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. Claim Objections Claim s 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, and 14 objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, and 14, any reference to the formulas: “formula (1)”, “formula (2)”, “formula (1-1)”, “formula (1-2)”, “formula (1-3)”, “formula (13)” should be preceded by a definite or indefinite article (i.e. “a” or “the”) as appropriate to ensure proper antecedent basis. Additionally, consistently capitalizing the word “formula” is advised to further strengthen antecedent basis. For example, a suggested version of claim 1 to correct this would read: “(…) represented by a Formula (1) and an anio (B) represented by a Formula (2) (…)”. In claim 1, line 8, “formulae” should read “formula”. In claim 1, the examiner suggests that the Formulas (1-1), (1-3), as well as (2) be arranged to be directly under their first references. In claim 5, the examiner suggests the Formula under line 2 be assigned a reference number, such as (1-4). In claim 13, the examiner suggests the following rearrangement: “The nonaqueous electrolytic solution battery according to claim 12, wherein the positive electrode active material contains a lithium metal oxide represented by a Formula (13) : (…)”. In claim 13, “the group consisting of” should read “a group consisting of” to prevent issues with antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 9 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). 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. Claim s 1, 2, 3, 7, and 13 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. Regarding claim 1: In line 6, “which is optionally substituted with a halogen atom” creates indefiniteness because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine which one of the hydrogen atom, the whole aliphatic hydrocarbon group, or an individual carbon in the hydrocarbon group may optionally be substituted with a halogen atom. The same uncertainty is introduced when defining Z 2 . The examiner suggests defining X 1 , X 2 , and Z 2 in the same manner as is done for Z 3 to fix the indefiniteness. Regarding claim s 2 and 3 , “*” is already defined in the independent claim 1 on which claim 2 depends. This creates indefiniteness because it is unclear if “*” of claim 2 is a new symbol or simply the same “*” of claim 1. The same is true for the “*” of claim 3. Regarding claim 7, “formula (1-2)” is not defined in claim 1, leading to improper antecedent basis. Regarding claim 13, “ a positive electrode active material” creates uncertainty because claim 12 on which it depends already defines a positive electrode active material, so it is uncertain if this is a different positive electrode active material or not. An appropriate correction would be “ the positive electrode active material”. Claim Interpretation Regarding claim 9, the examiner is interpreting “a fluoride atom” to mean “a fluorine atom” because fluoride is an ion not an atom, and the specification of the instant teaches lithium fluorosulfonate, where Z 3 is represented by a fluorine atom, not a fluoride ion. 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. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20220271341-A1 , Zhou, in view of US-20170373348-A1 , Abe . Regarding claim 1, Zhou teaches a nonaqueous electrolytic solution comprising carbonic acid methyl 2-propynyl ester ( R- A) and LiDFOB ( R- B) , wherein a mass ratio ( R- A)/( R- B) of a content of the compound ( R- A) to a content of the anion ( R- B) is 0.6 (Table 1) . The structure of R-A is shown in the figure below (left) , along with the Formulas (1) and (1-1) of the instant (right) , and annotations mapping the claim limitations of claim 1 of the instant. For any references to R-A from this point forward, refer to this diagram. As is laid out above, the circled portion of R-A corresponds to the circled portion of the Formula (1), where X 1 and X 2 have been substituted with hydrogens as is claimed in claim 1. The boxed in section of R-A corresponds to Y 1 , more specifically the structure of the Formula (1-1) on the right. Finally, the methyl group indicated by the arrow labeled “Z 1 ” corresponds to an alkyl group having 1 carbon atom, as is claimed in claim 1. A value of (R-A)/(R-B) corresponds to A/B, and falls inside the range of 0.01 to 1.2. This positively recites all of the requirements of Structure A of claim 1 of the instant , as well as the requirements for A/B . Zhou does not teach an R-B which is represented by the Formula 2 of the instant. However, Abe teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte comprising a lithium salt which may comprise any from a list of salts having an oxalic acid skeleton selected from a list provided in [0069]. The list comprises LiDFOB and lithium fluorosulfonate. This teaches equivalency between the two salts in the field of nonaqueous electrolytes. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention would have found it obvious to replace the LiDFOB additive of Zhou with the lithium fluorosulfonate of Abe, because doing so would amount to no more than swapping components which are known equivalents in the art of nonaqueous electrolyte additives. Lithium fluorosulfonate meets the structural requirements of anion B of claim 1 of the instant. Regarding claim 2, modified Zhou teaches R-A, which meets all of the structural requirements for A of claim 2 (Zhou, Table 1) Regarding claims 3 and 9, modified Zhou teaches R-B comprises lithium fluorosulfonate (Abe [0069]), which meets the structural requirements of anion B wherein Z 3 represents a fluorine atom. Regarding claim 4 , modified Zhou teaches the nonaqueous electrolyte comprises ethyl propionate (Zhou, Table 1) which is a linear carboxylate. Regarding claim 5, modified Zhou teaches R-A, which meets the structural requirements for A of claim 5. Regarding claim 6, modified Zhou teaches R-A, which comprises an alkyl group having 1 carbon atom, which meets the structural requirements of claim 6. Regarding claim 7, modified Zhou teaches R-A, which meets the structural limitations of claim 7 of the instant. Regarding claim 10, modified Zhou teaches R-B, which comprises lithium fluorosulfonate, which comprises an alkaline metal salt. Regarding claim 11, modified Zhou teaches the nonaqueous electrolyte solution comprises ethyl propionate (Zhou, Table 1) , fluoroethylene carbonate (Zhou, Table 1) , and diethyl carbonate (Zhou [0089] ) , which are a linear carboxylate, saturated cyclic carbonate, and a linear carbonate, respectively. Regarding claim 12, modified Zhou teaches a nonaqueous electrolytic solution battery (Zhou, [0086]) comprising: a positive electrode (Zhou, [0093]) having a positive electrode active material (Zhou, [0094]) ; a negative electrode (Zhou, [0095]) ; and the nonaqueous electrolytic solution which has been taught in the above rejections. While modified Zhou does not explicitly teach the positive electrode active material is capable of absorbing and releasing lithium ions , the material modified Zhou teaches is lithium cobalt oxide. The instant teaches LiCoO 2 is a potential option for positive electrode active material ( Instant, [0072]), which means it must be capable of absorbing and releasing lithium ions. Regarding claims 13 and 14, the teachings of modified Zhou are explained in the above rejections. Modified Zhou does not teach a positive electrode active material which meets the requirements of the Formula 13 of the instant. However, Abe teaches a positive electrode active material comprising materials listed in [0087]. The list contains both LiCoO 2 and LiCo 1-x Ni x O 2 , wherein 0.01<x<1. This teaches an equivalency between the two materials. LiCo 1-x Ni x O 2 , wherein 0.01<x<1 meets the requirements of the Formula 13 of the instant, including the further specified ranges of b of claim 14. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention would have found it obvious to replace the LiCoO 2 of Zhou with the LiCo 1-x Ni x O 2 , wherein 0.01<x<1 of Abe, because doing so would amount to no more than replacing one known material for positive electrode active material for an equivalent which was known in the field of nonaqueous secondary batteries to achieve predictable results. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6917 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. . 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. /LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1721 /ALLISON BOURKE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721