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 Objections 2. Claim 12 is objected to given the failure to utilize proper subscripts for Formula 2. Each of “1+x” and a-d should be subscripted. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 3. 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. 4. Claim s 1-7, 9-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada et al. (JP 2002-134168) (machine translation and original copy provided) in view of Su et al., “Oxidatively stable fluorinated sulfone electrolytes for high voltage high energy lithium-ion batteries,” Energy Environ. Sci ., 2017, 10, 900 (copy provided). It is noted that the machine translation of Shamada does not show the chemical formulas or tables ; however, the original copy does show these such that the Examiner relies on both the original copy and machine translation. Regarding claim s 1 -5, , Shimada teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery (P6; P13-30; entire disclosure relied upon) , comprising : a lithium salt (P13, 30) ; an organic solvent; and an additive including a compound represented by the following formula: The above formula meets Formula 1 (claim 1) and Formula 1-1 (claim 2) as claimed with m= 0 for (R2) m ( “m is an integer of 0 to 4 ” – claim 1; “m is 0” – claim 5 ), wherein R 2 of Shimada is taught as the same as R 1 of Shimada’s formula 1 (P23) , with R 1 and R 2 being defined as including a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms (P16-17). Accordingly, R 2 of Shimada reads on “ R1 ” as claimed with the exception that Shimada does not explicitly teach that the substituted alkyl group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms is substituted with fluorine as claimed. In the same field of endeavor, Su teaches analogous art of non-aqueous electrolyte solutions for a lithium secondary battery and teaches that fluorinated sulfones, specifically with an α-trifluoromethyl group (-CF 3 ) , exhibit enhanced oxidation stability, reduced viscosity, and superior separator wettability as compared to their non-fluorinated counterparts (abstract; p. 901- 90 3 ). Su teaches that the fluorinated sulfones exhibit improved performance in LiNi 0.5 Mn 0.3 Co 0.2 O 2 /graphite cells making them promising high voltage electrolytes for next generation high voltage high energy lithium-ion batteries (abstract). Su analyzes how utilizing the fluorinated counterparts of the carbon chain attached to the sulfone group exhibits beneficial propert i es such as reduced visco s ity, enhanced wetting and decreased boiling point compared with their non-fluorinated counterparts (p. 901), and increases the oxidation stability on the surface of a charged cathode, passivates the graphite surface of the anode, thus enabling reversible Li + intercalation and deintercalation, an indispensable feature that non-fluorinated sulfones do not have ( pp . 901-902). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the R 2 of Shimada, being defined as including a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms (P16-17), as being substituted specifically with fluorine given the teachings of Su as outlined above teaching that in a nonaqueous electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery, fluorinated sulfones exhibit the beneficial properties of enhanced oxidation stability, reduced viscosity, and superior separator wettability as compared to their non-fluorinated counterparts , and allows for passivation of the graphite surface of the anode of the lithium secondary battery, thus enabling reversible Li + intercalation and deintercalation, an indispensable feature that non-fluorinated sulfones do not have (pp. 901-902). Regarding claim s 6 -7 , Shimada teaches wherein the amount of the compound is in a range of 0.01 to 10% by weight, preferably 0.05 to 5% by weight, based on the non-aqueous electrolyte (P25). The taught ranges render the claimed prima facie obvious given where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05). Additionally, Shimada teaches the amount of the compounds in the non-aqueous electrolyte is a known-result effective variable given if less than 0.01 wt %, an excellent effect on the initial charge/discharge efficiency is not recognized, and in excess of 10 wt %, the effect is not commensurate and the battery capacity is reduced and the charge/discharge efficiency decreases as the charge/discharge cycle progresses which is not preferable (P25). Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to determine the optimum value or range of the amount of compound to be added in order to optimize the known result of improving the initial charge/discharge efficiency the courts holding the following ( MPEP § 2144.05 ): The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch , 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) . “[W]here 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) . “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 . Regarding claim 9 , Shimada teaches wherein the lithium salt comprises LiPF6 (P2-3, 30). It is noted that Su teaches that it is known that LiN (FSO 2 ) 2 can inhibit thedissolution of aluminum and transition metals at around 5 V providing teaching, suggestion, and motivation to alternatively or additionally use this specific salt (p. 901). Regarding claim 1 0 , Shimada teaches wherein the organic solvent comprises a mixture of at least two selected from a cyclic carbonate-based solvent, a linear carbonate-based solvent, or a linear ester-based solvent (P26-29) . Regarding claim 1 1 , Shimada teaches a lithium secondary battery (P31, 35) , comprising: a positive electrode including a positive electrode active material (P31, 35) ; a negative electrode including a negative electrode active material (P31, 35) ; a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (P35) ; and the non-aqueous electrolyte solution of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1, entirely incorporated into the instant claim rejection and not repeated here). Regarding claim 1 2 , Shimada teaches wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium composite transition metal oxide such as LiCoO 2 , LiNiO 2 , or LiMn 2 O 4 (P2-3, 31, 35), but fails to specifically recite a lithium composite transition metal oxide represented by Formula 2 as claimed. Su teaches the state-of-the-art cathode material is generally LiNi x Mn y Co z O 2 (NMC) and that Ni-rich NMC532 (=LiNi 0.5 Mn 0.3 Co 0.2 O 2 ) is capable of greater capacity when operated at potentials of greater than 4.5V (p. 900), wherein the taught fluorinated sulfone-based electrolytes are used in conjunction with such high voltage cells (p. 901-903). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to select as the positive electrode active material of Shimada having the genus of a lithium composite oxide (P2-3, 31, 35), that of that of Ni-rich NMC532 (=LiNi 0.5 Mn 0.3 Co 0.2 O 2 ) material given Su teaches said material is advantageous in terms of offering a greater capacity battery (p. 900-903), and for which the taught fluorinated sulfone-based electrolytes are obtained for use therewith in high voltage cells (p. 901-903). Additionally, t he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use support s a prima facie obviousness (see Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ; In re Leshin , 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) ; MPEP § 2144.07 ). Regarding claim s 1 4 and 15 , Shimada teaches R 2 is defined as including a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms (P16-17). This includes a methyl group (as also explicitly named at P17). Shimada as modified by Su provides the necessary teaching, suggestion, and motivation to provide fluorinated sulfones in place of the non-fluorinated sulfones for the advantageous benefits described in the rejection of claim 1 and incorporated into the instant rejection. The fluorination of Su replaces -CH 3 with -CF 3 in the sulfone compounds of Su (p. 901-903). The Examiner finds that fluorination with one (-CH 2 F), two (-CHF 2 ) or three (-CF 3 ) fluorine atoms of the methyl group attached to the sulfone compound ( i.e ,. R1 as claimed; R 2 of Shimada) creates a prima facie case of obviousness given said chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities, and given one having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of similar properties (MPEP 2144). "When chemical compounds have ‘very close’ structural similarities and similar utilities, without more a prima facie case may be made" [ In re Grabiak , 769 F.2d 729, 731, 226 USPQ 870, 871 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ]. Accordingly, providing R1 as a methyl group is taught by Shimada, and fluorinating this methyl group to any of -CH 2 F, -CHF 2 , or -CF 3 in order to achieve the advantageous, beneficial results taught by Su is considered prima facie obviousness on given said chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities, and given one having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of similar properties (MPEP 2144). 5 . Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada et al. (JP 2002-134168) (machine translation and original copy provided) in view of Su et al., “Oxidatively stable fluorinated sulfone electrolytes for high voltage high energy lithium-ion batteries,” Energy Environ. Sci ., 2017, 10, 900 (copy provided) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Hallac et al. (US 2014/0186723). Regarding claim 8 , Shimada fails to disclose wherein the the additive further comprises at least one selected from vinylene carbonate, 1,3-propane sultone , ethylene sulfate, or lithium difluorophosphate as claimed. In the same field of endeavor, Hallac teaches analogous art of electrolyte additives that allow for wide temperature operation of lithium-ion batteries, and teaches the concomitant use of sulfone-based additives along with cyclic carbonate-based additives with the specific example of vinylene carbonate (VC) given (P36). Hallac teaches that each of these additives may effect the performance in different ways and that the cyclic carbon-based additive VC stabilizes the interface at the anode during operation which improves the longevity of the battery cell during high temperature operation (P36), whereas sultones may stabilize the cathode layer during high temperatures (as also taught by Su – p. 901, final paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the additive of Shimada such that it also includes vinylene carbonate given Hallac teaches the concomitant use of sulfone-based additives and cyclic-carbonate based additives such as vinylene carbonate for use in an electrolyte of a lithium secondary battery to achieve different performance improving effects on the cell, with vinylene carbonate taught as stabilizing the anode interface whereas the sultones (i.e., the class of compounds taught by Shimada) stabilizes the cathode layer (P36). 6. Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada et al. (JP 2002-134168) (machine translation and original copy provided) in view of Su et al., “Oxidatively stable fluorinated sulfone electrolytes for high voltage high energy lithium-ion batteries,” Energy Environ. Sci ., 2017, 10, 900 (copy provided) as applied to at least claims 1, 11, and 12 above, and further in view of Dong et al. (US 2020/0411901). Regarding claim s 1 3 and 16 , Shimada teaches wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium composite transition metal oxide such as LiCoO 2 , LiNiO 2 , or LiMn 2 O 4 (P2-3, 31, 35), and Shimada as modified by Su teaches the state-of-the-art cathode material is generally LiNi x Mn y Co z O 2 (NMC) and that Ni-rich NMC532 (=LiNi 0.5 Mn 0.3 Co 0.2 O 2 ) is capable of greater capacity when operated at potentials of greater than 4.5V (p. 900), wherein the taught fluorinated sulfone-based electrolytes are used in conjunction with such high voltage cells (p. 901-903). The references fail to teach Formula 2 of claim 12 further defined to require the atomic amount of Ni meets the range of 0.60 < a <1 (claim 13) , or the specific examples of LiNi 0. 6 Mn 0. 2 Co 0.2 O 2 , LiNi 0. 7 Mn 0. 15 Co 0. 15 O 2 , or LiNi 0. 8 Mn 0. 1 Co 0. 1 O 2 as claimed (claim 16). As taught by Su, Ni-rich lithium composite oxides of the generally formula LiNi x Mn y Co z O 2 (NMC) are known to achieve greater capacity (p. 900). This concept would be well understood in the state of the prior art, wherein Dong teaches that nickel-rich lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxides cells allow for unprecedent cycling properties for a large capacity cell s (abstract) , with “ N i-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 (as also taught by Su – p. 900), in addition to 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 c ompounds 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 substitute as the taught Ni-rich positive active material of modified Shimada [i.e., LiNi 0.5 Mn 0.3 Co 0.2 O 2 (Su – p. 900)] 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). Examiner Comments 7 . With respect to claims 14-15, MPEP 2144.09, Section VII is reproduced below. A prima facie case of obviousness based on structural similarity is rebuttable by proof that the claimed compounds possess unexpectedly advantageous or superior properties. In re Papesch , 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) ( affidavit evidence which showed that claimed triethylated compounds possessed anti-inflammatory activity whereas prior art trimethylated compounds did not was sufficient to overcome obviousness rejection based on the homologous relationship between the prior art and claimed compounds); In re Wiechert , 370 F.2d 927, 152 USPQ 247 (CCPA 1967) (a 7-fold improvement of activity over the prior art held sufficient to rebut prima facie obviousness based on close structural similarity). However, a claimed compound may be obvious because it was suggested by, or structurally similar to, a prior art compound even though a particular benefit of the claimed compound asserted by patentee is not expressly disclosed in the prior art. It is the differences, in fact, in their respective properties which are determinative of nonobviousness. If the prior art compound does in fact possess a particular benefit, even though the benefit is not recognized in the prior art, applicant’s recognition of the benefit is not in itself sufficient to distinguish the claimed compound from the prior art. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ( en banc ). See MPEP § 716.02 - § 716.02(g) for a discussion of evidence alleging unexpectedly advantageous or superior results. Accordingly, similar to In re Papesch , Applicant would have to provide affidavit evidence that -CHF 2 (when used as R1 in Formula 1) possesses unexpected advantageous or superior properties over -CF 3 (when utilized as R1 in Formula 1) given the explicit teaching of -CF 3 by Su, and the present case made of prima facie obviousness against -CHF 2 for R1 as a chemical compound having a very close structural similarity and similar utility as -CF3 for R1, with one having ordinary skill in the art having a reasonable expectation of similar properties for -CHF 2 and -CF 3 when utilized as the R1 group (MPEP 2144). Conclusion 8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Wu et al., “Sulfone-based high-voltage electrolytes for high energy density rechargeable lithium batteries: Progress and perspective,” Chinese Chemical Letters , 32 (2021) 1309-1315, available online 12 Oct. 2020 provides an overview of sulfone compounds in nonaqueous electrolytes and discusses changing the molecular structure of sulfone solvents to enhance characteristics of high-voltage lithium ion batteries (section 3.2.3) including with the introduction of a molecular group such as -CF 3 (referencing Su as relied upon above). 9. 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