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. Priority 2. The instant application is a CIP of Application No. 14/490,785 (“parent application”). It appears at least the following is new ly added to the instant application 18/451,633 ( all reference s made to PGPUB): P72-78; P120-127 (Electrolyte Compositions # 5 -11) – also added to Table 1; P145; Table 4 additions of Spinel coin cell s 15-21 utilizing electrolyte compositions 5-11 , respectively ; and P163. Also, P12 of the parent application pertaining to numerical values and the term “about” was deleted from the instant application. The instant application claims the subject matter within independent claim 1 of: “ wherein when used as an electrolyte in a lithium-ion battery, the composition exhibits an 80% cycle life of at least 250 at a cycling rate is 240 mA/g.” The quoted language is not found in the parent application. The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc. , 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The effective filing date of a claimed invention is determined on a claim-by-claim basis and not an application-by-application basis. When applicant files a continuation-in-part (CIP) application, none of whose claims are supported by the parent application under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph, the effective filing date is the filing date of the child CIP. Any claim that contains a limitation that is only supported as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph by the disclosure of the CIP application will have the effective filing date of the CIP application. See, e.g., Santarus , Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 104 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (patent issuing from parent application was relied upon as prior art against the claims in CIPs that did not find support in the parent application); Studiengesell - schaft Kohle , m.b.H . v. Shell Oil Co., 112 F.3d 1561, 1564, 42 USPQ2d 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Thus, the disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 14/490,785 , fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for all claims of this application in view of the quoted language above found in claim 1 . The effectively filed date of the claimed subject matter is thus that of the instant application, 8/17/2023. A proper traversal of this fact-finding analysis would be to provide proper, specific citations by paragraph numbers (or tables, drawings, etc.) that demonstrate the feature was adequately described by the inventors in the 14/490,785 application ; an argument that the feature is supported without appropriate citations and explanation will respectfully not be held as persuasive . Specification 3. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the unclear limitation of “ … the composition exhibits an 80% cycle life of at least 250 at a cycling rate is 240 mA/g.” The same limitation is found in claim 1 and is analyzed below with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph pertaining to this language . Any future corrections filed to the claim should also be filed with respect to the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). 4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities - P76 states in part: “…the electrolyte composition of the present disclosure exhibit an 80% cycle life of at least 250 cycles, or of at least 300, 400, 425, 450, 550, 600 cycles measured at a temperature at 55 deg C.” P77 states the same but changes the temperature to 45 deg C. These should b oth be corrected in each of P76 and P77 to be grammatically correct (i.e., exhibit s and “or of at least”). Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections 5. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: indentation and antecedent basis. With respect to indentation, the fourth “from” limitation should be properly indented to the right similar to the three “from” limitations above it. With respect to full and proper antecedent basis, “the composition…” should be corrected to “the electrolyte composition…” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 6 . 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. 7 . Claim 1 , and thus dependent claim 2; claim 2 ; claim 3 , and thus dependent claims 4-9, and claim 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. Claim 3 incorporates the subject matter of claim 1, and claim 10 incorporates the subject matter of claim 4 (dependent on claim 3). Accordingly, claim 3 and claim 10 are each addressed concurrently with claim 1 in all instances below. A) Claim 1 defines an electrolyte composition and recites in part, “ … wherein the amounts of compounds a), b), c) and e) are based on the total weight of the electrolyte composition.” This is shown below wit h emphasis . The claim does not label or mark the five compounds listed using alphabetic ordering such that the claim is indefinite with respect to which of the five compounds are considered the four alphabetical options. B) Claim 1 recites the following limitation: “ wherein when used as an electrolyte in a lithium-ion battery, the composition exhibits an 80% cycle life of at least 250 at a cycling rate is 240 mA/g .” The italicized portion of the quoted limitation is non-sensical for a variety of reasons. At least 250 what ? The claim does not make clear what “at least 250” is in reference to rendering the claim indefinite. Based on P76-77, it appears this should be “at least 250 cycles .” Additionally, “at a cycling rate is 240 mA/g” is not clear or grammatically correct. It appears this should be “at a cycling rate of is 240 mA/g” The claim does not make clear what the mA/g is relative to with respect to in terms of the gram portion (i.e., mA/ g -grams of what ?) Based on P161 and P167, this would appear to be grams of cathode active material (within the cathode of the lithium-ion battery). C ) Claim 1 recites the following limitation: “ wherein when used as an electrolyte in a lithium-ion battery, the composition exhibits an 80% cycle life of at least 250 at a cycling rate is 240 mA/g.” P74-75 of the PGPUB define the following with emphasis added : Thus, P74 provides one testing condition in which the amount of charge remaining as a percentage relative to an initial discharge capacity of 100 at a given cycle number (n th cycle) is determined . P75 provides a separate testing condition to determine how many cycles the coin cell can maintain a discharge ratio of at least a certain percentage. It is entirely clear which of the two options is being referenced with respect to “the composition exhibits an 80% cycle life of at least 250 at a cycling rate is 240 mA/g.” In other words, is the claim stating the electrolyte composition is able to maintain 80% cycle life (for?) at least 250 (cycles) at a cycling rate (of) 240 mA/g” ( i.e., what would be the testing condition described at P75 applied to the language ), or is the claim attempting to state the electrolyte composition reaches/exhibits 80% cycle life (relative to an initial discharge capacity of 100) at a cycle number that is at least 250 ( cycles ) at a cycling rate (of) 240 mA/g” ( i.e., what would be the testing condition described at P74 applied to the language 1 )? The claim is highly indefinite with respect to what is being defined in the quoted limitation. D) If the intent is to capture the P74 feature (i.e., the number of discharge/charge cycles which are needed for the cell to reach 80% of it s initial capacity) (see section C above) , then the claim needs to define the parameters considered critical to obtaining the functional, result-obtained limitation of, “ wherein when used as an electrolyte in a lithium-ion battery, the composition exhibits an 80% cycle life of at least 250 at a cycling rate is 240 mA/g.” Without clearly defining the conditions or parameters that the result-obtained limitation feature is achieved, the claim is indefinite. P74 states that the testing may include a specific temperature, an upper voltage threshold, and a lower voltage threshold in addition to a defined constant current . It would appear these would have to be incorporated into the result-obtained limitation to clearly define under what conditions the result-obtained feature is achieved. Additionally, the claim would appear to have to define what the 80% is relative to given P74 , P145 , and P161 report 80% cycle life relative to initial discharge capacity , whereas P166-168 and Table 5 reports 80% cycle life relative to the maximum discharge capacity obtained in the first twenty cycles . Accordingly, the claim is indefinite as it does not define the parameters to which the 80% is defined by or relative to. Note that in each instance, the above functional result is only achieved after completing prior cycling requirements are completed (i.e., see P158-161 and 166-168). For example, with respect to P166-168, two formation cycles between voltage limits at 3.4-4.9 V at 25 °C using constant currents of 12 Ma per g of cathode material were completed and the cells were then cycled six times at 25 °C prior to the testing parameters defined in P167 to define the 80% cycle life relative to the maximum discharge capacity obtained in the first twenty cycles. It would appear in the absence of other evidence, the relevant formation cycle would be pertinent to achieving the result obtained functional limitation and should be included in the claim to define when/how the result-obtained limitation is achieved. E) As detailed in section C, it is not clear which of the two options (P74-75) the limitation of, “wherein when used as an electrolyte in a lithium-ion battery, the composition exhibits an 80% cycle life of at least 250 at a cycling rate is 240 mA/g ” is attempting to define, and under what specific parameters , and when the limitation is met - specifically the “at least 250 [cycles]” feature. Looking to the specification does not resolve the issue. Newly added P76 to the instant application which is a CIP application states that “…the electrolyte composition of the present disclosure exhibit an 80% cycle life of at least 250 cycles, or of at least 300, 400, 425, 450, 550, 600 cycles measured at a temperature at 55 deg C.” P77 states the same but changes the temperature to 45 deg C. These paragraphs do not illuminate the meaning of the limitation claimed with respect to either possible option outlined in section C, nor does this section provide any guidance as to when the result-obtained, functional feature is met. Looking to the examples and testing completed, there is specific testing and data provided with respect to P143-145 and Table 2 ; P159 & Table 4 ; and P166-168 & Table 5. An analysis follows for each table and its corresponding paragraphs ; however, all are considered deficient to support the limitation given the percentage of CH 3 CO 2 CH 2 CF 2 H (“DFEA”) and ethylene carbonate (“EC”) in the final composition relative to the total weight of the electrolyte composition (i.e., how the feature is defined in the claim) is not disclosed. The final composition amounts of DFEA and EC in the tables could be calculated by Applicant and provided as supplemental data ; however, at the present time, the disclosure does not recite what the % by weight of these components is relative to the total weight of the electrolyte composition achieved as presented in the claim . Accordingly, at the present time, it is unclear whether the examples within Tables 1 & 4 are within the ranges of the claim that are defined on the basis of the total weight of the electrolyte composition (assuming both of these are one of the recited “a), b), c) and e)” that are not labeled and indefinite (see section A). With respect to the feature of “at least 250 [cycles]”, the following analysis is provided with respect to the data provided : Table 2 does not appear pertinent to the claim given the current (cycling) rate is 87.5 mA/g cathode active material, whereas the claim recites a cycling rate of 240 mA/g. Table 4 utilizes a c urrent/cycling rate [ of ] 240 mA/g [of cathode active material] under the specific parameters defined and after the formation cycle defined at P158 . In the instance this is the basis for the added subject matter attempting to be captured by the result-obtained limitation, it is not clear how the value of “at last 250 cycles ” was obtained or is considered met from this data given the lowest cycle number in Table 4 for compositions that fall within the scope of claim 1 (e.g., coin cells 15-17 and 19 utilizing electrolyte compositions 4-6 and 9, respectively) is 381 cycles versus the limitation of “at least 250 cycles” that includes values 250-380 cycles for which no data is provided , nor any guidance as to how to achieve this feature . Moreover, many examples (at least spinel coin cells 8, 11-14, 7-8, 10, 11 in Table 4) outside the scope of claim 1 have a cycle number in the range claimed. Thus, the data provides examples that do and do not fall within the scope of claim 1 that all are within the overall range of “at least 250 [cycles]...” The data does not make clear what is necessary to meet the full scope of the range presented, or what is or is not required to meet the limitation given the examples outside the scope of claim 1 that still meet the range. Table 5 is not pertinent to supporting the claim given the electrolyte composition s tested (electrolyte composition 3 and comparative G electrolyte ) are outside the scope of claim 1 ; however, it is noted that despite not meeting claim 1, the 80% cycle life values for these composition is within the range of “at least 250 cycles” . Thus, there are again example that do not meet claim 1 that achieve the f unctional feature. Therefore, i n regard to the above analysis , the feature is considered an indefinite functional limitation because it fail s "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim . " In re Swinehart , 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008) . This is especially true when there is no guidance as to when the result is obtained and when it is not, and the parameters or conditions required to obtain the result are not found in the claim. The only data provided that potentially fall within the scope of claim 1 is limited to four examples that start a 381 cycle point versus the range presented of “at least 250 cycles.” There are other data points (at l ea st spinel coin cells 8, 11-14, 7-8, 10, 11 in Table 4 ; pouch cells 3-4 in Table 5 ) that do not fall within the scope of claim 1, yet are within the range claimed. It is entirely clear what is required of an electrolyte composition to meet the feature defined, even with considerable assumptions as to what that that feature is attempting to capture (see sections A-D and F with regard to how the feature is indefinite in other manners ). It is noted there is no data whatsoever for an electrolyte composition including propylene carbonate despite this being an option within the claim . Accordingly, there is not a clear-cut scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art cannot look to the specification for guidance or examples of when the limitation is met versus when it is not that is clear. As such, the result-obtained , functional limitation is considered indefinite. F ) Claim 1 recites, “wherein when used as an electrolyte in a lithium-ion battery, the composition exhibits an 80% cycle life of at least 250 at a cycling rate is 240 mA/g.” An [ electrolyte ] composition does not exhibit a cycle life; instead, it is the electrochemical cell itself that exhibits a cycle life feature (see P76-77 of the PGPUB) . Accordingly, it is not clear how the composition is considered to exhibit the feature recited in the claim rendering the claim indefinite. G) Claim 2 recites, “the non-fluorinated carbonate” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Appropriate correction is required. The claims will be examined as best as possible with respect to prior art examination . Prior Art Evaluation & Data Analysis 8. The limitation of, “… wherein when used as an electrolyte in a lithium-ion battery, the composition exhibits an 80% cycle life of at least 250 at a cycling rate is 240 mA/g ” is evaluated as best as possible here and incorporated into the prior art rejections below. In the interest of compact prosecution, the following data analysis is provided below . Data Analysis Tables 1 and 4 from the instant application are reproduced below : The following comparative examples are presented with an analysis as to what is absent relative to the five components defined in the claim : B – N o ( EC or PC ) and no LiBOB H – No DFEA and no LiBOB I – No DFEA and no LiBOB J – No DFEA [note this has an 80% cycle life of 288 cycles] K – No LiBOB L – No LiBOB Comparative examples K and L are considered critical to determining what component is achieving the better cycle life. Comparative examples K and L are similar to compositions 3-11 with the exception of LiBOB is not present ; these cells have a cycle life of 67 and 158, respectively. Compositions 3-11 do have LiBOB present, and all of these cells have a cycle life well over 250 cycles: Accordingly, the data suggests LiBOB that is critical to achieving a better 80% cycle life relevant to a similar/same composition lacking LiBOB . The data appears to suggest that FEC may not be re quired to achieve the feature given spinel coin cells 11 and 12 (electrolyte compositions 1 & 2) do not include FEC but have 80% cycle life values of 446 and 578 cycles, respectively. In other words, when FEC is not present, the feature of “at least 250 cycles” is still achieved. The data does not make clear whether ethylene carbonate is or is not critical to achieving the feature given there isn’t any testing completed for cells lacking EC (or PC as claimed). The data appears to suggest that DFEA is not required given comparative composition J lacks DFEA, but has an 80% cycle life of 288 cycles. All compositions includ ed the salt LiPF 6 (final amount in terms of moles/L not disclosed for the compositions) ; no testing was done without this salt such that it is not clear whether the salt is critical or not, may be alternative other lithium salts, etc. The data does not alter the amount of LiBOB below 0.5 wt % or outside of 2% such that it is not clear at what amounts of LiBOB the “at least 250 [cycle]” feature is or is not achieved. Accordingly, at best, it can be concluded from the data that utilizing LiBOB is critical to achieving a better 80% life cycle as compared to similar/same compositions that LiBOB is not utilized in ; however, the specific range of LiBOB that achieves the feature of “at least 250 [cycles]” is not made clear . Moreover, the other components that are or are not required to meet the feature is also not made clear. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 9. 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. 10 . 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. 1 1 . C laims 1 -8, and 10 are rejected u nder 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (WO 2013/033595) (published March 7 2013) (using US 2014/0248529 as a copy thereof with citations thereto) in view of any of the following references: Tokuda et al. (US 2013/0216919) (“Rejection A”); or Jow et al. (US 7,172,834) (“Rejection B”); or Yamaguchi et al. (US 2005/0196670) and Lamanna et al. (US 2014/0093783) (“Rejection C”). Regarding claim 1 , Chen teaches an electrolyte composition comprising: a) from about 40% to about 90% by weight of the solvent mixture, and more narrowly about 50% to about 80 wt % of the solvent mixture, of a fluorinated acyclic carboxylic acid ester with CH 3 COOCH 2 CF 2 H explicitly taught (P49, 59); b) at least one co-solvent with the example of ethylene carbonate exemplified (P58), wherein if only this one co-solvent is utilized as taught by Chen (P58: “…and at least one co-solvent..”), it would be in amount of 10-60 wt %, or 20-50 wt %, based on the solvent mixture in view of the teaching that the other co-solvent ( component a : fluorinated acyclic carboxylic acid ester that is CH 3 COOCH 2 CF 2 H) is taught in an amount of 40-90 wt % [e.g., a solvent mixture of 100 wt % using 40 wt % CH 3 COOCH 2 CF 2 H results in the remainder (60 wt %) of the other co-solvent]; Note P60 explicitly teaches the combination of CH 3 CO 2 CH 2 CF 2 H and ethylene carbonate c) lithium bis( oxalato ) borate (“ LiBOB ”) as an electrolyte salt (P61, 72, 74) d) lithium hexafluorophosphate in an amount of 0.2 to about 2.0 Molar (=moles/L) (P61-62, 74) used an electrolyte salt, wherein mixtures of two or more of the disclosed electrolyte salts can be utilized (P74); and e) an additive including fluoroethylene carbonate in an amount of 0.01 to about 5% by weight of the total electrolyte composition (P81). Regarding the above ranges for component d) and e) [ using the labeling found in the parent application claim set ] with respect to the claimed ranges, i n 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). The only deficiencies of Chen are that the lithium bis( oxalato ) borate electrolyte salt is not taught at being used at in an amount of 0.1 to 1.0% by weight as claimed, with the amounts of components a, b, and c (CH 3 COOCH 2 CF 2 H, ethylene carbonate, and LiBOB , respectively) being based on the total weight of the electrolyte composition [the amounts of a and b are with respect to the solvent mixture versus the total weight of the electrolyte composition (P58-59)]. These features are remedied by any of the following references individually (Rejections A-C): Rejection A : Tokuda teaches analogous art of non-aqueous lithium battery electrolyte compositions and that two lithium salts may be used concurrently including the example of LiPF 6 and LiBOB (P47-48), wherein the blending amount of LiBOB w/r/t 100 wt % of the total non-aqueous electrolyte solution is given at 0.01-12 wt %, and preferably 0.1-10 wt %, because within these ranges there are enhanced effects on output characteristic, and load characteristic at both low and high temperature (P49). Tokuda further teaches that if the blending amount is excessive, battery characteristics may be impaired on account of precipitation at low temperature, while an excessively small content may result in a lowered effect on enhancing the low-temperature characteristic, cycle characteristic, high-temperature storage characteristic and so forth (P49). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the electrolyte composition of Chen, comprising LiPF 6 and LiBOB as suitable electrolyte salts that may be used as a mixture (P61-74), to include LiBOB in an amount of 0.01-12 wt %, and preferably 0.1-10 wt % based on the 100 wt % of the electrolyte composition, given that Tokuda teaches this amount when used concomitantly with LiFP 6 provides for enhanced effects on output characteristic, and load characteristic at both low and high temperature (P47-49). The combined teaching provide overlapping ranges for each of a, b, and c based on calculated amounts with respect to the total electrolyte composition. A sample calculation is below to demonstrate this feature using specific values selected from the explicitly taught ranges for each of the components above: This is only one example from the ranges taught by Chen as modified by Tokuda , and thus there are intrinsically respective ranges for each of a, b, and c a range that overlap with those claimed when all the values are calculated. 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). The prior art thus provides teaching, suggestion, and motivation to arrive at the electrolyte composition with ranges that overlap with those claimed for each of a, b, and c relative to the total weight of the electrolyte composition. Given the amounts of each component are within the range recited and include LiBOB (see Data Analysis above, entirely incorporated into the instant rejection and not repeated here) , it is considered intrinsic that the functional, result-obtained limitation quoted below of “ wherein when used as an electrolyte in a lithium-ion battery, the composition exhibits an 80% cycle life o f at least 250 at a cycling rate is 240 mA/g.” would naturally flow from the [electrolyte] composition suggested by the prior art. Rejection B : Jow teaches analogous art of an electrolyte composition for a lithium battery including a specified salt mixture in which LiPF 6 is utilized with the additive salt LiBOB in an amount of 0.1-60 mole percent of the total of the additive salt and electrolyte salt content of the electrolyte (abstract). Jow teaches the use of LiBOB in conjunction with ethylene carbonate with ethylene carbonate in a range of 10 to about 60% (C6/L44-51). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the electrolyte composition of Chen, comprising LiPF 6 and LiBOB as suitable electrolyte salts that may be used as a mixture (P61-74) and ethylene carbonate as the co-solvent (P58, 60), to include LiBOB in an amount of 0.1-60 mole percent of the total of the additive salt and electrolyte salt content of the electrolyte (abstract; full disclosure) given Jow teaches the concurrent use of such salts and the optimization of the amount of LiBOB w/r/t to LiPF 6 (although stated in different terms of mole percent versus wt %) in order to promote formation of a protective layer on the carbonaceous anode material that protects the anode from propylene-carbonate electrolytes so that the lithium ion cells using such electrolytes are stable and have a wide operating temperature (C6/L10-24). With respect to the amount of LiBOB , the following case law is pertinent: “[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); MPEP 2144.05. “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 Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions. In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). A change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent.” Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874). “It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). The combined teaching provides overlapping ranges based on calculated amounts with respect to the total electrolyte composition. A sample calculation is below to demonstrate this feature using specific values selected from the explicitly taught ranges for each of the components above: This is only one example from the ranges taught by Chen as modified by Jow, and thus there are intrinsically respective ranges for each of a, b, and c that overlap with those claimed when all the values are calculated. 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). The prior art thus provides teaching, suggestion, and motivation to arrive at the electrolyte composition with ranges that overlap with those claimed for each of a, b, and c relative to the total weight of the electrolyte composition. Given the amounts of each component are within the range recited and include LiBOB (see Data Analysis above, entirely incorporated into the instant rejection and not repeated here), it is considered intrinsic that the functional, result-obtained limitation quoted below of “ wherein when used as an electrolyte in a lithium-ion battery, the composition exhibits an 80% cycle life o f at least 250 at a cycling rate is 240 mA/g.” would naturally flow from the [electrolyte] composition suggested by the prior art. Rejection C : Yamaguchi teaches analogous art of an electrolyte solution for a lithium battery in which the electrolyte includes a first electrolyte salt of LiB (C 2 O 4 ) 2 (i.e., lithium bis(oxalate)borate or “ LiBOB ” and a second electrolyte salt including at least one kind selected from a group including LiPF6 (abstract). Yamaguchi teaches that a coating is formed on the anode by the first electrolyte salt and high ionic conductivity can be obtained by the second electrolyte salt (abstract). Yamaguchi also teaches the use of fluoroethylene carbonate (abstract; P54) ( component e as claimed). Yamaguchi teaches the following with respect to the amount of the first electrolyte salt of LiBOB : The coating formed on the anode by LiBOB creates the known beneficial results of extended calendar and cycle life as taught by Lamanna (P3): [0003] Stabilizing the electrode/electrolyte interface is a key to controlling and minimizing these undesirable reactions and improving the cycle life and voltage and temperature performance limits of Li ion batteries . Electrolyte additives designed to selectively react with, bond to, or self organize at the electrode surface in a way that passivates the interface represents one of the simplest and potentially most cost effective ways of achieving this goal. The effect of common electrolyte solvents and additives , such as ethylene carbonate (EC), vinylene carbonate (VC), 2-fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), and lithium bisoxalatoborate ( LiBOB ), on the stability of the negative electrode SEI (solid-electrolyte interface) layer is well documented . Evidence suggests that vinylene carbonate (VC) and lithium bisoxalatoborate ( LiBOB ), for example, react on the surface of the anode to generate a more stable Solid Electrolyte Interface (SEI). Stabilizing the SEI and inhibiting the detrimental thermal and redox reactions that can cause electrolyte degradation at the electrode interface (both cathode and anode) will lead to extended calendar and cycle life and enhanced thermal stability of LIBs . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the electrolyte composition of Chen, comprising LiPF 6 and LiBOB as suitable electrolyte salts that may be used as a mixture (P61-74), to include LiBOB in the above range and to further optimize the amount thereof in order to achieve a desired thickness of the protective layer on the anode, said protective layer on the anode leading to the known beneficial resutls of extended calendar and cycle life and enhacned thermal stability of lithium batteries (LIBs) as taught by Lamanna (P3). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without p roducing 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) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). The combined teaching provides overlapping ranges based on calculated amounts with respect to the total electrolyte composition. A sample calculation is below to demonstrate this feature using specific values selected from the explicitly taught ranges for each of the components above: This is only one example from the ranges taught by Chen as modified by Yamaguchi, and thus there are intrinsically respective ranges for each of a, b, and c a range that overlap with those claimed when all the values are calculated. 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). The prior art thus provides teaching, suggestion, and motivation to arrive at the electrolyte composition with ranges that overlap with those claimed for each of a, b, and c relative to the total weight of the electrolyte composition. Given the amounts of each component are within the range recited and include LiBOB (see Data Analysis above, entirely incorporated into the instant rejection and not repeated here), it is considered intrinsic that the functional, result-obtained limitation quoted below of “ wherein when used as an electrolyte in a lithium-ion battery, the composition exhibits an 80% cycle life o f at least 250 at a cycling rate is 240 mA/g.” would naturally flow from the [electrolyte] composition suggested by the prior art. Regarding claim 2, assuming “the non-fluorinated carbonate” is ethylene carbonate or propylene carbonate, both of these are intrinsically cyclic carbonates by way of their intrinsic chemical structure by which they are defined. This claim is from the parent set when the second component was just generally defined as “a non-fluorinated carbonate” whereas the parent claim now defines specific options that are intrinsically cyclic carbonates. Accordingly, the claim is non-limiting as it is reciting an intrinsic property to the solvents within claim 1. Regarding claim 3 , Chen teaches a lithium ion battery (“an electrochemical cell”) (P8) comprising: (a) a housing (P9); (b) an anode and a cathode disposed in the housing and in ionically conductive contact with one another (P10); (c) the electrolyte composition of claim 1 (rejections of claim 1 entirely incorporated into the present rejection) disposed in the housing and providing an ionically conductive pathway between the anode and the cathode (P11); and (d) a porous separator between the anode and the cathode (P12; see also P8-25, not limited to full disclosure). Regarding claim 4 , Chen teaches the electrochemical cell is a lithium ion battery (P8, full disclosure). Regarding claim 5 , Chen teaches the anode comprises an anode active material that is lithium titanate or graphite (P38, 131, claim 19). Regarding claim s 6 and 7 , Chen teaches wherein the cathode comprises a cathode active material that is a lithium-containing manganese composite oxide represented by the formula below with corresponding amounts for each of the variables (P15) : This is the identical material taught in the instance disclosure as achieving the features of exhibiting greater than 30 mAh /g capacity in the potential range great er than 4.6 V versus a Li/Li + reference electrode (claim 6) and being capable of charged to a potential greater than or equal to 4.20 V versus a Li/Li + reference electrode (claim 7) (see P61 of the parent PGPUB of the instant disclosure). Moreover, r egarding composition claims, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.). Thus, the material above intrinsically achieves the claimed features given it is the same composition as that taught in the instant disclosure that achieves the features claimed (P61). Regarding claim 8 , Chen teaches wherein the cathode comprises a cathode active material, wherein the cathode active material is a lithium-containing manganese composite oxide represented by the formula below with corresponding amounts for each of the variables (P15) which anticipates the subject matter presented (see also examples of Chen which present anticipatory examples) : Regarding claim 10 , Chen teaches a computer, a camera, a radio, a power tool, a telecommunication device or a transportation device comprising the e lectrochemical cell of claim 12 (P84; claim 21). 1 2 . Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (WO 2013/033595) (published March 7 2013) (using US 2014/0248529 as a copy thereof with citations thereto) in view of any of the following individual references: Tokuda et al. (US 2013/0216919) (“Rejection A”); or Jow et al. (US 7,172,834) (“Rejection B”); or Yamaguchi et al. (US 2005/0196670) and Lamanna et al. (US 2014/0093783) (“Rejection C”) as applied to at least claims 1 and 3-4 above, and further in view of Han et al. (US 2014/0127583) are each maintained . Regarding claim 9 , Chen teaches the use of a spinel cathode material represented by the following formula (P15): Chen does not teach the use of a layered cathode material reading on the formula presented. In the same field of endeavor, Han teaches analogous art of a lithium secondary battery including a cathode including a first cathode active material represented by Formula 1 having a layered structure (abstract; P9), and a second cathode active material represented by Formula 2 having a spinel structure (abstract; P12), wherein the second active material is analogous to the spinel material taught by Chen. Formula 1 of the layered cathode material of Han is a formula that presents the same materials with each of the variables overlapping the ranges presented for the material of claim 18 (P9), and Han further teaches examples of layered cathode materials that are species of the genus claimed: Li(Ni 0.5 Mn 0.3 Co 0.2 )O 2 or Li(Ni 1/3 Mn 1/3 Co 1/3 )O 2 (P19). Han teaches that the mixture of a layered-structured lithium transitional metal oxide and a spinel-structure lithium manganese oxide provides a lithium secondary battery achieving output characteristics well suited to electric vehicles and the like and also exhibits enhanced energy density characteristics (P67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cathode active material of Chen such that it includes a mixture of the spinel-structure lithium manganese oxide of Formula IB taught by Chen in combination with a layered cathode material such as Li(Ni 0.5 Mn 0.3 Co 0.2 )O 2 or Li(Ni 1/3 Mn 1/3 Co 1/3 )O 2 as taught by Han (P19) given Han teaches it is a known technique to provide a mixture of a layered-structured lithium transitional metal oxide and a spinel-structure lithium manganese oxide as a cathode material of a lithium secondary battery in order to provide the known results of a lithium secondary battery achieving output characteristics well suited to electric vehicles and the like and also exhibiting enhanced energy density characteristics (P67, not limited to full disclosure). Conclusion 1 3 . The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. It is noted that with respect to claim 1 allowing for propylene carbonate , this was addressed with different prior art in multiple prior art rejections in the parent application prosecution history (see at least Non-Final mailed 1/3/2020, sections 8 and 12). Thus, at least the following prior art references are highly notable in terms of the definitive portion of the claim and have been applied as a primary reference against the subject matter, either alone and/or in combination with other references (or each other): Chiga et al. (US 2010/0035162); Deguchi (US 2012/0183865) (note WO 2012/032700 with a machine translation provided was used in parent application with a copy provided in the parent application ); and Jeon et al. (US 2010/0266904). Additionally, the effective filing date of the instant application is presently 8/17/2023, such that the following prior art is also highly notable with respect to the definitive portion of the claims: Won et al. (US 2021/0234199): Kim et al. (US 20 21 /0234200): 1 4 . 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