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 Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S .C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has complied with all of the conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 09/11/2023, 10/03/2023, and03/10/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings received on 09/11/2023 were reviewed and are acceptable. Specification The specification filed on 09/11/2023 was reviewed and is acceptable. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1- 14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2022/0223911 A1; hereinafter “Kim”). Regarding claim 1 , Kim discloses an additive (first additive, [0053]) for an electrolyte (Title) represented by a recited Chemical Formula 1 (see Formula 1a as shown below, [0060]). Regarding claim 2 , Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim further discloses that n is an integer of 1 (as shown in Formula 1a above). Regarding claim s 3 and 4 , Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim further discloses that R 1 to R 3 are each independently hydrogen (as shown in Formula 1a above). Regarding claim 5 , Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim further discloses that the additive is selected from among compounds recited in Group 1 ( as shown in Formula 1a above ). Regarding claim 6 , Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim further discloses an electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery (Title) comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent ([ 0042-0043]), a lithium salt ([0038-0039]), and the recited additive (as noted above). Regarding claim s 7 and 8 , Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim further discloses the additive is in an amount of about 0.05 to 5.0 parts by weight, or 0.05 to 3.0 parts by weight, based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte (0.5 wt% to 3 wt%, [0061], which falls within the recited ranges). Regarding claim 9 , Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim further discloses at least one other additive, specifically lithium difluorophosphate ( LiDFP , [0068-0069]). Regarding claim 10 , Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim further discloses that the non-aqueous organic solvent is composed of only chain carbonate (a linear carbonate based organic solvent, [0043]). Regarding claim 11 , Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim further discloses that the chain carbonate is represented by a recited Chemical Formula 2 (e.g. EMC, [0045], which reads on the recited formula). Regarding claim 1 2 , Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim further discloses that the non-aqueous organic solvent is at least two of DMC, DEC , and EMC (DMC, DEC, and EMC, [0045]). Regarding claim 1 3 , Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim further discloses a rechargeable lithium battery (Title) comprising a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material ([0093-0094]), a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material ([0105-0106]), and the recited electrolyte (as noted above). Regarding claim 1 4 , Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim further discloses that the positive electrode active material comprises a cobalt-free lithium nickel manganese oxide (e.g. lithium nickel manganese based oxide, [0099]). Regarding claim 1 8 , Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim further discloses that the negative electrode active material comprises graphite (graphite, [0109]). Regarding claim s 19 and 20 , Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. With respect to the limitations of claims 19 and 20 , it is noted that the limitations are directed to non-selected options of parent claim 18 . For example, claim 18 explicitly recites that “the negative electrode active material comprises at least one selected from among graphite and Si composite” (emphasis added). Accordingly, the limitations of claims 19 and 20 are reasonably considered to be optional limitations which depend upon the selection of an Si composite recited in claim 18 , and which in this case have not been selected because Kim discloses the use of graphite, as noted above. 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. 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) 15 -17 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0223911 A1; hereinafter “Kim”) , as applied to claim s 13 or 14 above , in view of Liu et al. (US 2021/0226203 A1; hereinafter “Liu”) . Regarding claim s 15 -17 and 21 , Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim discloses that the positive electrode active material comprises a cobalt-free lithium nickel manganese oxide (as noted above), but does not appear to be particularly concerned specifically with cobalt free materials, and therefore does not explicitly disclose the lithium composite oxide being represented by the recited Chemical Formula 4, nor the recited Chemical Formula 4-1, specifically wherein 0.6 ≤ x1 ≤ 0.79, 0.2 ≤ y1 ≤ 0.39, and 0.01 ≤ z1 ≤ 0.1. Kim further does not disclose that the rechargeable lithium battery has a charging upper limit voltage of greater than or equal to about 4.45 V. Liu teaches cathode active materials for secondary batteries (Title). Liu teaches that battery communities are trying to develop new electrode materials in order to disengage from cobalt reliance due to increasing mining royalites on cobalt ore ([0003]). Accordingly, Liu teaches a cathode active material that is cobalt free ([0006]), and which deliver competitive or superior electrochemical performance compared to cobalt containing counterpart materials ([0027]). Specifically, Liu teaches an exemplary cathode active material represented by LiNi x Mn y Al z O 2 , where 0.5 < x < 1, 0 < y < 0.5, and 0 < z ≤ 0.2 ([0053]) . Liu further teaches that such cathode materials were tested for high discharge capacity at a cut-off potential of 4.5 V ([0076]). Kim and Liu are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium secondary batteries. Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the cobalt free cathode active material of Liu as the cathode active material of Kim with the reasonable expectation that such a material would deliver competitive or superior electrochemical performance , as suggested by Liu. It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to routinely select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges (0.5 to 1 significantly overlaps 0.6 to 0.79, 0 to 0.5 significantly overlaps 0.2 to 0.39, and 0 to 0.2 significantly overlaps 0.01 to 0.1) because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)). It is further noted that in the recited Chemical Formula 4 and 4-1, the recited a = 1, b = 0, c = 0, w/w1 = 0, and M1 = Al, as disclosed above. And finally, it would have been further obvious that the disclosed battery of modified Kim would have a charging upper limit voltage, i.e. cut-off voltage, of 4.5 V, as suggested by Liu, and which falls within the recited range. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Mizuno (US 2022/0315435 A1) discloses a non aqueous electrolyte energy storage device. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JAMES M ERWIN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3101 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday: 6am-3pm PDT . 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 Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-3879 . 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. /JAMES M ERWIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 03/21/2026