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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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) 1-2 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Matsushita (US Pub No. 2018/0316054) Regarding Claim 1 , Matsushita et al. teaches an electrolyte for a nonaqueous secondary battery [Fig. 2, 0087, 0015] , the nonaqueous secondary battery comprising a lithium-free transition metal sulfide as a cathode active material [0171, molybdenum sulfide] , the electrolyte comprising an organic solvent containing a chain carbonate compound [ethyl methyl carbonate, 0057] lithium bis( trifluoromethanesulfonyl )imide ( LiTFSI ) [0173] , and an additive [vinylene carbonate, 0173] . Regarding Claim 2 , Matsushita et al. is relied upon for the reasons give above, Matsushita teaches wherein the additive is at least one member selected from the group consisting of vinylene carbonate (VC) and fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) [see rejection of claim 1 , 0173 ] Regarding Claim 5 , Matsushita et al. is relied upon for the reasons give above, Matsushita teaches wherein the chain carbonate compound is at least one member selected from the group consisting of dimethyl carbonate (DMC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), and ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) [see rejection of claim 1 , 0057 ] Regarding Claim 6 , Matsushita et al. is relied upon for the reasons give above, Matsushita teaches wherein the lithium-free transition metal sulfide is at least one member selected from the group consisting of vanadium sulfides and molybdenum sulfides [see rejection of claim 1 , 0171 ]. Regarding Claim 7 , Matsushita et al. is relied upon for the reasons give above, Matsushita teaches a nonaqueous secondary battery of claim 1 [ Fig. 2, 0087, 0015 ]. Regarding Claim 8 , Matsushita et al. is relied upon for the reasons give above, Matsushita teaches which is a lithium-ion secondary battery [ Fig. 2, 0087, 0015 ]. 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 . Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (US Pub No. 2018/0316054) Regarding Claim 3 , Matsushita et al. is relied upon for the reasons give above, Matsushita et al. is silent on wherein the content of the chain carbonate compound is two to four times the content of the lithium bis( trifluoromethanesulfonyl )imide ( LiTFSI ) on a molar ratio basis. A s the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the electrolyte , with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the electrolyte changed, the precise parameters of the electrolyte would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “ wherein the content of the chain carbonate compound is two to four times the content of the lithium bis( trifluoromethanesulfonyl )imide ( LiTFSI ) on a molar ratio basis. ” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the electrolyte to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency ( In re Boesch , 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. ( In re Aller , 105 USPQ 223). Regarding Claim 4 , Matsushita et al. is relied upon for the reasons give above, Matsushita et al. is silent on wherein the content of the additive is 2.5 wt % to 10 wt % based on the total amount of the electrolyte taken as 100 wt %. A s the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the electrolyte , with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the electrolyte changed, the precise parameters of the electrolyte would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “ wherein the content of the additive is 2.5 wt % to 10 wt % based on the total amount of the electrolyte taken as 100 wt %. ” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the electrolyte to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency ( In re Boesch , 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. ( In re Aller , 105 USPQ 223). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0557 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9AM-7PM . 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 MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-7871 . 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. /MICHAEL Y SUN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728