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. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-048932 , filed on 3/24/2021 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 3 is 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. The term “ substantially only ” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ substantially only ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention . That is, i t is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art whether the term substantially refers to, for example, 90%, 95%, or 99% of the total lithium carbonate present in the second region . Absent a precise numerical range or a clear definition in the specification that provides a standard for measuring "substantially," a person skilled in the art would not know how to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed lithium carbonate distribution . 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- 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakida (US20190044152A1) in view of Honoki (US20120094177A1 – refer to IDS filed 9/12/2023) . Regarding Claim s 1 -2 , Sakida discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery 10 [pars. 0036,0040-42 ; Fig. 1 ] comprising: a positive electrode (positive electrode plate 1 1 ) ; a negative electrode (negative electrode plate 1 3 ) ; a non-aqueous electrolyte; and an outer housing ( outer can 20 ) , wherein the outer housing includes a safety mechanism (sealing member 21 including current breaker) which is actuated when an internal pressure reaches a predetermined value [pars. 0025,0040] , the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode core (current collector – not illustrated explicitly) and a positive electrode mixture layer (positive electrode mixture layer – not illustrated explicitly ) formed over the positive electrode core [par. 0030-32] , and the positive electrode mixture layer contains a positive electrode active material (e.g., lithium nickel composite oxide) , and lithium carbonate in an amount of 0.05 mass% relative to a mass of the positive electrode active material (i.e., 0.05 parts by mass of lithium carbonate relative to 100 parts by mass of lithium nickel composite oxide) [pars. 0030-32]. Sakida fails to explicitly disclose wherein the lithium carbonate is present in a non-uniform concentration distribution in a thickness direction of the positive electrode mixture layer . However, Honoki , from the same field of endeavor, teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a positive electrode 1 comprising a positive electrode active material layer 3 formed over a positive electrode core 2 and having high concentration region 5 of lithium carbonate and a low concentration region 4 of lithium carbonate, the low concentration region being positioned at a side of the positive electrode core, to thereby obtain improved input/output characteristics of the battery by suppressing polarization of the positive and negative electrodes during charge and discharge of the battery [pars. 0024-25,0012; Fig. 1]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have employed the teachings of Honoki to have modified the positive electrode mixture layer of Sakida, wherein the lithium carbonate is present in a non-uniform concentration distribution in a thickness direction of the positive electrode mixture layer , such that a content of the lithium carbonate is higher in a second region of the positive electrode mixture layer positioned at a surface side than in a first region positioned at a side of the positive electrode core, in order to obtain improved input/output characteristics of the battery by suppressing polarization of the positive and negative electrodes during charge and discharge of the battery . Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakida and Honoki, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kamibayashi (JP2005108513A – foreign copy and machine translation attached) . Regarding Claim 3 , modified Sakida fails to teach wherein the lithium carbonate is contained substantially only in the second region of the positive electrode mixture layer. However, Kamibayashi, from the same field of endeavor teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material layer 21 formed over a positive electrode core and having high concentration layer 22 of lithium carbonate on the surface of the active material layer so that lithium carbonate can be decomposed at a time during overcharge to generate carbon dioxide, and the generated carbon dioxide can diffuse into the cell without stagnation, thereby reducing variations in valve operating pressure and, i n addition, rupture and ignition during overcharge can be suppressed [Kamibayashi – pars. 0090,0027; Fig. 2]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have further modified the positive electrode mixture layer of Sakida wherein the lithium carbonate is contained substantially only in the second region of the positive electrode mixture layer such that lithium carbonate can be decomposed at a time during overcharge to generate carbon dioxide, and the generated carbon dioxide can diffuse into the cell without stagnation, thereby reducing variations in valve operating pressure and, i n addition, rupture and ignition during overcharge can be suppressed . Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakida and Honoki, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kibune (US20170194628A1) . Regarding Claim 4 , modified Sakida fails to explicitly teach wherein an average particle size of the lithium carbonate is smaller than an average particle size of the positive electrode active material. However, Kibune, from the same field of endeavor, discloses a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode mixture layer comprising a positive electrode active material (e.g., lithium transition metal oxide) and lithium carbonate (i.e., as a carbonate compound), wherein the average particle size of the lithium carbonate is smaller than an average particle size of the positive electrode active material in order to control dispersion of the lithium carbonate in the positive electrode mixture layer and provide improved effect of suppressing the degradation of charge capacity [Kibune – pars. 0017-24]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have further modified the positive electrode mixture layer of Sakida , wherein an average particle size of the lithium carbonate is smaller than an average particle size of the positive electrode active material in order to control dispersion of the lithium carbonate in the positive electrode mixture layer and provide improved effect of suppressing the degradation of charge capacity . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT HAROON S SHEIKH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0302 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9-6 . 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 JONATHAN LEONG can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-1292 . 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 HAROON S. SHEIKH Primary Examiner Art Unit 1751 /Haroon S. Sheikh/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751