DETAILED ACTION Claim Objections Claim s 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: “ bis( trifluoromethanesulfonimide ” contains an open parenthesis without a closed parenthesis . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 . 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. Claim s 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ugawa et al. (US 2005/0118513) in view of Duong et al. (US 2015/0303481). Regarding claim s 1 , 2 , and 10 , Ugawa teaches an electrolyte and battery comprising: cathode 21 (Fig. 1); anode 22 (Fig. 1); and an electrolyte (para 0008). The electrolyte includes a nonaqueous solvent (para 0018), a lithium salt (para 0019), and an additive, specifically N- phenyl - bis ( trifluoromethanesulfonimide ): . Ugawa does not teach the negative electrode comprising a particulate component embedded in a polymeric matrix component, the particulate component comprising electroactive negative electrode particles and the polymeric matrix component comprising polytetrafluoroethylene . Duong, directed to a dry energy storage electrode, teaches where at least one of the cathode and anode are made of a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) composite binder material (abstract) and the anode active material may comprise graphite (para 0092). The anode made of the PTFE binder was prepared using a dry process (para 0120), which would result in a particulate component embedded in a polymeric matrix component . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a particulate component embedded in a polymeric matrix component (PTFE) wherein a d ry electrode processes reduce s the time-consuming and costly drying procedures required by a wet processe s (para 0064) and uses a PTFE composite binder material for an electrode film (para 0066) . Regarding claim 3 , given the same electrolyte additive and binder, it would expected that during initial charge of the battery, the functional additive decomposes and forms a solid electrolyte interface on surfaces of the electroactive negative electrode particles that isolates the electroactive negative electrode particles from physical contact with the polymeric matrix component, and wherein, during subsequent cycling of the battery, the solid electrolyte interface prevents chemical reactions between the electroactive negative electrode particles and the polytetrafluoroethylene in the polymeric matrix component. Regarding claim s 4 and 14 , given the same electrolyte additive and binder, it would be expected that during initial charge of the battery, the functional additive decomposes and forms the solid electrolyte interface on surfaces of the electroactive negative electrode particles when the negative electrode is at a potential of greater than or equal to about 1.5 Volts and less than or equal to about 2.2 Volts vs. Li/Li + . Regarding claim s 5 and 15 , upon initial charge of the battery, the functional additive may decompose and form a solid electrolyte interface on surfaces of the electroactive negative electrode particles and include one or more of the recited chemical compounds. Regarding claim s 6 and 16 , Ugawa teaches chemical formula 6 used in an amount of 0.01 M to 1 M (Table 1), which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of 0.1-5 wt.%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the recited concentration because a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, "[ A ] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson , 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim s 7 and 17 , Ugawa teach es LiPF 6 (para 0059). Regarding claim 8 and 1 8 , Ugawa teaches the solvent may include ethylene carbonate and ethyl methyl carbonate (para 0018). Regarding claim s 9 and 19 , Duong teaches the PTFE of a PTFE composite may be up to about 98 wt.% (para 0085) and the preferred binder concentration range as a percent of the total weight of the film is approximately 1 to 20 %, which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of 1-5 wt.%. See MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim 11 , Duong further teaches a conductive carbon additive (para 0084). Regarding claim 12 , Duong teaches example that are substantially free of PVdF (para 0085). Regarding claim 13 , Ugawa teaches an electrolyte and battery comprising: cathode 21 (Fig. 1); anode 22 (Fig. 1); and an electrolyte (para 0008). The electrolyte includes a nonaqueous solvent (para 0018), a lithium salt (para 0019), and an additive, specifically N- phenyl - bis ( trifluoromethanesulfonimide ) (Formula 6). Ugawa does not teach the negative electrode comprising a particulate component embedded in a polymeric matrix component, the particulate component comprising electroactive negative electrode particles and the polymeric matrix component comprising polytetrafluoroethylene . Duong, directed to a dry energy storage electrode, teaches where at least one of the cathode and anode are made of a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) composite binder material (abstract) and the anode active material may comprise graphite (para 0092). The anode made of the PTFE binder was prepared using a dry process (para 0120), which would result in a particulate component embedded in a polymeric matrix component . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a particulate component embedded in a polymeric matrix component (PTFE) wherein a d ry electrode processes reduce s the time-consuming and costly drying procedures required by a wet processe s (para 0064) and uses a PTFE composite binder material for an electrode film (para 0066) . Moreover, given the same electrolyte additive and binder, it would be expected that during initial charge of the battery, the functional additive decomposes and forms a solid electrolyte interface on surfaces of the electroactive negative electrode particles that isolates the electroactive negative electrode particles from physical contact with the polymeric matrix component. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ugawa et al. (US 2005/0118513) in view of Duong et al. (US 2015/0303481) and Yoon et al. (US 9,466,837). Regarding claim 20 , Ugawa teaches an electrolyte and battery comprising: anode 22 (Fig. 1); and an electrolyte (para 0008). The electrolyte includes a nonaqueous solvent (para 0018), a lithium salt (para 0019), and an additive, specifically N- phenyl - bis ( trifluoromethanesulfonimide ): . Ugawa does not teach (1) the negative electrode comprising a particulate component embedded in a polymeric matrix component, the particulate component comprising electroactive negative electrode particles and the polymeric matrix component comprising polytetrafluoroethylene and (2) the charging scheme. Duong, directed to a dry energy storage electrode, teaches where at least one of the cathode and anode are made of a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) composite binder material (abstract) and the anode active material may comprise graphite (para 0092). The anode made of the PTFE binder was prepared using a dry process (para 0120), which would result in a particulate component embedded in a polymeric matrix component . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a particulate component embedded in a polymeric matrix component (PTFE) wherein a d ry electrode processes reduce s the time-consuming and costly drying procedures required by a wet processe s (para 0064) and uses a PTFE composite binder material for an electrode film (para 0066) . Yoon, directed to a battery having a negative electrode, teaches the cells were charged at constant current at a rate of C/20 followed by charging at constant voltage until the current falls to C/50 (col. 11, lines 5-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the recited known charging scheme in order to evaluate the cycle performance of the cells (col. 11, line 1-4). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Fan et al. (US 2021/0384554) teaches lithium secondary battery electrolyte including an additive: . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CARLOS BARCENA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5780 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday 8-5 pm . 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 Tong Guo can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3066 . 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 . /CARLOS BARCENA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723