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
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 06/01/2026 and 12/28/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by CN112625062A to Liu et al. (Machine translation)
With respect to claim 1, Liu et al. teach an electrochemical device, comprising an electrolytic solution, wherein the electrolytic solution comprises an additive A and an additive B; wherein the additive A comprises an additive represented by Formula I, wherein R1 and R2 are a group represented by Formula a, wherein R3 is selected from fluorine; wherein the additive B comprises lithium difluorophosphate (Liu et al.: Pages 5-6; Example 9; and Formula 1).
With respect to claim 2, Liu et al. teach the electrochemical device, wherein the additive A comprises Compound 2 (Liu et al.: Pages 5-6; Example 9; and Formula 1).
With respect to claim 3, Liu et al. teach the electrochemical device, wherein a mass percent of the additive A in the electrolytic solution is X ppm, a mass percent of the additive B in the electrolytic solution is Y % (0.5 wt %), wherein 1.00×103≤X/Y≤1.10×106 (fully encompassed the range) and 45≤X≤11000 (overlapping range is 0.01 to 1.1 wt % or 100 to 11000 ppm) (Liu et al.: Pages 6 and 9; Example 9; and Formula 1).
With respect to claim 4, Liu et al. teach the electrochemical device, wherein Y = 0.5 (Liu et al.: Pages 6 and 9; Example 9; and Formula 1).
With respect to claim 5, Liu et al. teach the electrochemical device, wherein a mass percent of the additive A in the electrolytic solution is X ppm, a mass percent of the additive B in the electrolytic solution is Y % (0.5 wt %), wherein 1.00×103≤X/Y≤1.10×106 (fully encompassed the range) and Y = 0.5 (Liu et al.: Pages 6 and 9; Example 9; and Formula 1).
With respect to claim 6, Liu et al. teach the electrochemical device, wherein 45≤X≤11000 (overlapping range is 0.01 to 1.1 wt % or 100 to 11000 ppm) (Liu et al.: Pages 6 and 9; Example 9; and Formula 1).
With respect to claim 7, Liu et al. teach the electrochemical device, wherein the electrochemical device satisfies 0.01≤Y≤1.5 (Y = 0.5) (Liu et al.: Pages 6 and 9; Example 9; and Formula 1).
With respect to claim 8, Liu et al. teach the electrochemical device, wherein the electrochemical device satisfies 0.01≤Y≤1.5 (Y = 0.5) (Liu et al.: Pages 6 and 9; Example 9; and Formula 1).
With respect to claim 9, Liu et al. teach the electrochemical device, wherein the electrolytic solution further comprises an additive C, the additive C comprises vinylene carbonate (an ester compound) (Liu et al.: Pages 6).
Liu et al. teach the same additive C in the same electrolytic solution, therefor, lacking of any clear distinction between the claimed additive C and those disclosed by Liu et al., it would be inherent for the additive C of Liu et al. to have a reduction potential of the additive C at 25° C. falls within 0.8 V to 1.3 V.
With respect to claim 10, Liu et al. teach the electrochemical device, wherein the additive C comprises the ester compound; and the ester compound comprises vinylene carbonate (Liu et al.: Pages 6).
With respect to claim 11, Liu et al. teach the electrochemical device, wherein a mass percent of the additive C in the electrolytic solution is Z %, and 0.01≤Z≤9 (the ratio of the formula 1 to the other additive could be 1:1, in other words, Z could be 0.01 to 10, which is fully encompassed the range) (Liu et al.: Pages 6).
With respect to claim 12, Liu et al. teach the electrochemical device, wherein a mass percent of the additive C in the electrolytic solution is Z %, and 3≤Z≤8 (the ratio of the formula 1 to the other additive could be 1:1, in other words, Z could be 0.01 to 10, which is fully encompassed the range) (Liu et al.: Pages 6).
With respect to claim 13, Liu et al. teach the electrochemical device, wherein the electrochemical device further comprises a negative electrode plate, the negative electrode plate comprises a negative material layer, and the negative material layer comprises a negative active material; and the negative active material comprises artificial graphite (Liu et al.: Pages 8).
Liu et al. teach the same artificial graphite in the same electrolytic solution, therefor, lacking of any clear distinction between the claimed artificial graphite and those disclosed by Liu et al., it would be inherent for the artificial graphite of Liu et al. to have a peak intensity ratio D/G between a D band and a G band in a Raman spectrum of the artificial graphite is 0.25 to 0.95.
With respect to claim 15, Liu et al. teach the electrochemical device, wherein the electrolytic solution further comprises an additive C, the additive C comprises vinylene carbonate, a mass percent of the additive C in the electrolytic solution is Z %, and 0.1≤Z≤5 (the ratio of the formula 1 to the other additive could be 1:1, in other words, Z could be 0.01 to 10, which is fully encompassed the range) (Liu et al.: Pages 6).
With respect to claim 16, Liu et al. teach the electrochemical device, wherein the additive A comprises Compound 4 (Liu et al.: Pages 6 and 9; Example 9; and Formula 1).
With respect to claim 17, Liu et al. teach an electronic device, wherein the electronic device comprises an electrochemical device, the electrochemical device, comprising an electrolytic solution, wherein the electrolytic solution comprises an additive A and an additive B; wherein the additive A comprises an additive represented by Formula I, wherein R1 and R2 are a group represented by Formula a, wherein R3 is selected from fluorine; wherein the additive B comprises lithium difluorophosphate (Liu et al.: Pages 5-6; Example 9; and Formula 1).
With respect to claim 18, Liu et al. teach the electronic device, wherein a mass percent of the additive A in the electrolytic solution is X ppm, a mass percent of the additive B in the electrolytic solution is Y %, and the electrochemical device satisfies: 1.00×103≤X/Y≤1.10×106 (fully encompassed the range) and 45≤X≤11000 (overlapping range is 0.01 to 1.1 wt % or 100 to 11000 ppm) (Liu et al.: Pages 6 and 9; Example 9; and Formula 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN112625062A to Liu et al. (Machine translation)
With respect to claim 14, Liu et al. teach the electrochemical device, wherein the electrochemical device further comprises a positive electrode plate, the positive electrode plate comprises a positive material layer, the positive material layer comprises a positive active material, and the positive active material comprises a ternary material; the positive active material further comprises aluminum (Liu et al.: Pages 8).
Liu et al. disclose the claimed invention except for based on a mass of the positive active material, a mass percent of aluminum is H%, and 0.01≤H≤1.00. However, H is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have based on a mass of the positive active material, a mass percent of aluminum is H%, and 0.01≤H≤1.00, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINGWEN R ZENG whose telephone number is (571)272-6649. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached on (571) 270-7078. 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.
/LINGWEN R ZENG/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 6/13/2026
Prosecution Insights