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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 2A, wherein the lithium manganese-based oxide is represented by Formula 1-1, and Species B1, wherein the barrier layer oxide is represented by Chemical Formula 2, in the reply filed 02/03/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 6, and 14-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species A1 and B2-B4, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/03/2026. Claim Objections Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation, “at least some of an oxygen present” (line 8) should read “at least some of the oxygen present” as “oxide” (line 2) provides sufficient antecedent basis for oxygen. 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. Claims FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 1-5, 7-13, and 19-20 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. Regarding claim 1 , the claim limitation “the primary particle” (line 12) lacks antecedent basis thus rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear if “the primary particle” refers to one of the “plurality of primary particles” (line 7) or a different primary particle. For the purpose of this office action, the claim has been interpreted to read, “a primary particle”. The claim limitation “at least a part of a surfaces of a primary particle and the secondary particle is present” (lines 12-13) renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether applicant meant to claim at least a part of a surface of a primary particle and a t least a part of a surface of the secondary particle, or at least a part of a surface of a primary particle or a t least a part of a surface of the secondary particle. For the purposes of this office action, the claim has been interpreted to be, “ at least a part of a surface of a primary particle and at least a part of a surface of the secondary particle”. Claims 2-5, 7-13, and 19-20 are similarly rejected as being dependent from claim 1. Regarding claim 2 , the claim limitation “the minor axis length” (line 2) lacks antecedent basis, thus rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the “the minor axis length” refers to one of the “minor axis lengths” of claim 1 (line 10), “minor axis lengths” in its plural form, or another minor length. For the purpose of this office action, “the claim limitation is interpreted to read, “a minimum value of the minor axis length s ”. Regarding claim 3, the claim limitation “the minor axis length” (line 2) lacks antecedent basis, thus rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether “the minor axis length” refers to one of the “minor axis lengths” of claim 1 (line 10), “minor axis lengths” in its plural form, or another minor axis length. For the purpose of this office action, “the claim limitation is interpreted to read, “a maximum value of the minor axis length s ”. Regarding claim 5 , the claim limitation “a minor axis lengths” (line 2) renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether “a minor axis lengths” is the same as the “minor axis lengths” of claim 1 (line 10) or if it distinct “minor axis lengths”. For the purposes of this office action, the claim limitation has been interpreted to read, “an average value of a major axis lengths and the minor axis lengths”. The claim limitation “([major axis length + minor axis length]/2) is 0.1 to 5 µm” (line 3) render s the claim indefinite as “major axis length” and “minor axis length” lack antecedent basis. It is unclear whether “major axis lengt h” refers to one of the “a major axis lengths” previously established in claim 5 or otherwise. Similarly, it is unclear whether “minor axis length” refers to one of “a minor axis lengths” established in claim 5, “an average value of minor axis lengths” of claim 1, or otherwise. F or the purpose of this office action, the claim limitation is interpreted to read, “([major axis length s + minor axis length s ]/2)”. Regarding claim 10 , the claim limitation “the central portion” (lines 3-4) lacks antecedent basis, rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear what is considered central as the central portion could refer to the center with respect to the minor ax is length , the major ax is length , or the true center of the particle. For the purpose of the office action, the claim limitation is interpreted to read, “the barrier layer is present in a diffused state from a surface portion to a central portion of the secondary particle”. Regarding claim 13 , the claim limitation “the core of the lithium manganese-based oxide ” (line 3) lacks antecedent basis, rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether “the core” refers to the core of aggregated primary particles or the core of a given primary particle. For the purpose of this office action, the claim limitation is interpreted to read, “ a core of the lithium manganese-based oxide”. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) which are under rejection." 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding claim 9 , in view of the 112(b) rejection above , the claim limitation, “the barrier layer is present to cover at least a part of the surface of the secondary particle” (line s 1-2) does not appear to properly limit claim 1, which previously claims , “a barrier layer that covers at least a part of the surface of a primary particle and at least a part of the surface of the secondary particle is present” (lines 12-13) . Regarding claim 11 , in view of the 112(b) rejection above, the claim limitation, “the barrier layer is present to cover at least a part of the surface of the primary particle” (line s 1-2) does not appear to properly limit claim 1, which previously claims , “a barrier layer that covers at least a part of the surface of a primary particle and at least a part of the surface of the secondary particle is present” (lines 12-13). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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. Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-5, 7 - 9, 11-12 , and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. ( US 10236508 B2 ) in view of FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Yamamoto et al. ( US 20120217435 A1 ) , Dou et al. (US 20220181622 A1) , and Yun ( US 20220069301 A1 ). Regarding claim s 1 , 8-9, and 11 , in view of the 112(b) rejection above, Ahn discloses a positive electrode active material (col. 1, line s 19-21) comprising a lithium-manganese based oxide (i.e. Li 2 MnO 3 —LiM’O 2, col. 6 , lines 11-13 ) . Ahn further discloses the lithium manganese-based oxide comprises a secondary particle formed by aggregating a plurality of primary particles (col. 15, lines 55-65, Fig 4A-B, Fig. 5A-B). Ahn further discloses the lithium manganese-based oxide may be further doped with fluorine such that at least some of the oxygen present in the lithium manganese-based oxide are substituted with a halogen, specifically fluorine, as claimed in claim 8 (col. 7, lines 58-59. Formula 3). Ahn further discloses Li 2 MnO 3 —LiM’O 2 in which Li 2 MO 3 phase is complexed on a layer of a LiM’O 2 phase, where the Li 2 MnO 3 is not simply mixed with the LiM’O 2 phase, but rather integrated into a layered crystalline structure of the LiM’O 2 phase (col. 6, lines 11-16). Ahn does not explicitly disclose a phase belonging to a C2/m space group and a phase belonging to an R3-m space group are dissolved or complexed , but appears to inherently possess such for the following reasons . Yamamoto discloses the compound having the crystal system belonging to the C2/m space group preferably includes compounds represented by: Li 2 M’ 1-y Mn y O 3 wherein M’ is Ni and/or Co; 0<y≤1 ([0032]), and the compound having the crystal system belonging to the R-3m space group preferably includes compounds represented by the formula: LiM x Mn 1-x O 2 where M is Ni and/or Co; 0<x≤1, specific examples include LiCo x Mn 1-x O 2 , Li 2 Ni x Mn 1-x O 2 , and Li(Ni,Co) x Mn 1-x O 2 ([0030]). In selecting a compound having the crystal system belonging to the C2/m space group (i.e. Li 2 MnO 3 ), and a compound having the crystal system belonging to the R-3m space group (i.e. LiM’O 2 ) which are complexed, a skilled artisan would expect the active material of Ahn to necessarily and inherently have a phase belonging to a C2/m space group (i.e. Li 2 MnO 3 ) and a phase belonging to an R-3m space group (i.e. LiM’O 2 ) that are complexed. Ahn discloses an average diameter of the lithium manganese-based oxide to be about 10 nm to about 500 µm (col. 7, lines 60-67) but does not explicitly disclose an average value of minor axis lengths of the primary particles. Dou teaches a lithium transition metal oxide where the major axis length (i.e. length) of the primary particles ranges from 100 to 1000 nm and a minor axis length (i.e. width) of the primary particles ranges from 50 nm to 400 nm ([0102]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 130 to 400 nm . Dou further teaches when the primary particles in the secondary particles satisfy this range, the positive electrode active material can have high lithium-ion transmission performance, relatively high compacted density, appropriate specific surface area and high mechanical strength ([103]). Therefore , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected within the overlapping portion of the ranges for the average value of minor axis lengths with reasonable expectation of success in achieving a positive electrode active material with satisfactory lithium-transmission performance, compacted density, specific surface area, and high mechanical strength of the positive active material. Ahn is silent regarding a barrier layer that covers at least a part of a surface of a primary particle and at least a part of a surface of the secondary particle is present. Yun teaches the barrier layer (i.e. first boron coating portion) covering at least a part of a surface of the secondary particle , as claimed in claim 9, and the barrier layer (i.e. second boron coating portio n) covering at least a part of a surface of a primary particle in the inner portion of the secondary particles , as claimed in claim 11 ([0051]). Yun further teaches that in having a positive active material coated with boron on the secondary particle surface and at the inner grain boundaries simultaneously, the boron may no longer contribute to resistance but may secure structural stability of the positive active material and reduce the buildup of interface resistance between the positive active material and the electrolyte, thus improving capacity and lifetime characteristics of the battery ([0052]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have improved the lithium manganese-based oxide active material with a barrier layer that covers at least a part of a surface of a primary particle and at least a part of a surface of the secondary particle, in order to achieve structural stability and reduce interface resistance, as taught by Yun. Regarding claims 2- 4 , modified Ahn discloses all claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ahn discloses a minor axis length of primary particles being 130 to 400 nm, as rendered obvious above (Dou, [010 2 ]), satisfying the claim limitation, “a minimum value of axis length measured for the primary particle exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is higher than 75 nm”, of claim 2, and the claim limitation, “a maximum value of the minor axis length measured for the primary particle exposed on a surface of the secondary particle is 500 nm or less” of claim 3. In all primary particles of Modified Ahn satisfying the range of 130 to 400 nm for the minor axis length, the primary particles exposed on the surface of the secondary particle must necessarily also be within the disclosed range such that the claim limitations are met. Similarly, the claim limitation , “wherein a proportion of primary particles having the minor axis length of 100 nm or more among the primary particles exposed on a surface of the secondary particle is more than 80% and 100% or less” of claim 4 is met as all the primary particles of Modified Yamamoto possess a minor axis length between 130 to 400 nm, such that 100% of the primary particles exposed on the surface have a minor axis length greater than 100 nm. Regarding claim 5 , in view of the 112(b) rejection above, modified Ahn discloses all claim limitations as set forth above . Modified Ahn discloses the lithium transition metal oxide where the major axis length (i.e. length) of the primary particles ranges from 100 to 1000 nm and a minor axis length (i.e. width) of the primary particles ranges from 130 nm to 400 nm ( Dou, [0102]), as rendered obvious above , wherein the primary particle s include the primary particles exposed on a surface of the secondary particle. Modified Ahn further teaches when the primary particles in the secondary particles satisfy this range, the positive electrode active material can have high lithium-ion transmission performance, relatively high compacted density, appropriate specific surface area and high mechanical strength ( Dou, [ 0102-0 103]). Dou further teaches the desire to control an aspect ratio of the primary particle where the aspect ratio is a ratio of the major axis length to the minor axis length (i.e. ratio of the length to the width) of primary particle as it may lead to better improved energy density, high-temperature storage performance, and high-temperature cycling performance of the battery ([0017];[0104]). Th e disclosed ranges for the minor and major axis lengths yields a range of an average value of a major axis lengths and minor axis lengths of the primary particles exposed on a surface of the secondary particle, ([major axis length s + minor axis length s ]/2), to be 0. 13 to 0. 7 µm, which is wholly within the claimed range of 0.1 to 5 µm. Regarding claim 7 , modified Ahn discloses all claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ahn discloses a lithium manganese-based oxide may represented by an exemplary embodiment where the active material is further doped with fluorine, represented by , xLi 2 MnO 3-δ F δ -(1-x) Li Ni 1-a’-a’’-b Co a’ Mn a’’ M ” b O 2- δ ’ F δ’ (Ahn, col. 7, lines 58-69, Formula 3) which significantly overlaps with the claimed Formula 1-1 , rLi 2 MnO 3-b” X b” ∙ (1-r)Li a’ M1 x’ M2 y’ O 2-b’ X b’ , of claim 7. Regarding claims 12 , modified Ahn discloses all claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ahn discloses a barrier layer (i.e. boron coating) compris ing a first oxide (i.e. boron oxide) for example LiBO 2 , Li 2 B 4 O 7 , Li 3 BO 3 (Yun, [0051]), all of which are disclosed with sufficient specificity an d are within the scope of the claimed Formula 2, Li C B d M3 e O f , of claim 12. Regarding claims 19-20 , modified Ahn discloses all claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ahn discloses a positive electrode comprising the positive electrode active material of claim 1 as claimed in claim 19 (Ahn, col. 1, lines 19-21), and a lithium secondary battery (i.e. lithium battery) using the positive electrode as claimed in claim 20 ( Ahn, col. 1, lines 19-21) . Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. ( US 10236508 B2 ) in view of FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Yamamoto et al. (US 20120217435 A1), Dou et al. (US 20220181622 A1), and Yun (US 20220069301 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Liu et al. (JP 2016139583 A). Regarding claims 10 and 13 , modified Ahn discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Ahn further discloses the amount for the first boron coating on the surface of the secondary particles may be greater than the weight or amount of the second boron coating portion on the surface of the primary particles where the first boron coating may be around about 80 to 95 wt% while the second boron coating may be around about 5 to 20 wt% ( Yun, [0051];[0054]) . While modified Ahn does not explicitly disclose the positive electrode active material wherein a gradient in which the concentration of boron decreases from the barrier layer to a core of the lithium manages-based oxide is formed, a skilled artisan would recognize the greater wt% of boron on the surface of the secondary particle s compared to t he wt of boron on the surface of the primary particle s suggests a decrease in concentration of boron from the surface of the secondary particles to the surface of the primary particles. Liu teaches a similar cathode active material (i.e. Li z Ni a CO b Mn c O 2 , [0012]) that is metal-gradient-doped where the modifying metal may be boron ([0001];[0012]). Liu further teaches when the modifying metal is relatively concentrated on the surface of the positive electrode material powder, and exhibits a concentration of continuity towards the core, a continuous concentration dope gradient is formed ([0012]). Furthermore, Liu teaches in having a relatively high concentration of the modifying metal on the surface, the reactivity of the active material to the electrolyte is lowered, improving operation stability of the battery ([0012]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have improved the barrier layer of modified Ahn such that a gradient in which the concentration of B decreases from the barrier layer to a core of the lithium transition manganese oxide is formed, as claimed in claim 13, for the benefit of lowering the reactivity of the active material with the electrolyte and improving operation stability of the overall battery, as taught by Liu. Modified Ahn further discloses the barrier layer is present on the outermost surface of the secondary particle and along the inner grain boundaries or between the primary particles in the inner portion of the secondary particles (Yun, [0050];[0052]), which is within the scope of the claimed “wherein the grain boundary is defined between adjacent primary particles” of claim 10. Modified Ahn does not explicitly disclose the barrier layer being present in a diffused state from a surface portion of the secondary particle along the grain boundary. However, in disclosing a gradient, Modified Ahn reasonably also discloses a diffused state given that a gradient entails mass shifted from a high-concentration area to a low-concentration area, therefore rendering obvious the claim limitation, “barrier layer is present in a diffused state from a surface portion to a central portion of the secondary particle along the grain boundary” of claim 10. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ESTHER J TAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3479 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7:30 AM-4:30PM . 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. /E.J.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 1751 /JONATHAN G LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 3/31/2026