DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 2 . The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. 3. Claims 7, 9, 12, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. A) Each of claims 7, 9, 18, and 20 utilize the term “about” in conjunction with the endpoints in a range (e.g., “ about 0.01 molar (M) to about 5.0 M”). The use of the term “about” in each instance renders the claim indefinite because there is nothing in the specification or prior art to provide any indication as to what range is covered by the term "about" (see Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 18 USPQ2d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (MPEP 2173.05(b)]. It is noted that the use of approximation terms or terms of degree such as “about” are not indefinite when the specification provides some standard allowing for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand the scope of the term. If the specification does not provide some standard for measuring that degree, a determination must be made as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art could nevertheless ascertain the scope of the claim (e.g., a standard that is recognized in the art for measuring the meaning of the term of degree). For example, in Ex parte Oetiker , 23 USPQ2d 1641 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992), the phrases "relatively shallow," "of the order of," "the order of about 5mm," and "substantial portion" were held to be indefinite because the specification lacked some standard for measuring the degrees intended. The meaning of every term used in a claim should be apparent from the prior art or from the specification and drawings at the time the application is filed. Claim language may not be "ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention." Packard, 751 F.3d at 1311. In the instance scenario, there specification fails to make clear what would or would not be covered by the use of “about,” and the prior art does not have a standard for measuring the degree. B) Claim 12 recites, “. . .the positive electrode comprises a compound represented by.. ” and then goes on to define a positive active material (see P95-96 of the PGPUB) . The parent claim (claim 11) recites “a positive electrode comprising a positive active material .” It appears claim 12 fails to invoke proper antecedent basis to the defined positive active material, and should be corrected to , “wherein the positive active material comprises a compound…” Appropriate correction and/or explanation is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 4 . 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. 5 . Claim s 1-6, 8, 10-11, 13-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Ihara et al. (US 2014/0004413). Regarding clai m 1 , Ihara teaches an electrolyte (P89, 117-118, Formula 5, P121, 139-141, Formula 5-9) for a lithium secondary battery (P48) , the electrolyte comprising: a lithium salt (P165-182) ; an organic solvent (P144-164) ; and a disulfonic compound represented by Formula 5 explained below, with the species 5-9 also explicitly taught: P141 lists specific examples of the taught genus of Formula 5, with compound 5-9 below being a species thereof: Accordingly, Ihara teaches both the genus represented by the instant claim Formula 1, as well as a species that reads thereon in Formula 5-9 . For example, the compound of Formula 5-9 corresponds to Formula 1 as defined with: L 1 and L 2 are each a C 2 H 4 group (reading on “ L1 and L2 are each independently an unsubstitu t ed C 1 -C 20 alky le ne group, ” specifically a C 2 alklyene group”) ; A is oxygen (O), and R1 and R2 are each independently an unsubstituted C 1 -C 20 alkyl group, specifically a C 4 alkyl group). As other examples, for Formula 5, Ihara teaches that R21 may explicitly be two alkylene groups bonded to each other through one ether group, with the specific example of -C 2 H 4 -O-C 2 H 4 - taught for R21 in Formula 5-9. Additionally suitable examples of two or more alkylene groups linked through an ether bond are described at P132 and shown in Formulas 3-35 through 3-45 including Formula 3-40 and Formula 3-3-45 which correspond to the L 1 -A-L 2 center of the molecule for each of Formulas 4-6 claimed (e.g., C 2 H 4 - O-C 2 H 4 - for Formula 4 as claimed, and C 3 H 6 -O-C 3 H 6 - for Formulas 5 and 6 as claimed): Ihara further teaches that that each of R20 and R22 in Formula 5 may be a monovalent hydrocarbon group which is defined at P98: P101 gives specific examples of alkyl groups including methyl, ethyl, and propyl groups. These definitions are given for the unsaturated cyclic carbamate compound; however, Ihara teaches that the definitions and terms are the same for the non-carbamate compound (P123-125). The examples of R20 and R22 also included methyl groups (at least Formula 5-1, 5-2) and an ethyl group (formula 5-4). Accordingly, claim 1 is anticipated by these specific options for R20, R21, and R22 as outlined above. The entire disclosure of Ihara is relied upon. Regarding claim 2 , Ihara teaches a compound represented by Formula 2, wherein the difference between Formula 1 of claim 1 and Formula 2 of claim 2 is that A is required to be oxygen (O) in Formula 2 which is met by Ihara (see citations above). Regarding claim 3 , Ihara teaches a compound represented by Formula 3, wherein the difference between Formula 1 of claim 1 and Formula 3 of claim 3 is A is required to be oxygen (O) in Formula, and L1 and L2 are now required to be (CH2) m and (CH2) n , respectively, with m and n each being an integer from 1 to 10, and R1 and R2 are limited to each being a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C20 alkyl group, all of which are met by Formula 5-9 taught by Ihara , along with the general disclosure of Formula 5 and the options for each of R20, R21, and R22 (citations above). Regarding claim 4 , Ihara teaches wherein in Formula 3, R 1 and R 2 are each a C 1 -C 20 alkyl group in at least Formula 5-9, along with the general disclosure of Formula 5 and the options for each of R20 and R22 (citations above). Regarding claim 5 , Ihara teaches wherein, in Formula 3, m and n are each independently 2 or 3 (see Formula 5-9 in which each of m and n are 2). Regarding claim 6 , Ihara teaches the disulfonic compound represented by Formula 5 explained below, with the species 5-9 also explicitly taught: Accordingly, for Formula 5, Ihara teaches that R21 may explicitly be two alkylene groups bonded to each other through one ether group , with the specific example of -C 2 H 4 -O-C 2 H 4 - taught for R21 in Formula 5-9 . Additionally suitable examples of two or more alkylene groups linked through an ether bond are described at P132 and shown in Formulas 3-35 through 3-45 including Formula 3-40 and Formula 3-3-45 which correspond to the L 1 -A-L 2 center of the molecule for each of Formulas 4-6 claimed (e.g., C 2 H 4 - O-C 2 H 4 - for Formula 4 as claimed , and C 3 H 6 -O-C 3 H 6 - for Formul a s 5 and 6 as claimed ): Ihara further teaches that that each of R20 and R22 in Formula 5 may be a monovalent hydrocarbon group which is defined at P98: P101 gives specific examples of alkyl groups including methyl, ethyl , and propyl groups. These defin i tions are given for the unsaturated cy c lic carbamate compound; however, Ihara teaches that the definitions and terms are the same for the non-carbamate compound (P123- 125). The examples of R20 and R22 also included methyl groups (at least Formula 5-1, 5-2) and an ethyl group (formula 5-4). Accordingly, the disclosure of Ihara teaches with sufficient specificity each of Formulas 4-6 given the disclosure, definitions, and examples of what R20, R1, and R22 may each be within Formula 5 such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could at once envision these compounds from the description, definition, and examples given. Regarding claim 8 , Ihara teaches wherein the lithium salt is at least one selected from the group claimed (see P165-182) . For example, Ihara teaches at least the examples of LiPF 6 and LiBF 4 (P167), with Formula 9 as claimed matching Formula 13-1 as claimed (P174). Regarding claim 10 , Ihara teaches wherein the organic solvent comprises at least one selected from the group claimed (P144-164). For example, Ihara teaches at least ethylmethyl carbonate (EMC), methylpropyl carbonate, propylene carbonate (PC), and ethylene carbonate (EC) (P146), among others. Regarding claim 11 , Ihara teaches a lithium secondary battery (P50) comprising: a cathode (“positive electrode”) comprising a cathode/positive active material (P50, 55-63); an anode (“negative electrode”) comprising an anode/negative active material (P50, 64-84); and the electrolyte of claim 1 (entire rejection of which is incorporated here and not repeated) between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (P85-89, 117-118, Formula 5, P121, 139-141, Formula 5-9). Regarding claim 13 , Ihara teaches wherein A is oxygen (Formulas 5 and 5-9; P121, 130). Regarding claim 14 , Ihara teaches a compound represented by Formula 3, wherein the difference between Formula 1 of claim 1 and Formula 3 of claim 3 is A is required to be oxygen (O) in Formula, and L1 and L2 are now required to be (CH2) m and (CH2) n , respectively, with m and n each being an integer from 1 to 10, and R1 and R2 are limited to each being a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C20 alkyl group, all of which are met by Formula 5-9, along with the general disclosure of Formula 5 and the options for each of R20, R21, and R22 (citations above). Regarding claim 15 , Ihara teaches wherein in Formula 3, R 1 and R 2 are each a C 1 -C 20 alkyl group in at least Formula 5-9, along with the general disclosure of Formula 5 and the options for each of R20 and R22 (citations above). Regarding claim 16 , Ihara teaches wherein, in Formula 3, m and n are each in dependently 2 or 3 (see Formula 5-9 in which each of m and n are 2). Regarding claim 17 , the rejection of claim 6 is entirely incorporated into the instant rejection and not repeated here. Regarding claim 19 , Ihara teaches wherein the lithium salt is at least one selected from the group claimed (see P165-182). For example, Ihara teaches at least the examples of LiPF 6 and LiBF 4 (P167), with Formula 9 as claimed matching Formula 13-1 as claimed (P174). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 6 . 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. 7. Claim s 6- 7 , 9 , 17- 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ihara et al. (US 2014/0004413) as applied to at least claim s 1 and 11 above. It is noted that the rejection against claims 6 and 17 are alternative rejections than those set forth above. Regarding claims 6 and 17 , the rejection set forth above against claim 6, incorporated into claim 17 and not repeated, is also incorporated here. The Examiner surmised at the conclusion: Accordingly, the disclosure of Ihara teaches with sufficient specificity each of Formulas 4-6 given the disclosure, definitions, and examples of what R20, R1, and R22 may each be within Formula 5 such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could at once envision these compounds from the description, definition, and examples given. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to select from the taught options for each of R20, R21, and R22 enumerated above within Ihara that R20 and R22 (corresponding to R1 and R2 of Formula 1 of the claim) are each a methyl or ethyl group, and R21 (corresponding to L1-A-L2 of Formula 1 of the claim) are either of C 2 H 4 - O-C 2 H 4 - or C 3 H 6 -O-C 3 H 6 - given each of the named groups is an explicit option taught by Ihara for the corresponding R20, R21, and R22 (citations above). Regarding claim s 7 and 18 , Ihara teaches wherein an amount of the compound in the electrolyte solution is preferably in the range from 0.001 wt % to 2 wt % both inclusive (P143), thereby rendering the claimed range of “ about 0.05 wt % to about 20 wt %, based on a total weight of the electrolyt e,” as prima facie obvious given i n the case where the claimed range overlap s or lie s inside a range disclosed by the prior art , a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05). Regarding claim s 9 and 20 , Ihara teaches wherein a concentration of the lithium salt is in a range of from 0.3 mol/kg to 3.0 mol/kg both inclusive with respect to the solvent in order to achieve high ion conductivity (P182). Although not recited in molarity (mol/L = M) as claimed, the same thing (i.e., amount of salt relative to the solvent) is being optimized just in different terms (i.e., expressed relative to weight in Ihara versus volume in the claim), wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be immediately apprised of such. The court has held, “ Wh ere the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to determine the optimum or workable ranges of the amount of lithium salt to be utilized relative to the solvent, whether in metrics related to weight (kg) or volume (l iters ), given Ihara teaches a suitable range and that the content of the salt added is related to ionic conductivity (P182), as would also be immediately known to one having ordinary skill in the art , thereby providing the predictable result of providing an electrolyte solution suitable for its intended purpose . 8 . Claim s 9 and 20 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ihara et al. (US 2014/0004413) as applied to at least claim s 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2017/0040639). Regarding claim s 9 and 20 , Ihara teaches wherein a concentration of the lithium salt is in a range of from 0.3 mol/kg to 3.0 mol/kg both inclusive with respect to the solvent in order to achieve high ion conductivity (P182). Although not recited in molarity (mol/L = M) as claimed, the same thing (i.e., amount of salt relative to the solvent) is being optimized just in different terms (i.e., expressed relative to weight in Ikhara versus volume in the claim), wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be immediately apprised of such. The court has held, “ Wh ere the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to determine the optimum or workable ranges of the amount of lithium salt to be utilized relative to the solvent, whether in metrics related to weight (kg) or volume (liters), given Ihara teaches a suitable range and that the content of the salt added is related to ionic conductivity (P182), as would also be immediately known to one having ordinary skill in the art, thereby providing the predictable result of providing an electrolyte solution suitable for its intended purpose. Furthermore, looking to known configurations of analogous electrolyte solutions intended for use with a lithium secondary battery, Wang teaches that a suitable concentration of the lithium salt such as LiPF 6 should be 0.7 to 1.3 mol/L (P37-40). Wang teaches that if the molarity of the lithium salt is too low, the conductivity of the electrolyte is low which will affect both C-rate and cycle performance of the lithium ion battery as a whole, and if the molarity of the lithium salt is too high, the viscosity of the electrolyte is too high which similarly affects both C-rate and cycle performance of the lithium ion battery as a whole (P40). The taught range of 0.7 to 1.3 mol/L renders the claimed range of 0.01 M to 5.0 M as prima facie obvious given i n the case where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside a range disclosed by the prior art , a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05). Thus, the claimed range of lithium salt in terms of molarity is rendered further obvious by the suitable range taught by Wang , wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to known concentrations of lithium salt in terms of volume (=mol/liter = Molarity) to provide an electrolyte solution suitable for its intended purpose. 9 . Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ihara et al. (US 2014/0004413) as applied to at least claim 11 above, and further in view of Dong et al. (US 2020/0411901). Regarding claim 12 , Ihara teaches wherein the positive electrode comprises a compound represented by Formula 20: Given the parameters of z with nickel defined in an atomic ratio at 1-z, (i.e., nickel = 0.5001-0.995), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the genus taught as generally defining nickel-rich lithium composite oxides that have one or more of M , such as Co ( colbalt ) and Mn (manganese), doped in the nickel lattice site. Looking to known species options of this compound, Dong teaches that nickel-rich lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxides cells allow for unprecedent cycling properties for a large capacity cells (abstract) , with “Ni-rich lithium manganese cobalt oxide” being represented by LiNi x Mn y Co z O 2 with x > 0.3 and specific commercially available formulations of these compounds including LiNi 0.5 Mn 0.3 Co 0.2 O 2 , LiNi 0.6 Mn 0.2 Co 0.2 O 2 , and LiNi 0.8 Mn 0.1 Co 0.1 O 2 (P54). Dong teaches that such compounds achieve desirable cyclic results (P54), and are of interest due to lower costs, lower flammability risks, and the ability to cycle at higher voltages (P53). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to look to known species options for the taught genus of Ihara and select either of LiNi 0.6 Mn 0.2 Co 0.2 O 2 or LiNi 0.8 Mn 0.1 Co 0.1 O 2 as taught by Dong (P54) in order to achieve a desired cycling result, balance cost and flammability risk, and to allow for cycling at higher voltages (P54; abstract; entire disclosure relied upon). Conclusion 10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT AMANDA J BARROW whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7867 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9am - 6pm CST . 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 Ula Ruddock can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /AMANDA J BARROW/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729