CTNF 18/038,135 CTNF 76113 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraphs 0004 and 0005 of the specification discuss the prior art reference JP 2005-515465 and what it cites. It appears that the publication number cited is incorrect as that reference in question (cited in the 5/22/2023 IDS) has nothing to do with secondary batteries, let alone positive-electrode active materials for batteries. The applicant is encouraged to find the correct citation number and substitute that in for the cited JP ‘465 reference . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugaya (US 2011/0223456) as evidenced by JP 2008-174444 (JP ‘444) . With respect to the claim, Sugaya discloses a non-aqueous secondary battery (par. 0001) comprising an electrode assembly including a positive electrode 5, a negative electrode 6, and a separator 7 interposed between the electrodes where the electrode assembly is a wound assembly (par. 0114). Sugaya further teaches that the positive electrode has a current collector, a first positive electrode mixture (first material mixture layer) facing an outside of the electrode assembly, a second positive electrode mixture (second material mixture layer) formed on the other face of the current collector that faces an inside of the electrode assembly and both electrode mixture layers contain positive electrode active material (par. 0012, 0013, and 0107-0110). With respect to the positive electrode active material in the first mixture layer having a smaller dibutyl phthalate (DBP) oil absorption than that of the second mixture layer, Sugaya teaches that the first mixture should be constructed differently than the second mixture to accommodate the first mixture having a higher tap density than the second mixture, or the average particle size of the first mixture be higher than that of the second mixture, or the degree of circularity of the first mixture be greater than that of the second mixture (par. 0053-0055 and 0071-0073). JP ‘444 also teaches controlling positive electrode active material properties and evidences that utilizing the DBP parameter is also known to quantify properties analogously to tap density and average particle size (translation paragraph bridging p. 4 and 5). JP ’444 evidences in table 1 that there is an inverse relationship between both tap density and particle size and DBP oil absorption. Compare as example sample no. 1 and 13. Higher tap density and average particle size translated to lower DBP. This evidences that Sugaya would have inherently had lower DBP for the first mixture than the second mixture because it suggested higher tap densities and average particle size for its first mixture . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugaya in view of JP ‘444 . Sugaya set forth all the limitations of the claim, but did not explicitly recite DBP oil absorption of 11-19 mL/100g for the first positive electrode active material and 15-23 mL/100g for the second positive electrode active material. However as discussed above, Sugaya clearly suggested material properties such as particle size and tap density were result effective variables for controlling the differing capacities for first and second positive electrode active materials (see rejection above). JP ’444 taught using DBP oil absorption as a result effective variable for determining desired positive electrode properties and further demonstrated the known largely inverse relationship between both tap density and average particle size with DBP (see discussion above), and JP ‘444 further suggested the ideal range of DBP for positive electrodes was 10-30 mL/100g It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing that DBP was another known parameter for monitoring electro active materials to the parameters of Sugaya as suggested by JP ‘444. As to the actual DBP values of claim 2 for the first and second electrode active materials, because Sugaya already varied parameters in both electrode active materials (i.e. its controlled parameters were a result effective variable), JP ’444 rendered obvious DBP as an alternative result effective variable, and that JP ’444 already suggest the electro active material range was 10-30 mL/100g, finding the precise claimed ranges for the first and second electrode active materials requires only routine skill in the art . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Takahata et al (US 2014/0255783) and Fujiwara et al (US 2005/0221182), also taught DBP as a parameter for controlling electrode properties . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAJ K OLSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 AM - 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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. /KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/038,135 Page 2 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/038,135 Page 3 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/038,135 Page 4 Art Unit: 1714