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. NON-AQUEOUS ELECTROLYTE SECONDARY BATTERY Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/281,096 Art Unit: 1727 March 13, 2026 DETAILED ACTION The Application filed on September 08, 2023 has been entered. Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been fully considered. Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. 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) 1 -3 , 5 -6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyasaka (US 5,869,208; as found in IDS dated 05/02/2025) in view of Higuchi et al. (JP H11154500A; as found in IDS dated 09/08/2023 and using machine translation for citation purposes) . As to Claim s 1 and 5 , Miyasaka discloses a bottomed cylindrical battery, comprising: a band-shaped electrode assembly (wound sheets) having a positive electrode comprising a conductive agent and a lithium-containing composite oxide positive active material having a layered rock-salt structure with a coating weight of 340 g/m 2 and formed on a collector (Abstract; col. 5, lines 5-10; co. 7, li n es 35-36; col. 7, lines 54-65; col. 7, line 66 to co. 8, line 15; col. 12, lines 14-15) , wherein the positive electrode is connected to the sealing assembly that seals an opening of the battery case and the electrode is coated with aluminum oxide (chalcogen compound; same as used in the original disclosure) (Fig. 1; col. 3, lines 20-23; claim 1); a negative electrode connected to the bottom of the container (Fig. 1 ). Miyasaka does not specifically disclose the claimed outer diameter of the housing or the claimed three or more positive leads. However, Higuchi teaches of a cylindrical battery, comprising an outer diameter of 66 mm ; and more than three positive electrode leads 7 that protrude above the separator and the negative electrode leads and connects to a current collecting member that connects to the sealing assembly (Fig. 1 and paragraph s [0011 , 0016 ]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the size of the diameter of the battery and the amount of protruding positive electrode leads of Miyasaka to read on the claims because Higuchi teaches that a battery with improved safety can be provided (paragraph [0001]). In addition, the courts have held that the limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art, see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A. As to Claims 2-3, Higuchi teaches wherein the positive electrode leads 7 are arranged on an upper surface of the electrode assembly in substantially one line in a radial direction with substantially same angles (Fig. 1). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the size of the diameter of the battery and the amount of protruding positive electrode leads of Miyasaka to read on the claims because Higuchi teaches that a battery with improved safety can be provided (paragraph [0001]). As to Claim s 6 and 13 , Miyasaka discloses wherein the conductive agent is carbon fiber and provided in an amount of 1-50 wt% (col. 8, lines 7-19). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the positive electrode to comprise 1 wt% of carbon fiber additive because Miyasaka teaches that the material is chemically stable and enhances conductivity (col. 8, lines 7-19). Claim (s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyasaka (US 5,869,208; as found in IDS dated 05/02/2025) in view of Higuchi et al. (JP H11154500A; as found in IDS dated 09/08/2023 and using machine translation for citation purposes) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6 and 13 above and in further view of Kezuka et al. (US 2001/0019797 A1) . As to Claim 4, modified Miyasaka does not specifically disclose the claimed configuration. However, Kezuka teaches of attaching electrode leads to exposed portions of the current collector where no active material layer is formed (Abstract). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of modified Miyasaka to comprise the claimed configuration because Kezuka teaches that the strength of the joined portions are enhanced and the discharge load characteristic of the battery is enhanced (Abstract). Claim (s) 7 -8 and 14 -15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyasaka (US 5,869,208; as found in IDS dated 05/02/2025) in view of Higuchi et al. (JP H11154500A; as found in IDS dated 09/08/2023 and using machine translation for citation purposes) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6 and 13 above and in further view of Ushijima et al. (US 2018/0205086 A1) . As to Claims 7 and 14, Miyasaka teaches wherein the conductive agent can be carbon fiber in an amount of 1 wt%, as discussed in the rejections above. Modified Miyasaka does not specifically disclose wherein the conductive agent is amorphous carbon. However, Ushijima teaches of a positive electrode comprising a conductive agent such as carbon fiber or amorphous carbon (paragraph [0054]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the positive electrode of modified Miyasaka to comprise amorphous carbon because Ushijima teaches that carbon fiber and amorphous carbon are functionally equivalent for use as a conductive additive and that amorphous carbon has conductivity (paragraph [0054]). In addition, the courts have held that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute one known element for another to yield predictable results, see KSR, MPEP 2143, I, B. As to Claims 8 and 15, modified Miyasaka does not specifically disclose the claimed lithium nickel containing oxide. However, Ushijima teaches wherein the positive active material comprises a lithium nickel containing oxide such as LiNi 0.8 Co 0.15 Al 0.05 O 2 (paragraph [0053]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the positive active material of Miyasaka to comprise the claimed active material because Ushijima teaches that a positive electrode with excellent high-rate discharge characteristics is be provided (Abstract). Claim (s) 9-12 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyasaka (US 5,869,208; as found in IDS dated 05/02/2025) in view of Higuchi et al. (JP H11154500A; as found in IDS dated 09/08/2023 and using machine translation for citation purposes) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6 and 13 above and in further view of Park et al. (US 2015/0340692 A1 ; as found in IDS dated 09/08/2023 ) . As to Claims 9-10 and 16-17, modified Miyasaka does not specifically disclose the claimed material. However, Park teaches of a positive electrode for a battery, comprising: a lithium nickel composite oxide active material and Li 2 NiO 2 in an amount of 1-10 wt% (paragraphs [0013 and 0015]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the positive electrode of modified Miyasaka to comprise Li 2 NiO 2 in the claimed amount because Park teaches that the decrease of capacity retention ratio during initial cycles is improved (Abstract). As to Claims 11-12 and 18-19, modified Miyasaka teaches the same positive electrode active material of the present invention. Park further teaches of initial cycling (Abstract). It is the position of the Office that the active material of the prior art and the present invention inherently comprise the claimed active material after initial cycling given that the materials, amounts, structure and method of using of the prior art and the present invention are the same, see MPEP 2112. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5116 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET . 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 Barbara Gilliam can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /ADAM A ARCIERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727