DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is amended. Claims 14-20 are newly added. Claims 1-20 are being examined on the merits in this office action.
Examiner’s Notes
Claim 1 is amended to recite a negative limitation “the sacrificial positive electrode material is absent from the upper layer”. This negative limitation does appear to be supported by the specification as originally filed (page 11, second paragraph).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 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.
1) The “a sacrificial positive electrode material” recited in claim 1 does not appear to be clearly defined in the specification or/and claims. It is unclear what material(s) are considered to be sacrificial positive electrode material(s). Applicant provides an internet link to point to a reference titled “Li2NiO2 as a sacrificing positive additive for lithium-ion batteries”. Does Applicant intend to define the claimed term “a sacrificial positive electrode material” as being Li2NiO2? If so, Applicant should point out where the support in the specification is. If not, the term “a sacrificial positive electrode material” must be defined, without introducing new matters. Appropriate action is required. Claim 1 and its dependents are indefinite. For purposes of examination, see the following art rejections for how the recitation is interpreted.
In addition, note that the listing of references (e.g., the internet link mentioned above) in the Applicant’s Remarks is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
2) Claim 5 recites the limitation "a total positive electrode active material layer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation is not defined, rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the limitation refers to. For instance, does it refer to “a positive electrode active material layer” recited in claim 1? If yes, why using two different phrases? If not, what is the difference?
3) Claim 18, which depends on claim 1, recites “a total positive electrode active material layer”. It is unclear whether this recitation refers to the “positive electrode active material layer” recited in claim 1. If so, why using two different phrases? If not, what is the difference? The limitation is not defined, rendering the claim indefinite.
4) Claim 20 recites graphene, which is well known in the art to be a two-dimensional conductive material. It is unclear why graphene is claimed as a linear conductive material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 5, 2026 have been fully considered and appear to be persuasive. The Kim in view of Hasegawa does not appear to teach the amended limitation in claim 1. The claim(s) would be allowable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights