Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/131,409

ELECTROLYTE, AND ELECTROCHEMICAL APPARATUS AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS CONTAINING SAME

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Apr 06, 2023
Examiner
KLINE, SYDNEY LYNN
Art Unit
1729
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Ningde Amperex Technology Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
20 granted / 26 resolved
+11.9% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
68
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
72.1%
+32.1% vs TC avg
§102
14.0%
-26.0% vs TC avg
§112
11.4%
-28.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 26 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted April 6, 2023 has been received and considered by the examiner. Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Interpretation All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-5, 8-13, 16-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. CN- 111244541-A (hereinafter “Li”). Regarding Claims 1-3, 9-11, and 19, Li discloses an electronic apparatus (electronic device) (meeting Claim 19), comprising an electrochemical apparatus (electrochemical device) comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode (meeting Claim 9), and an electrolyte (see paragraphs [0002]-[0007], [0038], [0110], and [0115]-[0116]); the electrolyte comprising a first composition and a second composition (see paragraphs [0075] and [0098]); wherein the first composition comprises a compound (disclosed as Formula III-3 in Li) corresponding to the claimed compound of Claim 3 and Claim 11 (thus fitting the genus formula I-A of Claims 1, 9, and 19 and meeting Claim 1, Claim 3, Claim 9, Claim 11, and Claim 19) (see comparison of compounds below) (see paragraphs [0020]-[0035]). Further, in Formula III-3 of Li, A11 is the same as A13 (meeting Condition (5) of Claim 2 and Claim 10). PNG media_image1.png 199 532 media_image1.png Greyscale Figure 1. Composition of Li PNG media_image2.png 148 366 media_image2.png Greyscale Figure 2. First Composition of Claims 3 and 11 of Instant Application Li further discloses the second composition comprises a compound (disclosed as Formula II-2 in Li) corresponding to the claimed compound of Claim 3 and Claim 11 (thus fitting the genus formula II of Claims 1, 9, and 19 and meeting Claim 1, Claim 3, Claim 9, Claim 11, and Claim 19) (see comparison of compounds below) (see paragraphs [0020]-[0035]). PNG media_image3.png 122 261 media_image3.png Greyscale Figure 3. Composition of Li PNG media_image4.png 99 201 media_image4.png Greyscale Figure 4. Second Composition of Claims 3 and 11 of Instant Application Regarding Claims 4, 12, and 17, Li discloses the electrolyte according to claims 1 and 9 (see rejection of claims 1 and 9 above). Li further discloses the wt% (which a skilled artisan would recognize as an equivalent measurement to % mass) of the first composition (Formula III-3 of Li) is 0.01 wt% to 5 wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte, with a specific example of Formula III-3 being 3 wt% (Example 2.4 from Table 2-1 seen below) (see paragraphs [0020]-[0024], [0033], [0154] and Table 2-1). This falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed ranges of 0.01≤X≤10 and 0.2≤X≤5, wherein X % is a mass percentage of the first composition based on a total mass of the electrolyte (meeting Condition (1) of Claim 4 and Claim 12 and Condition (1) of Claim 17). Li further discloses the wt% (which a skilled artisan would recognize as an equivalent measurement to % mass) of the second composition (Formula II-2 of Li) may be 10 wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte (Example 2.4 from Table 2-1 seen below) (see paragraphs [0020]-[0024], [0033], [0154] and Table 2-1). This falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed ranges of 0.01≤Y≤20 and 2≤Y≤20, wherein Y % is a mass percentage of the second composition based on a total mass of the electrolyte (meeting Condition (2) of Claim 4 and Claim 12 and Condition (2) of Claim 17). Li further discloses the wt% (which a skilled artisan would recognize as an equivalent measurement to % mass) of the first composition (Formula III-3 of Li) is 3 wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte and the wt% of the second composition (Formula II-2 of Li) may be 10 wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte (Example 2.4 from Table 2-1 seen below) (see paragraphs [0020]-[0024], [0033], [0154] and Table 2-1), making X/Y equal to 0.3. This falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed ranges of 0.01≤X/Y≤5.0 and 0.05≤X/Y≤2.5, wherein X % is a mass percentage of the first composition based on a total mass of the electrolyte and Y % is a mass percentage of the second composition based on a total mass of the electrolyte (meeting Condition (3) of Claim 4 and Claim 12 and Condition (3) of Claim 17). PNG media_image5.png 297 568 media_image5.png Greyscale Figure 5. Table 2-1 of Li Regarding Claims 5 and 13, Li discloses the electrolyte according to claims 1 and 9 (see rejection of claims 1 and 9 above). Li further discloses the electrolyte contains ethylene carbonate (see paragraph [0154]). Regarding Claims 8 and 16, Li discloses the electrolyte according to claims 1 and 9 (see rejection of claims 1 and 9 above). Li further discloses the electrolyte may comprise trimethyl phosphate or triphenyl phosphate (correlating to a fifth composition) in an amount of not less than 0.5 wt% to no more than 5 wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte (which a skilled artisan would recognize as an equivalent measurement to % mass) (see paragraphs [0103]-[0104]). This falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 0.01≤E≤5, wherein a mass percentage of the fifth composition is E% (meeting Condition (2) of Claim 8 and Claim 16). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 5-7, 13-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, as applied to Claims 1 and 9, and further in view of Cui et al. CN-112119530-A (US-20210408600-A1 used as translation and cited in PTO-892) (hereinafter “Cui”). Regarding Claims 5-7, 13-15, and 18, Li discloses the electrolyte according to claims 1 and 9 (see rejection of claims 1 and 9 above). Li is not sufficiently specific on the wt% of the third composition of ethylne carbonate or fluoroethylene carbonate. However, in the same field of endeavor of electrolyte compositions (see abstract), Cui discloses an electrolyte composition comprising a compound with nitrile groups, an ester compound with a fluoroalkyl group, and further comprising fluoroethylene carbonate (meeting Claim 5 and Claim 13) in an amount of 0.01 wt% to 10 wt% (which a skilled artisan would recognize as an equivalent measurement to % mass) (see paragraphs [0015]-[0016], [0020]-[0025], [0061], and [0063]). This falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed ranges of 0.01≤C≤30 wherein a mass percentage of the third composition is C based on a total weight of the electrolyte, 0.01≤C2≤20 wherein a mass percentage of the fluoroethylene carbonate is C2% based on a total weight of the electrolyte, and 0.01≤C≤20 wherein a mass percentage of the third composition is C based on a total weight of the electrolyte (meeting Condition (1) of Claim 6 and Claim 14, Condition (2) of Claim 7 and Claim 15, and Condition (1) of Claim 18, respectively). Li additionally discloses including fluoroethylene carbonate in an amount of 0.01 wt% to 10 wt% with the compound with nitrile groups and ester compound with a fluoroalkyl group can fully affect the formation of the solid-electrolyte interface (SEI) film on the anode surface, and significantly improve cycle performance (see paragraph [0063]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrolyte composition of Li wherein the electrolyte further comprises fluoroethylene carbonate in an amount of 0.01 wt% to 10 wt%, as disclosed by Cui, in order to achieve improved cycle performance. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY L KLINE whose telephone number is (703)756-1729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /S.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1729 /ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 06, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597643
LAMINATED ALL-SOLID-STATE BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597612
NONAQUEOUS ELECTROLYTE ENERGY STORAGE DEVICE, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING NONAQUEOUS ELECTROLYTE ENERGY STORAGE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12580240
Battery Pack for Exchangeable Insertion into a Receiving Compartment
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580190
POSITIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12548810
BATTERY, ELECTRIC APPARATUS, METHOD FOR PREPARING BATTERY, AND APPARATUS FOR PREPARING BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+27.4%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 26 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month