Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 28, 2021

2021003274 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2021)

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.
14/985,170 12/30/2015 Claudiu B. BUCUR 461545US71 1061
22850 7590 09/28/2021
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
GRESO, AARON J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1722
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2021 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):
OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM
iahmadi@oblon.com
patentdocket@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CLAUDIU B. BUCUR, NAOKI OSADA,
JOHN MULDOON, and MIKE JONES
Appeal 2021-003274
Application 14/985,170
Technology Center 1700
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 19–21.3 A telephonic
hearing was held on September 21, 2021.
We REVERSE.

1 The following documents are of record: Specification filed Dec. 30, 2015
(“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated May 27, 2020 (“Final Act.”); Appeal
Brief filed Oct. 27, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), citations to pages 12–16 being to
the Claims Appendix; Examiner’s Answer dated Feb. 22, 2021 (“Ans.”); and
Reply Brief filed Apr. 22, 2021 (“Reply Br.”).
2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Toyota Motor Engineering &
Manufacturing NA. Appeal Br. 1.
3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2021-003274
Application 14/985,170

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to “polymer-coated chalcogen particles embedded
with functionalized conductive carbon material [that] are suitable for utility as
an electrode active material.” Spec. 1:9–11. The invention also relates to a
“cathode containing the polymer-coated chalcogen particles embedded with
functionalized carbon material and an electrochemical cell or battery
containing the cathode.” Id. at 1:11–13. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An electrode active material, comprising:
a core particle of at least one element selected from the
group consisting of sulfur, selenium and tellurium; and
a coating of at least one polymeric layer encapsulating
the core particle;
wherein the core particle comprises particles of a
functionalized conductive carbon material which are
homogenously dispersed throughout the at least one element of
the core particle,
wherein an amount of the functionalized conductive
carbon material homogenously dispersed throughout the at least
one element of the core particle is from 1.0 to 15% by weight of
a total weight of the core particle,
the functionalized conductive carbon material comprises
carboxyl groups on at least a surface of the particle of the
functionalized conductive carbon material, and
a Zeta potential of the functionalized conductive carbon
material ranges from -20 mV to -60 mV when measured in
distilled water.
Appeal Br. 12.
Appeal 2021-003274
Application 14/985,170

3

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1 and 19–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Yushin (US 2013/0224594 A1, pub. Aug. 29, 2013) in view
of Chang (US 2002/0160251 A1, pub. Oct. 31, 2002) and Yeh (US
2002/0014184 A1, pub. Feb. 7, 2002). Final Act. 3–6.
2. Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Yushin in view of Chang, Yeh, and Muldoon (US
2014/0234707 A1, pub. Aug. 21, 2014). Final Act. 6–8.
3. Claims 5, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Yushin in view of Chang, Yeh, and Lion (Ketjenblack
product data, © 1996 considered published 1996 December). Final Act. 8–11.
OPINION
The Examiner found that Yushin discloses an electrode active material
comprising a coating encapsulating a sulfur composite core particle (Final
Act. 4 (citing Yushin ¶ 13)), and forming the composite core particle by
introducing functionalized conductive carbon particles into a sulfur particle-
producing solution (id. (citing Yushin ¶¶ 71, 73)). The Examiner found that
Yushin does not disclose that the functionalized conductive carbon particle
surfaces include carboxyl groups as required by claim 1. Id. But the Examiner
determined that the ordinary artisan would have modified Yushin’s carbon
particle to include carboxylic functional groups given Chang’s teaching that
“oxidized carbon particles enable[] more wetting by the electrolyte and thus
more cathode is effectively used for reactions in the battery.” Id. at 4–5 (citing
Chang ¶¶ 8, 10, 12, 18).
Appeal 2021-003274
Application 14/985,170

4

The Appellant argues that the record evidence does not support the
Examiner’s finding that Chang’s disclosure would have led the ordinary
artisan to modify Yushin’s functionalized carbon particle surfaces with
carboxyl groups. See generally Appeal Br. 6–7. The Appellant explains that
Chang and Yushin use distinctly different technologies and different cathode
structures. Id.; Reply Br. 2. The Appellant argues that in Chang’s cathode
design, the electrolyte can reach the functionalized carbon particle surfaces,
but in Yushin, the coating that encapsulates the carbon particles is
impermeable to electrolyte solvent. Appeal Br. 7. Therefore, because the
coating prevents electrolyte solvent from contacting the carbon particles,
modifying Yushin’s carbon particles to include carboxylic functional groups
would not have provided the increased electrolyte wetting described in Chang.
Reply Br. 3.
The Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejections for the reasons discussed below.
Yushin describes core-shell composites for use in metal ion batteries.
Yushin, Title. Yushin describes an exemplary cylindrical battery as including
a negative anode, a positive cathode, and a separator impregnated with a non-
aqueous electrolyte interposed between the anode and the cathode. Id. ¶¶ 105,
106. Yushin discloses making the cathode by suspending carbon-sulfur core
composites in an aqueous solution of a polyacrylic acid binder, casting on a
metal foil, and drying. Id. ¶ 105; see also id. ¶ 69. Yushin discloses that the
carbon-sulfur core composite comprises a sulfur-based core encased in a
multi-functional shell. Id. ¶ 37. The sulfur-based core “electrochemically
react[s] with metal ions during battery operation to store the metal ions in the
form of a corresponding metal-sulfide during discharging of the battery and to
Appeal 2021-003274
Application 14/985,170

5

release the metal ions from the corresponding metal-sulfide during charging of
the battery.” Id. The multi-functional shell “is formed from a material that is
(i) substantially permeable to the metal ions of the corresponding metal-
sulfide . . . , and (ii) substantially impermeable to electrolyte solvent
molecules and metal polysulfides.” Id. (emphasis added).
Chang describes a metal-air battery comprising a cathode tube
surrounding an inner anode gel. See Chang ¶ 32; Figure. In a metal-air battery,
“oxygen is supplied to the cathode from the atmospheric air external to the
cell through one or more air access opening(s) in the cell container.” Id. ¶ 4.
Chang describes the cathode as comprising a dual-layer. See, e.g., id. ¶ 24.
The cathode side facing the air access opening(s), referred to as the
hydrophobic or air layer, comprises non-oxidized carbon particles mixed with
polymer. Id. ¶¶ 24, 25. According to Chang, “non-oxidized carbon particles in
the air layer can minimize electrolyte in the catalyst layer from migrating to
the air layer and leaking out the battery.” Id. ¶ 25. The cathode side facing the
anode gel, referred to as the catalyst or active layer, is formed by mixing a
catalyst with oxidized carbon particles having surface functional groups such
as carboxylic, and then combining with a binder dispersion. Id. ¶¶ 18, 24, 27.
The anode gel contains a mixture of zinc and electrolyte, such as an aqueous
solution of potassium hydroxide. Id. ¶¶ 33, 44.
Chang discloses that the cathode and anode are separated by “a porous,
electrically insulating polymer, such as polypropylene rendered hydrophilic
by chemical surfactants, that allows the electrolyte to contact the cathode.”
Chang ¶ 30. According to Chang, oxidized carbon particles assist electrolyte
wetting:
Appeal 2021-003274
Application 14/985,170

6

[I]t is believed that oxidized carbon particles have a chemically
modified surface that is more polar than non-oxidized carbon
particles. The oxidized carbon particles can draw more
electrolyte into the cathode than non-oxidized carbon particles
because the electrolyte can wet oxidized particles with polar
surfaces more easily than the electrolyte can wet non-oxidized
particles with relatively less polar surfaces. As a result, more of
the cathode can be effectively used for the reduction-oxidation
reactions that occur in the battery.
Chang ¶ 8 (emphasis added).
The above cited disclosures in Yushin and Chang favor the Appellant’s
argument that the Examiner’s reason for combining these references lacks
adequate evidentiary support. In particular, because Yushin’s coating prevents
electrolyte solvent from contacting the carbon particles, modifying those
particles to include carboxylic functional groups would not have been
expected to provide the increased electrolyte wetting described in Chang. As
each ground of rejection is based on the Examiner’s insufficiently supported
reason for modifying Yushin, the Appellant has persuaded us that the
Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting all appealed claims. See generally Final
Act. 6–11.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 19–21 103 Yushin, Chang, Yeh 1, 19–21
2, 8 103 Yushin, Chang, Yeh,
Muldoon
2, 8
5, 6, 9 103 Yushin, Chang, Yeh,
Lion
5, 6, 9
Overall
Outcome

1, 2, 5, 6,
8, 9, 19–21
Appeal 2021-003274
Application 14/985,170

7

REVERSED