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 s (IDS) submitted on Jul. 27, 2023, Mar. 20 and Nov. 06, 2024, and Mar. 7, 2025 have been considered by the examiner. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections Claim 15 is objected to because of the following: In claim 15, if the content in the parenthesis is intended to be a limitation, the parenthesis should be remove d . Appropriate correction is required. 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claims 9-10 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. The term “ about ” in claim s 9 and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ about ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The ranges as claimed have been rendered indefinite due to the use of the term “about” . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoh et al. (US 5405861 A, hereafter Itoh ) . Regarding claim s 1-7 , Itoh teaches a compound represented by the following formula (See Table 1, Compound No. 3): The above formula and the claimed formulae in claim 7 are closely related homologs and analogues in chemistry. It has been held that closely related homologs, analogues, and isomers in chemistry creates a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Dillon 16 USPQ 2d 1897, 1904 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Payne 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979); In re Mills 126 USPQ 513 (CCPA 1960); In re Henze 85 USPQ 261 (CCPA 1950); In re Hass 60 USPQ 544 (CCPA 1944). Note that although the formula disclosed by Itoh and those recited in claim 7 have a difference in substitution groups (e.g., hydroxy group and fluo-substituted benzene group in Itoh vs hydrogen groups in the claimed formulae), one of ordinary skill in the chemistry field would readily appreciate that this difference does not cause a significant change of property of the compounds. As for “An additive for an electrolyte”, e ven if Itoh does not expressly disclose that the compound shown above is used as an electrolyte additive, the claimed compound s are still obvious because they were 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, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In brief, the compound disclosed in Itoh, represented by the formula above, reads on claims 1-7. Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 114156534 A, whose English machine translation is being employed for citation purposes, hereafter referred to as Liu ) in view of Itoh and Choi et al. (US 20180342757 A1, hereafter Choi ). Regarding claims 8-20 , Liu teaches a rechargeable lithium battery (at least: Abstract), comprising: a positive electrode comprising a positive active material, a negative electrode comprising a negative active material ([n0023]), and an electrolyte. The electrolyte comprises ([n0010]) a non-aqueous organic solvent (e.g., ethylene carbonate, [n0013] ), a lithium salt (e.g., lithium hexafluorophosphate, [n0015]) , an additive (e.g., vinylene carbonate, [n0016], reading on the claimed “other additive”) , and a compound represented by the formula: wherein R may be S. (See the formula (1) in Liu). Liu does not teach the additive of claim 1. However, Itoh discloses a similar compound (See Table 1, Compound No. 3) represented by the formula: , which is a homolog and an analogue to the compound of Liu shown above . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the compound of Itoh as an alternative to the compound (formula (1)) of Liu to be a component of the electrolyte of Liu, since i t has been held that closely related homologs, analogues, and isomers in chemistry creates a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Dillon 16 USPQ 2d 1897, 1904 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Payne 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979); In re Mills 126 USPQ 513 (CCPA 1960); In re Henze 85 USPQ 261 (CCPA 1950); In re Hass 60 USPQ 544 (CCPA 1944). As a result, the above formula of Itoh reads on the formulae of claims 1 and 17-20 for the same reasons provided in the rejection of claims 1-7. The compound of Itoh reads on the “additive” as claimed. Liu as modified further teaches the additive is in an amount of 0.01 wt% to 2 wt% (claim 2, Liu). The claimed ranges in the instant claims 9 and 10 overlap the above range, respectively. In the case 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 (I) . Liu as modified further teaches the negative active material comprises graphite ([n0034]). The limitation recited in claim 16 represents functional characteristic or property of the rechargeable lithium battery. Since Liu as modified teaches substantially the same rechargeable lithium battery as claimed, the claimed functional characteristic or property is necessarily present. Regarding product and apparatus claims , w hen the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, functional characteristic or property is presumed to be necessarily present. See In re Schreiber , 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . As for claims 14-15, Liu as modified is silent as to the negative active material comprisin g a Si composite comprising a core and a coating layer, as claimed. In the same field of endeavor, however, Choi discloses that Si as a negative electrode active material has very high capacity compared with graphite ([0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified Liu in view Itoh to use Si as the negative electrode active material in order to achieve a very high capacity and improve the capacity of the battery ([0033], Choi). Choi further teaches the Si particles can be coated with an amorphous carbon coating layer in order to prevent additional oxidation and to improve electrical conductivity of the negative electrode active material ([0046]). Co rrespondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4809 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00 . 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 Barbara Gilliam can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1330 . 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. /ZHONGQING WEI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727