DETAILED ACTION Introductory Notes Any paragraph citation of the instant is in reference to the U.S. published patent application. 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. Joint Inventors 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. 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, 3-8, 10-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LEE ( US 20050084765 A1 ). Regarding claim 1, LEE discloses a lithium secondary battery (Abstract) , comprising: a cathode comprising a cathode active material that includes lithium metal oxide particles (“ positive active material ” [0037] including chemical formula 7) ; an anode facing the cathode and comprising an anode active material (“ negative active material ” [0040] ) ; and an electrolyte solution comprising a lithium salt and an organic solvent (Abstract) , wherein the lithium metal oxide particles contain at least 80 mol% of nickel and less than 10 mol% of manganese among all elements excluding lithium and oxygen (claim 37 as well as chemical formula 7 ; as well as examples with NCM 811 such as example 1 1 [0070 ] ) , and the organic solvent comprises a mononitrile-based compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 ; wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, R1 represents a C1-C12 alkyl group ( claim 1 as well as claim 6 which notably lists propionitrile, butyronitrile, valeronitrile which are preferred C1-C12 alkyl group nitriles per instant Table 1) . Regarding claim 3, LEE discloses the lithium metal oxide particles contain 0.5 mol% to 6 mol% of manganese among all elements excluding lithium and oxygen (claim 37 as well as chemical formula 7 [0038] as well as example 35 with Mn 0.05 [0113] ). Regarding claim 4, LEE discloses a content of the mononitrile-based compound in the organic solvent is in a range from 1 vol% to 9 vol% (“ a nitrile-based solvent represented by formula 1 of 5 to 30 volume % ” [0011] ; as well as example 2 6 with 5% valeronitrile ) . Regarding claim 5, LEE discloses in Chemical Formula 1, R1 is a C2-C4 linear alkyl group (claim 6 which notably lists propionitrile, butyronitrile, valeronitrile which are preferred C 2 -C 4 alkyl group nitriles per instant Table 1) . Regarding claim 6, LEE discloses the organic solvent further comprises a cyclic carbonate-based solvent and a linear carbonate-based solvent (claim 7 as well as example 2 6 with a 30:65:5 mixture of cyclic ethylene carbonate , linear diethyl carbonate , and mononitrile valeronitril e) . Regarding claim 7, LEE discloses a content of the linear carbonate-based solvent is greater than a content of the cyclic carbonate-based solvent in the organic solvent (“ 10 to 40 volume % of ethylene carbonate ” [0021] , where the balance is the linear carbonate and the nitrile ; as well as example 2 6 with a 30:65:5 mixture of cyclic ethylene carbonate , linear diethyl carbonate , and mononitrile valeronitril e ) . Regarding claim 8, LEE discloses a volume ratio of the cyclic carbonate-based solvent to the mononitrile-based compound in the organic solvent is in a range from 5 to 25 ( “ a nitrile-based solvent represented by formula 1 of 5 to 30 volume % ” [0011] as well as “ 10 to 40 volume % of ethylene carbonate ” [0021] , which provides ratios reading on the claim ; as well as example 2 6 with a 30:65:5 mixture of cyclic ethylene carbonate , linear diethyl carbonate , and mononitrile valeronitril e which has a ratio of 6 for cyclic carbonate to mononitrile) . Regarding claim 10, LEE discloses the electrolyte solution further comprises an additive comprising at least one of a fluorine-containing cyclic carbonate-based compound represented by Chemical Formula 2 and a sultone- based compound represented by Chemical Formula 3 ; wherein, in Chemical Formula 2, R2 and R3 are independently hydrogen, halogen, or a Ci-C3 alkyl group, and at least one of R2 and R3 is F, wherein, in Chemical Formula 3, R4 is a C2-C5 alkylene group or a C3-C5 alkenylene group (“fluoroethylene carbonate” [0025] which reads on fluorine-containing cyclic carbonate-based compound represented by Chemical Formula 2 and matches the preference for FEC in instant [0062] ) Regarding claim 11, LEE discloses a content of the additive is in a range from 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte solution (“ the carbonate-based additive is from 0.01 to 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the total weight of the electrolyte, and preferably from 0.01 to 5 parts by weight ” [0026] ; as well as example 3 3 with 3% FEC [0106] ) . Regarding claim 14, LEE discloses the electrolyte solution does not comprise a compound containing two or more nitrile groups (claim 6 which notably lists propionitrile, butyronitrile, valeronitrile which are preferred C1-C12 alkyl group nitriles per instant Table 1; as well as example 2 6 with a 30:65:5 mixture of cyclic ethylene carbonate , linear diethyl carbonate , and mononitrile valeronitril e where the example does not contain a dinitrile) . 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. Claim s 2, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE. Regarding claim 2, LEE discloses the lithium metal oxide particles contain 88 mol% to 98 mol% of nickel among all elements excluding lithium and oxygen (claim 37 as well as chemical formula 7 [0038] where y, which pertains to the amount of nickel, is 0.1 ≤ y ≤ 0.9 ; furthermore LEE teaches “ swelling phenomenon especially occurs because of the nickel-based compound, so the effect of using the electrolyte of the present invention can be maximized when a nickel-based compound is used ” [0038] ). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the claimed nickel range to maximize the effect of the electrolyte . Regarding claim 9, LEE discloses the linear carbonate- based solvent comprises a first dialkyl carbonate-based solvent having a C2-C4 alkyl group at both terminal ends thereof, and a second dialkyl carbonate-based solvent in which at least one terminal group is a methyl group (“dimethyl carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, dipropyl carbonate, dibutyl carbonate, … and mixtures thereof ” [0024] ; the list notably includes DMC and EMC which have a methyl group as well as DEC, dipropyl carbonate, and dibutyl carbonate which have a C2-C4 alkyl group at both terminal ends thereof ; furthermore the list states “ and mixtures thereof ” ). O ne of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to combine the two of the listed carbonates from the small number of choices as well as knowing t he mixture of EMC or DMC with DEC is routinely used in electrolytes . Regarding claim 12, LEE discloses a content of the fluorine-containing cyclic carbonate-based compound is in a range from 0.1 wt% to 2 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte solution (“preferably from 0.01 to 5 parts by weight” [0026]; wherein too low “ cannot effectively suppress gas generation ” [0026] and too high “ deteriorates high-temperature cycle life characteristics and causes swelling to occur ” [0026] ) . Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the claimed range to arrive at a desired optimization of effective gas suppression and high-temperature cycle life . Regarding the content of the sultone-based compound , this limitation further limits the optional sultone of claim 10 . LEE teaches FEC, therefore it is not required that LEE meet further limitations of the non-selected group via subsequent dependent claims . Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE in view of KIM ( US 20190198924 A1 ) . Regarding claim 13, LEE discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, however LEE does not expressly teach the additive further comprises at least one of a fluorine-containing phosphate-based compound, a sulfate- based compound and a borate-based compound. KIM is directed to an electrolyte additive including a nitrile in lithium secondary battery with a NMC cathode active material and LiPF 6 in a mixture of cyclic and linear carbonates, like LEE. KIM discloses inclusion of a “ lithium compound for forming a coating film is capable of forming a coating film on the cathode and the anode ” [0025] where the compound is “ selected from the group consisting of LiPO 2 F 2 , … and LiDFOB ” [0025] each of which read on the claimed fluorine-containing compound. KIM further discloses example 1 with LiPO 2 F 2 as an additive. KIM teaches inclusion of the compound for forming a coating film allows the for “ achieving more uniform formation of the film by being included in the electrolyte ” [0025]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the compound for forming a coating film of KIM to the electrolyte of LEE in order to achieve uniform film formation. Therefore, modified LEE discloses the additive further comprises at least one of a fluorine-containing phosphate-based compound, a sulfate- based compound and a borate-based compound (as taught by KIM). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kim, Young Soo et al. (US 20090047582 A1 ) directed to when a fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) compound is used as an electrolyte solvent, and an aliphatic mono- or di-nitrile compound is used as an electrolyte additive . See example 3 for FEC with butyronitrile [0054]. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TRAVIS L MARTIN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-5449 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 8am-5pm ET . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Allison Bourke can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (303)297-4684 . 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. /T.L.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 1721 /KOURTNEY R S CARLSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721