-coated NCM positive-electrode material produced according to CN’106 in place of CN’257’s 750.0 g uncoated positive-electrode material, while retaining CN’257’s 12.0 g polymer electrolyte.
The resulting method would employ 12.0 g of polymer electrolyte and 750.0 g of KVO₃-coated positive-electrode material. The resulting W2/W1 ratio would be approximately 1.57 wt%, which falls within the recited range of 0.5 wt% to 5 wt%, thereby satisfying claim 11.
As to Claim 12:
CN’257, in view of CN’709, Kashid, and CN’106, discloses the preparation method according to claim 10, as set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above.
CN’257 discloses preparing a polymer electrolyte by mixing a polymer and lithium salt in an organic solvent; mixing the resulting polymer electrolyte with an inorganic sulfide solid electrolyte to obtain an emulsion; adding a positive-electrode active material to the emulsion; and drying the mixture to obtain a core-shell positive-electrode composite material having a positive-electrode-material core and a cladding layer containing the polymer electrolyte and inorganic solid electrolyte (CN’257, Pgs. 4-5).
CN’257 further discloses controlling the relative masses of the polymer electrolyte and inorganic solid-electrolyte component. CN’257 discloses that the mass ratio of the polymer electrolyte to the sulfide solid electrolyte may be 1:99 to 99:1 and, more particularly, that the mass ratio may be 9:1 to 99:1 when the polymer electrolyte constitutes the predominant component (CN’257, Pgs. 4-5).
However, CN’257 does not disclose that its inorganic solid-electrolyte component is a ferroelectric ceramic material. Consequently, CN’257 alone does not expressly disclose that, when W2 is the mass of the polymer electrolyte and W3 is the mass of a ferroelectric ceramic material, W3/(W2 + W3) is 2 wt% to 10 wt%.
CN’106 discloses forming a KVO₃-cladded positive-electrode material before application of a polymer-electrolyte-containing layer. CN’106 mixes a lithium source and KVO₃ with a nickel-cobalt-manganese precursor slurry, homogenizes and spray-dries the mixture, and calcines the dried material to obtain a KVO₃ dispersion-coated NCM positive-electrode material (CN’106, Pgs. 2-5).
CN’106 discloses a molar ratio of NCM precursor source₃ of 1:1.06, where n is 0.001 to 0.01, thereby teaching that the amount of KVO₃ applied to the positive-electrode material may be selected over a disclosed range (CN’106, Pg. 3). CN’106 further explains that the KVO₃ coating improves positive-electrode surface-structure stability, ion mobility, lithium-ion diffusion, rate performance, and cycle performance (CN’106, Pgs. 2-3, 6).
Upon employing KVO₃ as the inorganic ceramic component in accordance with CN’709, Kashid, and CN’106, CN’257’s disclosed polymer-electrolyte mass range provides proportions satisfying claim 12. At a polymer-electrolyte₃ mass ratio of 9:1:
W3/(W2 + W3) × 100% = 1/(9 + 1) × 100% = 10 wt%.
At a polymer-electrolyte₃ mass ratio of 49:1:
W3/(W2 + W3) × 100% = 1/(49 + 1) × 100% = 2 wt%.
The polymer-electrolyte₃ ratios from 9:1 through 49:1 are within CN’257’s expressly disclosed range of 9:1 to 99:1 and correspond to a KVO₃ content of 10 wt% through 2 wt% relative to the combined polymer-electrolyte and KVO₃ mass. Thus, the overlapping portion of CN’257’s disclosed range satisfies the claimed relationship W3/(W2 + W3) = 2 wt% to 10 wt%.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify CN’257’s preparation method, as modified by CN’709, Kashid, and CN’106, by preparing a KVO₃-cladded positive-electrode material according to CN’106; subsequently mixing and drying that cladded positive-electrode material with CN’257’s polymer-electrolyte solution; and selecting the respective amounts of polymer electrolyte and KVO₃ within CN’257’s disclosed polymer-electrolyte mass range so that W3/(W2 + W3) is 2 wt% to 10 wt%.
The resulting method would preserve the sequence required by claim 10 and would provide a ferroelectric ceramic content of 2 wt% to 10 wt% relative to the combined mass of the polymer electrolyte and ferroelectric ceramic material, thereby satisfying claim 12.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107026257 A (“CN’257”) in view of CN 114335709 A (“CN’709”), Kashid et al., “Pyroelectric Properties of Gd-Doped KVO₃ and LiVO₃” (“Kashid”), and CN 111416106 A (“CN’106”), as applied to claim 10, and further in view of CN 111525184 A (“CN’184”).
As to Claim 13:
CN’257, in view of CN’709, Kashid, and CN’106, discloses the preparation method according to claim 10, as set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above.
In particular, CN’257 discloses preparing a solution of a polymer electrolyte by dissolving a polymer and lithium salt in an organic solvent; mixing the resulting polymer-electrolyte solution with an inorganic solid electrolyte; adding a positive-electrode active material; and drying the mixture to obtain a core-shell positive-electrode composite material having a positive-electrode-material core and a polymer-electrolyte-containing cladding layer (CN’257, Pgs. 3-5, 8-9).
However, although CN’257 discloses dissolving its polymer electrolyte in an organic solvent, CN’257 does not identify the amount of solvent employed in preparing the polymer-electrolyte solution. CN’257 therefore does not expressly disclose that the mass content of the polymer electrolyte in the polymer-electrolyte solution is 0.5–10 wt%, as required by claim 13 (CN’257, Pgs. 3-5, 8-9).
CN’184 discloses preparing a polymer-electrolyte solution having a polymer-electrolyte concentration within the range recited in claim 13. CN’184 discloses a PVDF-HFP-based polymer solid electrolyte containing PVDF-HFP, LiTFSI, and an inorganic ceramic component dispersed in an NMP solvent (CN’184, Pgs. 2-5). CN’184 specifically teaches adding PVDF-HFP, LiTFSI, and LLZN nanofibers to NMP; heating and stirring the components to obtain a mixed polymer-electrolyte solution; casting the solution; and drying the solution to obtain a PVDF-HFP/LLZN/LiTFSI composite solid-electrolyte film (CN’184, Pgs. 3-4, 11-12).
CN’184 teaches that the mass of PVDF-HFP may be 10–15% of the mass of the NMP solvent (CN’184, Pgs. 4, 12). CN’184 therefore expressly teaches controlling the concentration of the polymer-electrolyte component relative to the solvent.
More particularly, Example 1 of CN’184 combines 1.0 g of PVDF-HFP, 0.7 g of LiTFSI, 0.12 g of LLZN nanofibers, and 10.0 g of NMP to obtain the mixed polymer-electrolyte solution (CN’184, Pg. 7). The total mass of this solution is:
1.0 g + 0.7 g + 0.12 g + 10.0 g = 11.82 g.
The mass content of the PVDF-HFP polymer-electrolyte component in the resulting solution is:
1.0 g ÷ 11.82 g × 100% = approximately 8.46 wt%.
The approximately 8.46 wt% polymer-electrolyte content disclosed by CN’184 falls within claim 13’s recited range of 0.5–10 wt%.
CN’184 further explains that controlling the PVDF-HFP concentration, inorganic-fiber content, and lithium-salt content provides a composite solid electrolyte having improved ionic conductivity, mechanical strength, toughness, electrochemical stability, and safety (CN’184, Pgs. 4-5, 9).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the preparation method of CN’257, as modified by CN’709, Kashid, and CN’106, by preparing the polymer-electrolyte solution using a polymer-electrolyte concentration of approximately 8.46 wt%, as expressly demonstrated by CN’184, and then mixing and drying that solution with CN’106’s KVO₃-cladded positive-electrode material. The reason for selecting the concentration demonstrated by CN’184 would have been to obtain CN’184’s disclosed improvements in ionic conductivity, mechanical strength, toughness, electrochemical stability, and safety while retaining a solution suitable for casting and drying (CN’184, Pgs. 4-5, 7, 9). The resulting method would preserve the sequence required by claim 10 and would employ a polymer-electrolyte mass content within the recited range of 0.5–10 wt%, thereby satisfying claim 13.
As to Claim 14:
CN’257, in view of CN’709, Kashid, and CN’106, discloses the preparation method according to claim 10, as set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above.
In particular, CN’257 discloses preparing a polymer electrolyte by combining a polymer and a lithium salt in an organic solvent; mixing the polymer electrolyte with an inorganic solid-electrolyte material; adding a positive-electrode active material; and drying the resulting mixture to obtain a positive-electrode composite material having a positive-electrode-material core and a polymer-electrolyte-containing cladding layer (CN’257, Pgs. 3-5, 8-9).
CN’257 expressly identifies polyoxyethylene, polyvinylidene fluoride, polyacrylonitrile, polymethyl methacrylate, and polyethylene as suitable polymers for forming the polymer electrolyte (CN’257, Pgs. 3, 5). CN’257’s Example 3 specifically employs polyvinylidene fluoride as the polymer component of the polymer electrolyte (CN’257, Pg. 9).
However, CN’257 does not disclose that the solvent used in its polymer-electrolyte solution is one or more selected from absolute ethanol, N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), and N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF). CN’257’s working examples instead employ anhydrous acetonitrile or acetone when preparing the polymer electrolyte (CN’257, Pgs. 8-9). Accordingly, CN’257 does not expressly disclose the solvent-selection limitation of claim 14.
CN’184 discloses preparing a polymer-electrolyte solution using NMP, one of the solvents expressly recited in claim 14. CN’184 discloses adding PVDF-HFP, LiTFSI, and LLZN ceramic nanofibers to a solvent, heating and stirring the components to obtain a mixed polymer-electrolyte solution, casting the solution onto a template, and drying the solution to obtain a PVDF-HFP/LLZN/LiTFSI composite solid-electrolyte film (CN’184, Pgs. 3-4).
CN’184 expressly identifies the solvent used in this polymer-electrolyte solution as NMP and teaches that the mass of PVDF-HFP may be 10-15% of the mass of the NMP solvent (CN’184, Pg. 4). Claim 7 of CN’184 likewise expressly recites that the solvent employed in the polymer-electrolyte preparation step is NMP (CN’184, Pg. 12).
More particularly, Example 1 of CN’184 combines 1.0 g of PVDF-HFP, 0.7 g of LiTFSI, 0.12 g of LLZN ceramic nanofibers, and 10.0 g of NMP; heats and magnetically stirs the components at 60°C for eight hours to obtain a mixed solution; casts the mixed solution onto a template; and dries the solution at 60°C to obtain a PVDF-HFP/LLZN/LiTFSI composite solid-electrolyte film (CN’184, Pg. 7). Thus, CN’184 expressly teaches NMP as a solvent for a polymer-electrolyte solution containing a polyvinylidene-fluoride-based polymer and lithium salt.
CN’184 further explains that controlling the PVDF-HFP concentration, ceramic-nanofiber content, and lithium-salt content provides a composite polymer electrolyte having improved ionic conductivity, mechanical strength, toughness, electrochemical stability, and safety (CN’184, Pgs. 4-5).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the preparation method of CN’257, as modified by CN’709, Kashid, and CN’106, by selecting NMP as the solvent used in preparing the polymer-electrolyte solution, particularly when employing CN’257’s expressly disclosed polyvinylidene-fluoride-based polymer electrolyte.
The reason for selecting NMP would have been that CN’184 expressly demonstrates that PVDF-HFP, lithium salt, and an inorganic ceramic material can be heated and stirred in NMP to form a mixed polymer-electrolyte solution that can subsequently be cast and dried into a composite solid electrolyte (CN’184, Pgs. 3-4, 7, 12). CN’184 further teaches that controlling the polymer, lithium-salt, and ceramic contents in that NMP-based solution provides improved ionic conductivity, mechanical strength, toughness, electrochemical stability, and safety (CN’184, Pgs. 4-5).
The resulting method would comprise preparing an NMP-based polymer-electrolyte solution; preparing a KVO₃-cladded positive-electrode material according to CN’106; and subsequently mixing and drying the NMP-based polymer-electrolyte solution with the KVO₃-cladded positive-electrode material, as required by claim 10. Because NMP is expressly included in the solvent group recited in claim 14, the resulting method would satisfy claim 14.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107026257 A (“CN’257”) in view of CN 114335709 A (“CN’709”), Kashid et al., “Pyroelectric Properties of Gd-Doped KVO₃ and LiVO₃” (“Kashid”), and CN 111416106 A (“CN’106”), as applied to claim 10, and further in view of US 2020/0350589 A1 (“US’589”).
As to Claim 15:
CN’257, in view of CN’709, Kashid, and CN’106, discloses the preparation method according to claim 10, as set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above.
In particular, CN’257 discloses preparing a polymer-electrolyte solution by dissolving a polymer and lithium salt in an organic solvent; mixing the polymer electrolyte with an inorganic solid-electrolyte material; adding a positive-electrode active material to the resulting mixture; and drying the mixture to obtain a core-shell positive-electrode composite material having a positive-electrode-material core and a cladding layer containing the polymer electrolyte and inorganic material (CN’257, Pgs. 3–5, 8–9).
However, although CN’257 discloses mixing and drying a polymer-electrolyte solution and positive-electrode material, CN’257 does not expressly disclose that this drying includes spray drying. CN’106 employs spray drying while initially preparing the KVO₃-cladded positive-electrode material, but CN’106 does not disclose that the subsequent drying of the polymer-electrolyte solution together with the already KVO₃-cladded positive-electrode material includes spray drying. Accordingly, the combination applied to claim 10 does not expressly disclose claim 15’s requirement that the final drying step includes spray drying.
US’589 discloses a method of producing polymer-encapsulated cathode active-material particulates by mixing a polymer or polymer precursor with a liquid medium or solvent to form a suspension, dispersing cathode active-material particles in the suspension to form a slurry, dispensing the slurry, and removing the solvent to form cathode active-material particles encapsulated by a polymer layer (US’589 ¶[0044]).
US’589 expressly teaches conducting a microencapsulation procedure, such as spray drying, after the cathode active-material particles have been dispersed in the polymer-containing suspension (US’589 ¶[0045]). US’589 further discloses that dispensing the slurry and removing the solvent may be performed by spray drying (US’589 ¶[0047]).
US’589 also teaches that the polymer-containing slurry may include lithium-ion-conducting additives, including lithium salts, and may contain a lithium-ion-conducting polymer selected from PEO, PAN, PMMA, PVDF, PVDF-HFP, and related polymers (US’589 ¶¶[0048]–[0049]). Thus, US’589’s spray-drying teaching expressly applies to solutions or suspensions containing polymer-electrolyte components of the same general type employed by CN’257.
More particularly, US’589 explains that spray drying may be used when active-material particles are suspended in a polymer or polymer-precursor solution. The liquid solution or suspension is atomized into droplets, and contact with hot gas vaporizes the solvent so that a thin polymer shell or matrix fully embraces the active-material particles (US’589 ¶[0106]). US’589 therefore discloses the precise operation of mixing cathode active-material particles with a polymer-containing solution and spray drying the resulting mixture to remove the solvent and form polymer-cladded cathode particulates.
US’589 also provides a working example in which cathode active-material particles and graphene sheets are encapsulated with a PEDOT/PSS polymer-network shell by spray drying (US’589 ¶[0140]). The resulting polymer-encapsulated cathode material provides protection against capacity decay and improved structural stability during charge-discharge cycling (US’589 ¶¶[0141]–[0142]).
CN’257, CN’709, CN’106, and US’589 are analogous art because each concerns preparation of positive-electrode materials for lithium batteries and addresses coating or encapsulating positive-electrode active-material particles with polymer, inorganic, or composite materials to improve electrode-electrolyte interfacial behavior, ionic conduction, structural stability, or electrochemical performance (CN’257, Pgs. 1–5; CN’709, Pgs. 1–4; CN’106, Pgs. 1–3; US’589 ¶¶[0001], [0044]–[0050]).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the preparation method of CN’257, as modified by CN’709, Kashid, and CN’106, by performing the final drying of the polymer-electrolyte solution and KVO₃-cladded positive-electrode material using spray drying, as taught by US’589.
The reason for employing spray drying would have been that US’589 expressly teaches that spray drying atomizes a polymer solution or suspension containing active-material particles into droplets, vaporizes the solvent through contact with hot gas, and forms a polymer shell or matrix embracing the active-material particles (US’589 ¶[0106]). US’589 further demonstrates that spray drying can form polymer-encapsulated cathode active-material particulates that provide protection against capacity decay and improved electrode structural stability (US’589 ¶¶[0140]–[0142]).
The resulting method would comprise preparing CN’106’s KVO₃-cladded positive-electrode material; mixing that cladded positive-electrode material with CN’257’s polymer-electrolyte solution; and spray drying the resulting mixture according to US’589 to remove the solvent and obtain the modified positive-electrode material. Because the final drying of the polymer-electrolyte solution and KVO₃-cladded positive-electrode material would include spray drying, the resulting method would satisfy claim 15.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107026257 A (“CN’257”) in view of CN 114335709 A (“CN’709”) and Kashid et al., “Pyroelectric Properties of Gd-Doped KVO₃ and LiVO₃” (“Kashid”), as applied to claim 17, and further in view of US 2021/0119297 A1 (“US’297”).
As to Claim 18:
CN’257, in view of CN’709 and Kashid, discloses the secondary battery according to claim 17, as set forth in the rejection of claim 17 above.
In particular, CN’257 discloses a modified positive-electrode material having a positive-electrode active-material core and a cladding layer containing a polymer electrolyte and an inorganic solid-electrolyte material (CN’257, Pgs. 3-5). CN’257 prepares a positive-electrode plate using the modified positive-electrode material, combines the positive-electrode plate with an inorganic solid-electrolyte layer and lithium foil, and encapsulates the resulting assembly to obtain an all-solid-state lithium-ion secondary battery (CN’257, Pgs. 6-8, 11).
However, CN’257 does not disclose a battery module comprising the secondary battery. CN’257 discloses an individual all-solid-state lithium-ion secondary battery, but does not expressly disclose arranging that secondary battery as a component of a battery module. CN’709 and Kashid likewise do not supply the battery-module limitation of claim 18.
US’297 discloses a battery module comprising secondary batteries. Specifically, US’297 discloses a battery module including a plurality of secondary batteries arranged in sequence, with the arrangement direction of the secondary batteries being perpendicular to the axial direction of the batteries (US’297, [0017]).
US’297 further discloses that the battery module includes secondary batteries, end plates, side plates, and a bus bar. The end plates and side plates form a rectangular frame in which the secondary batteries are fixed, and the bus bar electrically connects the secondary batteries in series, parallel, or series-parallel (US’297, [0032]). Thus, US’297 expressly teaches a battery module comprising at least one secondary battery, as required by claim 18.
US’297 also explains that arranging the secondary batteries in the disclosed module configuration prevents excessive resultant expansion force from being generated, thereby preventing the secondary batteries from being crushed and preserving battery performance and service life (US’297, [0020]).
CN’257, CN’709, and US’297 are analogous art because each concerns lithium secondary batteries and addresses electrode structure, ionic conduction, battery performance, or incorporation of secondary batteries into a larger battery assembly (CN’257, Pgs. 1-5; CN’709, Pgs. 1-4; US’297, [0002]-[0004], [0017]).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the secondary battery of CN’257, as modified by CN’709 and Kashid, into a battery module configured according to US’297.
The reason for incorporating the modified secondary battery into US’297’s battery module would have been to provide a larger battery assembly in which a plurality of secondary batteries are mechanically retained by a frame and electrically connected by bus bars, while obtaining US’297’s disclosed benefit of preventing excessive resultant expansion forces from crushing the secondary batteries and adversely affecting battery performance and service life (US’297, [0017], [0020], [0032]).
The resulting battery module would comprise the secondary battery according to claim 17 and therefore would satisfy claim 18.
As to Claim 20:
CN’257, in view of CN’709 and Kashid, discloses the secondary battery according to claim 17, as set forth in the rejection of claim 17 above.
In particular, CN’257 discloses a modified positive-electrode material having a positive-electrode-material core and a cladding layer containing a polymer electrolyte and an inorganic solid-electrolyte material (CN’257, Pgs. 3-5). CN’257 further discloses preparing a positive-electrode plate using the modified positive-electrode material, combining the positive-electrode plate with an inorganic solid-electrolyte layer and a negative electrode, and encapsulating the resulting assembly to obtain an all-solid-state lithium-ion secondary battery (CN’257, Pgs. 6-8, 11).
However, CN’257 does not expressly disclose an electrical apparatus comprising the secondary battery. CN’257 discloses an individual all-solid-state lithium-ion secondary battery but does not expressly disclose incorporating that secondary battery into an electrical apparatus.
US’297 discloses an electrical apparatus comprising secondary batteries. Specifically, US’297 discloses a battery module including a plurality of secondary batteries arranged in sequence (US’297, [0017]). US’297 further explains that the battery module includes secondary batteries, end plates, side plates, and a bus bar, with the secondary batteries fixed within a frame and electrically connected in series, parallel, or series-parallel (US’297, [0032]).
US’297 expressly discloses an electric vehicle including the battery module (US’297, [0019]). Because the battery module includes the secondary batteries, US’297’s electric vehicle is an electrical apparatus comprising secondary batteries. US’297 further confirms that its battery module can be used in an electric vehicle and describes the position of the secondary batteries when installed in the vehicle (US’297, [0035]). Thus, US’297 expressly teaches the electrical-apparatus environment required by claim 20.
US’297 explains that arranging its secondary batteries within the battery module prevents excessive resultant expansion force from crushing the secondary batteries, thereby preserving battery performance and service life (US’297, [0020]). US’297 therefore provides an express reason for incorporating secondary batteries into the disclosed battery module and electric vehicle.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the secondary battery of CN’257, as modified by CN’709 and Kashid, into the battery module and electric vehicle disclosed by US’297.
The reason for incorporating the modified secondary battery into US’297’s electric vehicle would have been to obtain US’297’s expressly disclosed electrical-apparatus application in which secondary batteries are mechanically retained within a battery-module frame and electrically connected by bus bars (US’297, [0017], [0019], [0032]). US’297 further teaches that its battery-module arrangement prevents excessive resultant expansion forces from crushing the secondary batteries, thereby preserving battery performance and service life (US’297, [0020]).
The resulting electric vehicle would be an electrical apparatus comprising the secondary battery according to claim 17 and therefore would satisfy claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 7-18, and 20 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.
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 JIMMY K VO whose telephone number is (571)272-3242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am to 6 pm EST.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/JIMMY VO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/JIMMY VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights