American Lithium Energy Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 12, 2020

2019003938 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 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.
14/952,755 11/25/2015 Jiang Fan 49373-508001US 2266
64046 7590 06/12/2020
Mintz Levin/San Diego Office
One Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
EXAMINER
MCCONNELL, WYATT P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1727
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/12/2020 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):
IPDocketingBOS@mintz.com
IPFileroombos@mintz.com
mintzdocketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JIANG FAN and DENGGUO WU
____________

Appeal 2019-003938
Application 14/952,755
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before DONNA M. PRAISS, MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–24. We have jurisdiction over the appeal 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 American Lithium Energy
Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed
Nov. 9, 2018, 2.
Appeal 2019-003938
Application 14/952,755

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The invention “relates to an internal current limiter or current
interrupter used to protect a battery in the event of an internal short circuit or
overcharge leads to thermal runaway.” Spec. ¶ 2. The Specification
discloses dangerous conditions can pose a safety hazard for high energy
density rechargeable batteries, such as lithium-ion batteries, because the
batteries may suffer thermal runaway, cell rupture, and even combustion if
overcharged or overheated. Id. ¶¶ 4–5. In view of this, the Specification
discloses a high energy density rechargeable metal-ion battery that includes,
among other things, an interrupt layer that, upon exposure to a temperature
at or above an upper temperature safety limit (i.e., activated), interrupts
current within the battery before thermal runaway takes hold. Id. ¶¶ 15–16.
When unactivated, the interrupt layer is laminated between a separator and a
current collector. Id. ¶ 16. The interrupt layer can include a temperature
sensitive decomposable component that, upon exposure to the temperature at
or above the upper temperature safety limit, evolves a gas for delaminating
the interrupt layer. Id.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative (disputed limitations are italicized).
1. A high energy density rechargeable metal-ion battery
comprising:
an anode energy layer;
a cathode energy layer;
a separator for separating the anode energy layer from the

2 Our Decision also refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed Nov. 25, 2015,
the Non-Final Office Action (“Non-Final Act.”) dated June 14, 2018, the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated Feb. 6, 2019, and the Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.”) filed Apr. 8, 2019.
Appeal 2019-003938
Application 14/952,755

3
cathode energy layer;
at least one current collector for transferring electrons to
and from either the anode or cathode energy layer, the high
energy density rechargeable metal-ion battery having an upper
temperature safety limit for avoiding thermal runaway; and
an interrupt layer activatable for interrupting current
through the high energy density rechargeable metal-ion battery
upon exposure to a temperature at and/or above the upper
temperature safety limit, the interrupt layer interposed between
the separator and one of the current collectors, the interrupt
layer, when unactivated, being laminated between the separator
and the one of the current collectors for conducting current
there through, the interrupt layer, when activated, being
delaminated from the one of the current collectors for
interrupting the current through the high energy density
rechargeable metal-ion battery, the interrupt layer including a
ceramic powder that undergoes a chemical reaction upon
exposure to the temperature at and/or above the upper
temperature safety limit, the ceramic powder evolving a gas in
response to the chemical reaction, the evolved gas delaminating
the interrupt layer from the one of the current collectors, the
delamination separating the interrupt layer from the one of the
current collectors, and the separation of the interrupt layer from
the one of the current collectors interrupting the current through
the high energy density metal-ion battery,
wherein the activation of the interrupt layer avoids
thermal runaway by at least interrupting the current in the high
energy density rechargeable metal-ion battery in response to
being exposed to the temperature at and/or above the upper
temperature safety limit.
Appeal Br. 25–26 (Claims Appendix).
Independent claim 23 recites “[a] method for interrupting current
within a high energy density rechargeable metal-ion battery upon exposure
to a temperature at and/or above an upper temperature safety limit for
avoiding thermal runaway, the method comprising” exposing the battery to
Appeal 2019-003938
Application 14/952,755

4
the temperature at and/or above the upper temperature safety limit, wherein
the battery includes, among other things, an interrupt layer similar to
claim 1. Each remaining claim on appeal depends from claim 1.

ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering the
argued claims in light of the case law presented in this Appeal and each of
Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejections.
The Examiner rejects claims 1–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Andersen3 in view of Xie.4 Non-Final Act. 2–5; Ans. 3–
6.
Appellant argues the claims together. Appeal Br. 11–23. Therefore,
we confine our discussion to claim 1, which we select as representative.
Claims 2–24 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds Andersen discloses a lithium ion battery
including, among other things, a primer layer between a current collector
and an energy layer. Ans. 3–4. The Examiner finds Andersen’s primer
layer includes a blowing agent for decomposing to a gas when the

3 Andersen, WO 2004/049494 A1, published June 10, 2004 (“Andersen”).
4 Xie, US 2008/0292939 A1, published Nov. 27, 2008 (“Xie”).
Appeal 2019-003938
Application 14/952,755

5
temperature of the battery rises to or above a runaway temperature. Id. at 4.
The Examiner finds the gas causes the energy layer to expand, causes an
increase in resistance, and interrupts current flowing through the battery,
which avoids thermal runaway. Id. The Examiner finds Andersen’s current
interruption and similar structure to Appellant’s interrupt layer demonstrate
that Andersen’s gas generation causes delamination. Id.
The Examiner finds Andersen does not disclose ceramic powder as a
blowing agent, but “Xie teaches that ceramics were common blowing agents
for this use.” Id. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious for
one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Andersen in view of Xie to
use a ceramic blowing agent because this would have been the use of a
known material for its intended purpose. Id.
Appellant contends Andersen increases the primer layer’s porosity to
interrupt current flow through a battery, which is a “different mechanism
than an interrupt layer separating into constituent layers to cause the
interruption of current flowing through the battery cell.” Appeal Br. 15.
Appellant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that
these mechanisms are not analogous and asserts the Examiner ignores the
plain meaning of “delamination” (i.e., “separation into constituent layers”),
which “requires an interrupt layer to separate into multiple layers and detach
from the current collector coupled to the interrupt layer.” Id. at 15–16
(citing the Merriam-Webster dictionary). According to Appellant,
“Andersen is merely increasing the quantity of empty space within the
primer layer and not separating the primer layer into multiple constituent
layers.” Id. at 16 (emphasis omitted). Appellant contends the Examiner
erred in finding Andersen’s primer layer would necessarily lead to at least a
Appeal 2019-003938
Application 14/952,755

6
degree of delamination because Andersen’s increase in porosity merely
“corresponds to an increase in the quantity of empty space within the primer
layer.” Id. at 16–17.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive of error because the
preponderance of the evidence in this appeal record supports the Examiner’s
findings.
Andersen’s “invention relates to the protection of electrochemical
cells against the effects of excessive heat” due to an external source or the
generation of excessive internal heat. Andersen 1:3–4, 1:20–23. Andersen
teaches blowing agents are known that are capable of evolving gas upon
exposure to an elevated temperature. Id. at 4:15–19. Andersen discloses an
electrochemical cell including a negative electrode, a positive electrode, and
an electrolyte wherein at least one of the electrodes includes a blowing
agent, which may be dispersed within the material of the electrode or
included in a primer layer interposed between the electrode and a current
collector. Id. at 4:32–5:2, 5:11–13.
Andersen also teaches gas evolved from the blowing agent “has the
effect of making the electrode more porous and possibly even of disrupting
the electrode,” increases the thickness of the electrode, increases “the
impedance of the cell and the discharge current is thereby limited,” and
“[t]he cell is thus effectively deactivated on overheating.” Id. at 5:13–19.
Thus, Anderson discloses dispersing blowing agent specifically in a primer
layer, which, once activated at an elevated temperature to evolve gas,
effectively separates the interrupt layer from the current collector, as claim 1
requires. Although Andersen does not explicitly describe the result of the
primer layer’s activation as “being delaminated” as claim 1 recites, these
Appeal 2019-003938
Application 14/952,755

7
disclosures support the Examiner’s finding that Andersen’s primer layer,
once activated at an elevated temperature to evolve gas, delaminates an
interrupt layer from a current collector, thus separating the interrupt layer
from the current collector, as claim 1 recites.
Appellant asserts that “‘delamination’ refers to a type of structural
failure in which a material separates into multiple constituent layers”
(Appeal Br. 12), but does not sufficiently explain why a blowing agent
dispersed and activated in Andersen’s primer layer specifically would not
separate that layer from the adjacent layers in Andersen’s structure. Even
accepting Appellant’s definition of delamination, Appellant does not explain
adequately why Andersen’s increase in porosity of the primer layer is not
capable of accomplishing to any degree or extent the delamination and
separation structural effect claim 1 requires. As noted above, Appellant
argues that Andersen’s blowing agent increases the quantity of empty space
within the primer layer. The Examiner explains in the Answer that
Andersen’s blowing agent would be located at the surface of the primer
layer, which would be at the boundary between the primer layer and the
current collector, and gas from the blowing agent at the boundary would
meet Appellant’s definition for delamination. Ans. 7. Appellant’s
arguments do not adequately address this reasoning or otherwise identify a
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Appellant further asserts that the combination of Andersen and Xie
does not disclose or suggest the use of a ceramic powder to form claim 1’s
interrupt layer because Andersen does not disclose or suggest using a
ceramic powder in its primer layer and, although “Xie describes using
ceramic powder to form powders to form porous hydrophilic structures atop
Appeal 2019-003938
Application 14/952,755

8
its current collectors,” “Xie is silent on adding ceramic powder to an
interrupt layer to cause the interrupt layer to delaminate in response to
excessive heat.” Appeal Br. 18 (emphases omitted). In addition, Appellant
contends: (1) there would have been a lack of reason to combine because the
proposed combination would have required substantial modification, (2) one
of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered Xie when
contemplating modifications to Andersen, (3) the resulting combination
would have been inoperable as it would have resulted in ceramic powder
that was already sacrificed before use, and (4) the rejection fails to address
the fact that Andersen and Xie do not disclose or suggest an interrupt layer
with a ceramic powder that causes the interrupt layer to delaminate into
multiple constituent layers and interrupt the current flow of a battery. Id. at
18–23; Reply Br. 2–3.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because they do not
consider what the combined teachings of Andersen and Xie would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. The test for obviousness is not
that the claimed invention be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references, but what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981).
Andersen discloses a number of factors (e.g., reaction temperature and
compatibility with other materials, manufacturing processes, and storage
practices) influence the choice of blowing agent in a particular case and such
a choice “will generally be made from amongst the materials already known
for use as blowing agents in the plastics industry.” Andersen 5:21–27, 6:16–
Appeal 2019-003938
Application 14/952,755

9
18. As a result, Andersen generally discloses known blowing agents may be
used in its primer layer.
As noted above, the Examiner concludes the proposed modification of
Andersen in view of Xie would have been the obvious use of a known
material for its intended purpose. Ans. 4, 8 (citing MPEP § 2144.07). In re
Leshin also describes this principle. 277 F.2d 197, 199 (CCPA 1960)
(“Mere selection of known plastics to make a container-dispenser of a type
made of plastics prior to the invention, the selection of the plastics being on
the basis of suitability for the intended use, would be entirely obvious”).
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Xie discloses a
ceramic blowing agent. Xie also teaches that its blowing agents can be used
to create porous structures, including structures made from a polymer. Xie
¶¶ 11, 13. As a result, the record supports the Examiner’s rationale that
using Xie’s blowing agent in Andersen’s primer layer would have been an
obvious use of a known material for its intended use (i.e., to function as a
blowing agent that evolves gas to create a porous structure, such as
Andersen’s primer layer after activation of the blowing agent).
For these reasons and those the Examiner provides, we uphold the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Andersen and Xie.

DECISION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above, in
the Non-Final Office Action, and in the Examiner’s Answer, the decision of
the Examiner rejecting claims 1–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Andersen in view of Xie is affirmed.
Appeal 2019-003938
Application 14/952,755

10
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–24 103 Andersen, Xie 1–24
Overall
Outcome 1–24

AFFIRMED