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 § 112 Claim s 1-8 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 1 is rejected because it is unclear what the values of the subscripts x and z in the general formula Li x Ni y Co z M 1-x-z O 2 , therefore it is unclear if Co and/or Mn and Al have to be present in the positive active material layer. Claims 2-3 are rejected because it is unclear what the claims are claiming. Therefore, no prior art was rejected against the claims. Claim 8 is rejected because a plurality of the positive electrodes and a plurality of negative electrodes alternately stacked would not form a battery. Claim Objections Claim s 1 -7 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 is objected to because of the claim should cite “M denotes a metallic element containing at least one element selected from the group consisting of Mn and Al ),” . Claims 1-7 are objected to because the claim is not claiming a battery but only claiming a positive electrode. Appropriate correction is required. 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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Koji et al. (JP 2015-11969, machine translation). Koji et al. teaches a positive electrode sheet comprising a positive active material comprising 90 wt % LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 where the length in the longitudinal direction of 50 cm [500 mm] and the length in the width direction of 5.4 cm [54 mm]. Koji et al. teaches using LiNi 0.8 Co 0.15 A l0.05 O 2 instead of LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 as the active material. Claim(s) 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato et al. (EP 1 043 782). Sato et al. teaches in Example 19, that the positive electrode active material comprises 90.5 wt % [teaches claim 6] of LiNi0.8Co0.2O2 [teaching where y=0.8] . Sato et al. teaches in Example 24, a battery comprising a positive electrode layer comprising LixCoO2 having 300 mm in length L1 in the longitudinal direction thereof [300-740 mm] and 150 mm in length L2 perpendicular to the longitudinal direction thereof. Sato et al. teaches in [0211], where the ratio of the longitudinal length to the breadth of the electrode group as calculated by formula (1) L1/L2 = 1.2 or more. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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) 1, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (EP 1 043 782). Sato et al. teaches in Example 19, that the positive electrode active material comprises 90.5 wt % [teaches claim 6] of LiNi0.8Co0.2O2 [teaching where y=0.8] . Sato et al. teaches in Example 24, a battery comprising a positive electrode layer comprising LixCoO2 having 300 mm in length L1 in the longitudinal direction thereof [300-740 mm] and 150 mm in length L2 perpendicular to the longitudinal direction thereof. Sato et al. teaches in [0211], where the ratio of the longitudinal length to the breadth of the electrode group as calculated by formula (1) L1/L2 = 1.2 or more. Sato et al. teaches the claimed invention teaching the positive active material layer having 300 mm in length L1 in the longitudinal direction thereof as explained above but does not specifically teach that the length of the positive electrode active material layer in a transverse direction L2 is 70-120 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a length of the positive electrode active material layer in a transverse direction of 70-120 mm when L1/L2 ranges from 2.5-4.29 when L1=300 mm, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Claim (s) 1 and 4- 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (EP 1 043 782) in view of Zhang et al. (WO 2017/214247). Sato et al. teaches in Example 19, that the positive electrode active material comprises 90.5 wt % [teaches claim 6] of LiNi0.8Co0.2O2 [teaching where y=0.8] . Sato et al. teaches in Example 24, a battery comprising a positive electrode layer comprising LixCoO2 having 300 mm in length L1 in the longitudinal direction thereof [300-740 mm] and 150 mm in length L2 perpendicular to the longitudinal direction thereof. Sato et al. teaches in [0211], where the ratio of the longitudinal length to the breadth of the electrode group as calculated by formula (1) L1/L2 = 1.2 or more. Sato et al. teaches the claimed invention teaching the positive active material layer having 300 mm in length L1 in the longitudinal direction thereof as explained above but does not specifically teach that the length of the positive electrode active material layer in a transverse direction L2 is 70-120 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a length of the positive electrode active material layer in a transverse direction of 70-120 mm when L1/L2 ranges from 2.5-4.29 when L1=300 mm, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Sato et al. teaches the claimed invention as explained above teaching LiNi0.8Co0.2O2 instead of LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 or LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 . Zhang et al. teaches that there is a need to increase the areal loading or energy density of active materials as such there is a need for electrodes with increased areal loading without suffering from reduced mechanical characteristics or reduced performance. Zhang et al. teaches in [0040], that high loading cathode material includes layered compounds such as LiCoO2, LiNi1-xMxO2 where M=Co and x=0.2, LiNi 0.8 Co 0.1 Mn 0.1 O 2 , LiNi 0.8 Co 0.15 A l0.05 O 2 , etc. Zhang et al. teaches in [0025], that the high loading positive electrodes having an areal density of 30 mg/cm 2 or greater or 30-50 mg/cm 2 . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use LiNi 0.8 Co 0.1 Mn 0.1 O 2 or LiNi 0.8 Co 0.15 A l0.05 O 2 instead of LiNi1-xMxO2 where M=Co and x=0.2 [LiNi0.8Co0.2O2] as the positive active material because Zhang et al. teaches that both these positive active materials can be used in the cathode as explained above and one would expect therefore that these positive active materials would function in a similar way and give similar results. Sato et al. teaches the claimed invention as explained but does not specifically teach that the weight per unit area of the positive electrode active material layer is 25-50 mg/cm 2 . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the positive active materials taught by Zhang et al. having high loading positive electrodes having an areal density of 30 mg/cm 2 or greater or 30-50 mg/cm 2 and since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Laura Weiner whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1294 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9 am-5 pm EST M-F . 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 Tong Guo can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-3066 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT /LAURA S. WEINER/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 1723 /Laura Weiner/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723