ARKEMA FRANCE

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 26, 2020

2019005402 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/125,878 09/13/2016 Gregory SCHMIDT 0078840-000285 6940 21839 7590 08/26/2020 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC POST OFFICE BOX 1404 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404 EXAMINER MCCONNELL, WYATT P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1727 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/26/2020 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): ADIPDOC1@BIPC.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte GREGORY SCHMIDT, BERTRAND COLLIER, and PHILIPPE BONNET Appeal 2019-005402 Application 15/125,878 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before GEORGE C. BEST, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 seeks review of the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5 and 7–16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Arkema France. Appeal Brief dated Jan. 7, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) 2. Appeal 2019-005402 Application 15/125,878 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The present application generally relates to a battery comprising a cathode and an anode as well as an electrolyte interposed between the cathode and the anode. Specification filed Sept. 13, 2016 (“Spec.”) 3:26–27. The Specification teaches that the cathode comprises an oxide containing manganese as active material and the electrolyte contains a lithium imidazolate of a specified structure. Id. at 3:28–30. The Specification further teaches that the inventive lithium-ion batteries exhibit both a satisfactory lifetime and a high potential and can be manufactured without excessive cost and without generating excessive pollution. Id. at 4:23–25. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with certain limitations bolded for emphasis: 1. A battery comprising a cathode, an anode and an electrolyte interposed between the cathode and the anode, in which: – the cathode comprises an oxide containing manganese as active material, in which the cathode contains an oxide of formula LiMO2 where M is a combination of Mn with one or more other metals as active material; and – the electrolyte contains a lithium imidazolate of formula: in which R, R1 and R2 independently represent CN, F, CF3, CHF2, CH2F, C2HF4, C2H2F3, C2H3F2, C2F5, C3F7, C3H2F5, C3H4F3, C4F9, C4H2F7, C4H4F5, C5F11, C3F5OCF3, C2F4OCF3, C2H2F2OCF3 or CF2OCF3 groups. Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.) (reformatted for clarity) Appeal 2019-005402 Application 15/125,878 3 REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Name Reference Date Kim et al. (“Kim”) US 8,067,114 B2 Nov. 29, 2011 L. Niedzicki et al., New covalent salts of the 4+ V class for Li batteries, 196 J. Power Sources, 8696-8700 (2011) (“Niedzicki”) DISCUSSION The Examiner rejects claims 1–5 and 7–16 as being unpatentable over Niedzicki in view of Kim. Final Action dated May 18, 2018 (“Final Act.”) 4–5. There are no other rejections pending.2 In support of the rejection, the Examiner finds that Niedzicki teaches an electrolyte comprising lithium-2-fluromethyl-4,5-dicyano imidazolate or lithium-2-fluroethyl-4,5-dicyano imidazolate. Id. at 4. The Examiner further finds that Niedzicki teaches use of LiMn2O4 as a cathode active material. Id. The Examiner determines that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2, to be an obvious alternative to LiMn2O4 “because it provides the improved safety one would expect for such lithium manganese active materials while also providing improved durability” as taught by Kim. Id. (citing Kim col. 3:54–57). Appellant argues that the rejection is in error. Appeal Br. 4–5. Appellant contends that LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co 1/3O2 was not an obvious alternative to LiMn2O4 in view of the teachings of Niedzicki. Id. at 5. Appellant directs us to a portion of Niedzicki which provides that “after several cycles, 2 The rejection of claim 1–7 as anticipated by Niedzicki was withdrawn in the Examiner’s Answer. See Answer 5. Appeal 2019-005402 Application 15/125,878 4 the growth of the SEI3 and its possible contamination by Mn (LiMn2O4) or Fe (low quality FePO4) dissolved in the presence of LiPF6 is the major source of impedance, not the electrolyte conductivity.” Id. (citing Niedzicki at 8700 (emphasis added)). Appellant concludes that Niedzicki views Mn and/or Fe as being possible causes of the contamination of the SEI. This contamination is a major source of impedance. It would then follow that a compound such as LiMn1/3Ni1/3Co1/3O2 would have three possible causes of contamination (e.g., Mn, Ni and Co) instead of the one cause of contamination found in LiMn2O4 (e.g., Mn). Because the causes of contamination and impedance are different depending on whether LiMn1/3Ni1/3Co1/3O2 or LiMn2O4 is used, it is incorrect that LiMn1/3Ni1/3Co1/3O2 should be considered an obvious alternative to LiMn2O4 for use in the arrangement of Niedzicki. Appeal Br. 5–6. The Examiner does not find Appellant’s argument to be persuasive. Answer 5. The Examiner finds that the portion of Niedzicki quoted by Appellant does not concern the inventive solute taught therein. Id. Rather, the Examiner finds, it describes prior art systems that employ LiPF6 as a solute. Id. The Examiner directs us to Niedzicki’s teaching that “[t]here is urgent action required for replacing LiPF6 as a solute for Li-ion batteries electrolytes.” Niedzicki, Abstract. Appellant did not submit a reply brief. We find the Examiner’s reasoning persuasive. The cited portion of Niedzicki concerns contamination by metals “dissolved in the presence of LiPF6.” Id. at 8700. Niedzicki clearly teaches to use two alternative salts rather than LiPF6. Id., Abstract. Accordingly, the portion of Niedzicki 3 Although not defined in Appellant’s brief, it is believed that SEI stands for “solid electrolyte interphase.” Appeal 2019-005402 Application 15/125,878 5 relied upon by Appellant does not indicate that the use of LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2 as a solute is likely to increase contamination. As a result, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s determination regarding the reason one of ordinary skill in the art would have had to substitute the cathode active material taught by Kim for that of Niedzicki. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–5, 7–16 103 Niedzicki, Kim 1–5, 7–16 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED