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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 3, 2024 and September 2, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 14-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (CN113206296; English equivalent US Pub. No. 2024/0106002 relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches an electrochemical apparatus comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator and an electrolyte solution (paragraph [0066]), wherein the electrolyte solution comprises fluoroethylene carbonate, in an amount from 0.01% to 15% (all percentages are wt%), where the amount can specifically be 4%, 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, or 10% (paragraph [0035]), with specific embodiments using 4% (table 2, examples 2.3 and 2.15), 5% (table 2, examples 2.4, 2.14, and 2.16; table 3.2, examples 3.20, 3.21 and 3.22), 7% (table 2, example 2.5), 8% (table 2, example 2.17) and 9% (table 2, example 2.6), the electrolyte solution also comprises a trinitrile compound in an amount of from 0.01% to 7% or 0.01% to 5% (paragraph [0051]), with specific embodiments using 1% (table 3.1, examples 3.9 and 3.13), 2% (table 3.1, examples 3.10 and 3.14; table 3.2, examples 3.21 and 3.22; table 4.2, example 4.12), and 3% (table 3.1, examples 3.11 and 3.15), the positive electrode comprises a positive active material, the positive active material comprises an element M, which can be at least one of Al, Mg and Ti in an amount of from 200 to 12000 ppm (paragraph [0021]), with a specific embodiment having Al in an amount of 5000 ppm (table 7, example 7.3), and utilizing the amount of fluoroethylene carbonate (claimed A) of 5% and trinitrile percentage (claimed B) of 2% of example 4.12 and metal amount (claimed C) of 5000 ppm of example 7.3, results in C x B/1000 = 10, falling within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 2, for the example set forth in the calculation above, A x B = 10, falling within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, Li teaches that the electrolyte solution further comprises ethylene carbonate in an amount of c% (claimed D%) and propylene carbonate in an amount of d% (claimed E%), where 15 ≤ c+d ≤ 50 and 0 < c/d < 1 (paragraph [0028), where the specific embodiment set forth above has ethylene carbonate of 11.05% and propylene carbonate of 14.45% (table 4.2, example 4.12), resulting in the claimed D + E = 25.5, falling within the claimed range, and claimed E/D = 1.3, falling within the claimed range.
Regarding claims 7-8, Li teaches that the electrolyte solution further comprises a dinitrile compound in an amount from 0.001% to 10%, which can specifically be 3%, 2%, or 1% (paragraph [0049]), where the specific embodiment set forth above has a dinitrile percentage of 3% (table 4.2, example 4.12), falling within the claimed range of F of claim 7, and F + B = 5, falling within the claimed range of claim 8.
Regarding claims 9-10 and 14-15, Li teaches that the electrolyte solution can comprise of 1,3-propane sultone (paragraph [0087], formula I-5), used in the specific embodiment set forth above in an amount of 3% (table 4.2, example 4.12), the electrolyte solution can also comprise diethyl carbonate and/or ethyl methyl carbonate in an amount of from 5% to 30%, where the specific amount can be 5, 7, 13, 15, 17, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27, or 29% (paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 17, Li teaches specific embodiments with HTCN (claimed 1, 3, 6-hexanetricarbonitrile) and TCEP (claimed 1,2,3-tris(2-cyanooxy)propane (paragraph [0089]); table 3.2, examples 3.21 and 3.22; table 4.2, example 4.12).
Regarding claim 18, Li teaches that the electrolyte solution comprises a lithium salt which can comprise LiPF6, lithium bistrifluoromethanesulfonimide, LiBOB, and/or LiDFOB (paragraph [0065]).
Regarding claim 19, Li teaches a specific embodiment where the dinitrile is succinonitrile (paragraph [0088]; table 4.2, example 4.12).
Regarding claim 20, Li teaches an electronic apparatus comprising the above electrochemical apparatus (paragraph [0004]; claim 20).
Claims 1-2, 7-11, 14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (CN111900480; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a high-voltage lithium ion battery (claimed electrochemical device) (title) comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, an isolation film (claimed separator) and an electrolyte solution, wherein the electrolyte solution comprises fluoroethylene carbonate in an amount (claimed A) of 6% (all percentages are wt%), 1,3,6-hexane trinitrile (claimed trinitrile compound) in an amount (claimed B) of 2%, the positive electrode comprises a positive active material, the positive active material is Li1.005(Co0.975Al0.018Mg0.005Ti0.002)O2:F0.08, wherein the claimed element M comprises Al, Mg and Ti (machine translation at page 12 – embodiment 1). Calculating the weights of each of the components in the positive active material, Al 0.018 mol x 26.982 = 0.486 g, Mg 0.005 mol x 24.305 = 0.122 g, Ti 0.002 mol x 47.867 = 0.957 g, Li 1.005 mol x 6.941 = 6.976 g, Co 0.975 mol x 58.933 = 57.460 g, O 2 mol x 15.999 = 31.998 g, F 0.08 mol x 18.998 = 1.520 g, the sum of the element M is 0.703 g, and the total sum is 98.656 g, resulting in C = 7125 ppm (0.703/98.656 x 106), falling within the claimed range of claim 4, and resulting in C x B/1000 = 14.25, falling within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 2, for the example set forth in the calculation above, A x B = 12, falling within the claimed range.
Regarding claims 7-8, Wang teaches adiponitrile (claimed dinitrile) in an amount (claimed F) of 2% (machine translation at page 12 – third to last paragraph), falling within the claimed range of claim 7, and resulting in F+B=4, falling within the range of claim 8.
Regarding claims 9-11 and 14, Wang teaches 1,3-propane sultone in an amount of 4% (machine translation at page 12, third to last paragraph – 4% is missing from the translation, but verified on the original document at paragraph [0155]), ethylene sulfate in an amount of 0.5% (machine translation at page 15, example 9), diethyl carbonate in an amount of 20% (machine translation at page 12, third to last paragraph).
Regarding claim 17, Wang teaches 1, 3, 6-hexanetrinitrile (claimed 1, 3, 6-hexanetricarbonitrile) (machine translation at page 12 – third to last paragraph).
Regarding claim 18, Wang teaches LiPF6 (claimed lithium hexafluorophosphate) (machine translation at page 12 – third to last paragraph).
Regarding claim 19, Wang teaches adiponitrile (machine translation at page 12 – third to last paragraph).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 13, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN111900480; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 13, Wang teaches diethyl carbonate in an amount of 20% (machine translation at page 12, third to last paragraph), and teaches dimethyl carbonate as an alternative linear carbonate and/or linear carboxylic acid ester (machine translation at page 5, sixth to last paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute dimethyl carbonate for diethyl carbonate as a disclosed alternative compound (see Wang machine translation at page 5, sixth to last paragraph).
Regarding claim 15, Wang teaches diethyl carbonate in an amount of 20% (machine translation at page 12, third to last paragraph), and teaches methyl ethyl carbonate (claimed ethyl methyl carbonate) as an alternative linear carbonate and/or linear carboxylic acid ester (machine translation at page 5, sixth to last paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute ethyl methyl carbonate for diethyl carbonate as a disclosed alternative compound (see Wang machine translation at page 5, sixth to last paragraph).
Regarding claim 20, Wang teaches a battery as is set forth above, and the purpose of a battery is to power an electronic device, and as such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the battery of Wang in an electronic device in order to power the electronic device.
Claims 3-5, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li or Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Feng (CN113097433; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 3, Li and Wang do not specifically disclose the Id and Ig values of the negative electrode. Feng teaches a cathode material (claimed negative electrode) range of Id/Ig of from 0.05 to 0.4 (machine translation at page 2, second to last paragraph), with specific embodiments having Id/Ig = 0.2, falling within the claimed range (see original CN document at table 1-1, examples 1-5 – 1-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a negative electrode with Id/Ig as taught by Feng in the electrochemical device of Li or Wang in order to improve the dynamics performance and cycle performance of the battery without affecting the capacity of the battery (see Feng machine translation at page 2, fifth paragraph). Using the Id/Ig of 0.2 from above, and the specific embodiment of A values set forth above for Li (5) and Wang (6), results in A x (10 x Id/Ig) of 10 for Li and 12 for Wang, these values falling within the claimed range of from 6 to 24.
Regarding claim 4, as was set forth above, Li teaches a C value of 5000, and Wang teaches a C value of 7125, these values falling within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, using the C and Id/Ig values set forth above, results in C/(3000 x Id/Ig) of 8.33 for Li, and 11.88 for Wang, these values falling within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 12, Li and Wang do not specifically disclose vinylene carbonate. Feng teaches that vinylene carbonate is a film forming additive that can be used with, or instead of fluorinated ethylene carbonate (FEC) and/or 1, 3-propane sultone (machine translation at page 9, fourth full paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use vinylene carbonate as taught by Feng in the electrochemical device of Li or Wang in order to improve the cycle performance of the battery under high voltage (see Feng machine translation at page 9, fourth full paragraph). Given the amounts of FEC and 1,3-propane sultone set forth in the embodiments for Li and Wang above, substituting vinylene carbonate for some of the FEC and 1,3-propane sultone results in an amount of vinylene carbonate overlapping the claimed range of from 0.1% to 1%. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” MPEP at 2144.05 citing In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). It is noted that Applicant has not submitted any evidence establishing a criticality of the vinylene carbonate range.
Regarding claim 16, Li teaches the use of ethyl propionate (EP) (paragraph [0086]) with specific embodiments having an amount of from 10 to 30% (table 1, examples 1.1-1.23) and Wang teaches the use of propyl propionate (PP) in an amount of 50% (machine translation at page 12, third to last paragraph), but they do not specifically disclose γ-butyrolactone. Feng teaches that γ-butyrolactone is an ester-based solvent, similar to ethyl propionate and the like (machine translation at page 9, first full paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use γ-butyrolactone in the electrochemical device of Li or Wang as a known ester-based electrolyte solvent with predictable results. Given the amounts of EP/PP taught by Li and Wang above, substituting γ-butyrolactone for some of the EP or PP results in an amount of γ-butyrolactone overlapping the claimed range of from 0.01% to 5%. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” MPEP at 2144.05 citing In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). It is noted that Applicant has not submitted any evidence establishing a criticality of the γ-butyrolactone range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 September 2, 2026
/KATELYN W SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights