Ex Parte Cresce et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2017

14028559 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2017)

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.
ARL 12-27 4796
EXAMINER
ZEMUI, NATHANAEL T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1727
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
14/028,559 09/17/2013 Arthur von Wald Cresce
21364 7590 09/27/2017
U S ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY
ATTN: RDRL-LOC-I
2800 POWDER MILL RD
ADELPHI, MD 20783-1138
09/27/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARTHUR VON WALD CRESCEN
and KANG C. XU1
Appeal 2017-003770
Application 14/028,559
Technology Center 1700
Before CHUNG K. PAK, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and BRIAN D. RANGE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s decision2 finally rejecting claims 1-20, which are all of the claims
pending in the above-identified application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as “the United States Government as
represented by the Secretary of the Army[.]” Appeal Brief filed March 4, 2016
(“Br.”) 3.
2 Final Action entered October 5, 2015 (“Final Act.”) 2-7; Advisory Action
entered February 24, 2016 (“Advisory Act.”) at 2-5; and Examiner’s Answer
entered August 9, 2016 (“Ans.”) 2.
Appeal 2017-003770
Application 14/028,559
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter of the claims on appeal is directed to “electrolytes having
enhanced electrochemical stability, particularly for use supporting Li-ion
chemistries that occur near or above 5.0 V” and “an electrochemical cell”
employing such electrolytes. Spec. Tflf 1, 12. The electrolytes are “adapted to
allow for ion passivation between the negative and positive electrodes” and contain
an additive that “includes a compound having at least one fluoro-alkyl functional
group and a backbone structure selected from the group consisting of
organoaluminum, organosilicon, and organobismuth.” Spec. 112. This appealed
subject matter is said to “effectively enable the 5.0 V class cathode to be applied in
Li ion batteries[.]” Spec. 1 8.
Details of the appealed subject matter are recited in representative claims 1
and 20, which are reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
Brief:
1. An electrochemical cell comprising:
a negative electrode;
a positive electrode;
an electrolyte material adapted to allow for ion passivation between the
negative and positive electrodes; and
an additive dispersed in the electrolyte material;
wherein the additive includes a compound having at least one fluoro-alkyl
functional group and a backbone structure selected from the group consisting of
organoaluminum, and organobismuth.
20. An electrolyte for use in an electrochemical cell
having a positive and negative electrode, the electrolyte comprising:
an electrolyte material; and
an additive dispersed in the electrolyte material, wherein the additive
includes a compound having at least one fluoro-alkyl functional group and a
2
Appeal 2017-003770
Application 14/028,559
backbone structure selected from the group consisting of organoaluminum, and
organobismuth.
Br. 12 and 20, Claims Appendix.
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 1-6 and 9-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Xu ’359 (US 2012/0225359 Al, published September 6,
2012), Takahashi (JP 2010192165 A, published September 2, 2010), and Ohashi
(US 2012/0141878 Al, published June 7, 2012); and
2. Claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Xu ’359, Takahashi, Ohashi, and Xu ’485 (US
2012/0009485 Al, published January 12, 2012). Final Act. 2-7; Advisory Act. 2-
5; Ans. 2-6.
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon by the Examiner in light of
Appellants’ Appeal Brief, we find Appellants do not identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections of the above claims substantially for
the reasons set forth in the Final Action, Advisory Action, and the Answer. We
add the following primarily for emphasis and completeness.
The Examiner finds that Xu ’359 teaches an electrochemical cell comprising
a negative electrode, a positive electrode and an electrolyte material adapted to
allow for ion passivation between the negative and positive electrode and an
additive dispersed in the electrolyte. Final Act. 2-3; see also Xu ’359 Tflf 4, 8. The
Examiner acknowledges that Xu ’359 does not mention that its additive includes “a
compound having at least one fluoro-alkyl functional group and a backbone
3
Appeal 2017-003770
Application 14/028,559
structure selected from the group consisting of organoaluminum and
organobismuth,” as recited in claims 1 and 20. Final Act. 3.
To account for this missing additive, the Examiner relies upon the
disclosures of Takahashi and Ohashi. Id. The Examiner finds that Takahashi
teaches an electrolyte additive that includes a compound having organoaluminum
structure represented by formula: M-[0-CR2=C(C0Rl)]n wherein M can be
aluminum, Rand R2 are each 18C or lower alkyl or alkoxy group. Id. (citing
Takahashi Abstract). This electrolyte additive, according to Takahashi, provides
excellent charge storage and low temperature cycle characteristics. Takahashi
Abstract. The Examiner also finds that Ohashi teaches an electrolyte additive
having a fluorine atom which may substitute a part of all of the hydrogen atoms in
the additive molecule. Id. (citing Ohashi H 76-77). The Examiner finds that
Ohashi teaches providing high battery characteristics and improve safety through
introducing such fluorine atom to an electrolyte additive. Id. (citing 115).
Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been led to modify the additive taught by Takahashi with a
fluorine atom, as taught by Ohashi, to form an electrolyte additive comprising a
compound having at least one fluoro-alkyl functional group and a backbone
structure consisting of organoaluminum and would have been led to disperse such
modified additive in the electrolyte in the electric chemical cell taught by Xu ’359,
with a reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining the advantages taught by
Takahashi and Ohashi. Id.
Appellants refer to independent claims 1 and 20 on appeal. Br. 4-5. Yet,
Appellants do not raise any arguments that are pertinent to the Examiner’s § 103(a)
rejections of claims 1-20 set forth in the Final Action and the Answer. Br. 6-10.
4
Appeal 2017-003770
Application 14/028,559
Under these circumstances, we are constrained to summarily sustain the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See Manual
of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1205.02 (9th ed. Mar. 2014) (“If a
ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s brief,
appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board may
summarily sustain it, unless the examiner subsequently withdrew the rejection in
the examiner’s answer.”).
ORDER
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given, it is
ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is AFFIRMED; and
FURTHER ORDERED that no time period for taking any subsequent action
in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5