ARKEMA FRANCE

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 26, 2020

15125878 - (D) (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