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) submitted on July 12, 2023 and September 29, 2024 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 § 112 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. Claims 1-10 and 13-18 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. Claim 1 includes the limitation that the second additive “consists of 3 to 5 atoms”, such a limitation requiring that the second additive have only 3 to 5 atoms, however, the claim ed second additive requires a sulfur atom, two oxygen atoms, and at least two additional atoms bound to the sulfur, for a total of at least 5 atoms, and dependent claims allow for many more than 5 atoms (e.g., see claim 4) , therefore the claimed second additive could potentially have greatly more than 5 atoms. For purposes of this Office action, the limitation that the second additive consists of 3 to 5 atoms will be ignored, because it is inconsistent with all of Applicant’s inventive embodiments. Claims 2-10 and 13-18 are also rejected as depending upon claim 1. Claim 5 is 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. Formula 5 further defining the second additive in claim 1 does not require a sulfur double bonded to two oxygen atoms and single bonded to two other atoms since A can be phosphorus, sulfur or nitrogen; however, claim 1 requires this structure in the second additive, so claim 5 is inconsistent with the requirements of claim 1. Claims 14-18 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. Claims 14-18 recite the limitation "the lithium secondary battery" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims. These claims are improperly depending upon claim 11, but the lithium secondary battery is defined in claim 13. For purposes of this Office action, claims 14-18 are taken to depend upon claim 13. 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 - 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu (US Pub. No. 2020/0313237) . Regarding claims 1-6 and 1 1 , Hu teaches an electrolyte solution comprising an organic solvent, a lithium salt, a first additive, and a second additive, wherein the first additive is fluoroethylene carbonate (the specific embodiment of the first additive claimed in claim 3), with a specific embodiment having 1% by mass, the second additive is pentaerythritol disulfate (the specific embodiment of the second additive claimed in claim 6) present in an amount of 0.1 to 5% by mass based on the total mass of the electrolyte solution, with a specific embodiment having 1% by mass ( paragraphs [0040]-[0050]; table 1, embodiment 11 ). Regarding claims 4 and 11, pentaerythritol disulfate is the compound in chemical formula 4 of claims 3 and 10, wherein R4 is OR6 and R6 is a C2 alkyl group, RS is R7A and R7 is a C3 alkyl group, and A = , R4 is OR6, and R6 is a Cl alkyl group . Regarding claim 5, the compound in chemical formula 5 of claim 4, wherein A is S, X2, X2', X3, and X3' are O , and R2, R2', R3, and R3' are C 1 alkylene. Regarding claims 7 and 12, as is set forth above, Hu teaches a specific embodiment with 1% of the first additive and 1% of the second additive (table 1, embodiment 11), such having a weight ratio of 1:1, falling within the claimed range. Regarding claim 8, Hu does not limit the lithium salt, and teaches specific lithium salts from the claimed list, including LiPF ₆, LiBF ₄, LiBOB and Li N (SO 2 CF 3 ) 2 (paragraph [0050]). Regarding claim 9, Hu teaches that the organic solvent can comprise at least one of ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, butylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, methyl ethyl carbonate and methyl propyl carbonate (paragraph [0049]). Regarding claim 10, Hu teaches the use of cyclic sultones and/or cyclic sulfates (paragraphs [0018]-[0022]), with specific embodiments using 1,3-propane sultone and ethylene sulfate in an amount of 1% (table 1, embodiments 12 and 13). Regarding claim 13, Hu teaches that lithium secondary battery comprising a cathode, an anode, a separator, and an electrolyte where the electrolyte is the electrolyte set forth above (paragraph [0051]). Regarding claim 18, with regard to the recitation “ the lithium secondary battery is a battery for energy storage systems (ESS s ) or as a battery for automobiles ,” this claim limitation is merely intended use of the battery. The manner in which an apparatus operates is not germane to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The battery of Hu set forth above is fully capable of being used as a battery for energy storage system s or for a utomobile s. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103 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 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a ) (1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hu (US Pub. No. 2020/0313237) . Regarding claims 13-16, Hu teaches that the electrolyte for a secondary battery comprising the fluoroethylene carbonate and the cyclic sulfate compound to have sufficient high-temperature storage performance and high-temperature cycle performance (paragraph [0005]), and uses an electrolyte reading on all of the claimed limitations of the instant application. Accordingly, Applicant is claiming a function of the electrolyte with respect to claims 14-17, and the composition is the same, therefore the limitations of these claims are taken to be anticipated or obvious. “Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, expressed as a 102/103 rejection.” MPEP § 2112. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1612 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Katelyn Smith can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 March 12 , 2026 /KATELYN W SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749