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. 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. Specification The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted. Claim Objections Claims objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 1 and 15, Applicant labels the diameter of the particles in two different ways, Dv 99 and D v99 . Appropriate correction is required to maintain consistent formatting throughout the claims. 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 1-20 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. In claims 1 and 15, Applicant claims “when 20%≤A≤100%...”. Using the term “when” to describe this limitation, it is not clear if this feature is required by the claim as it states a condition of the electrochemical /electronic device dependent on a situational “when” which renders the claim indefinite. In other words, what is D l and D c when A is between 0 and 20%? Do they exist? Does the film and the current collector have any thickness? Clarification is required. Furthermore, in claims 1 and 15, Applicant claims that “the positive active material comprises a primary and/or a secondary particle” which indicates that primary particles are not necessarily included in the positive active material. Applicant then goes on to claim that “A is the mass percent of the primary particle in the positive active material…”. This renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear how the limitation “when 20%≤A≤100% ” limits the claim when there are no primary particles present. Clarification is required to address the clarity issues regarding the variable “A” when the electrode active material comprises of only secondary particles. Furthermore, in claim 1, Applicant claims “D l – (D v99 – D c ) ≥ 0.8”. Seeing that this term is not a ratio, there is a lack of units for “0.8” and it is not clear how each “D” is measured. For purposes of this examination, it will be assumed that these terms are measured in microns. Furthermore, in claim 1 5 , Applicant claims “D l ≥ D v99 – D c ”. Seeing that this term is not a ratio, there is a lack of units for each of these values and it is not clear how each “D” is measured. For purposes of this examination, it will be assumed that these terms are measured in microns. Regarding claims 12 and 20, Applicant claims a roughness of a covered and uncovered region of the current collector and states that the units are mm -1 . This renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear what these units are. Surface roughness is measured in length, typically microns, not the inverse of microns (or millimeters). Clarification is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim (s) 1- 1 1 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumakura (US 2020/0381727) . Regarding claim s 1 -4 and 7-10 , Kumakura discloses a n electrochemical device, comprising a positive electrode (as described in the abstract) , wherein the positive electrode comprises a current collector (see paragraph 173 which discloses coating a positive active material slurry on an 15 micron thick current collector) and a film layer containing a positive active material (also see paragraph 173 which discloses a positive active layer on the current collector) , the film layer is disposed on at least one surface of the current collector (paragraph 173) , and the positive active material comprises a primary particle and/or a secondary particle (see paragraph 14 which discloses the presence of primary particles , such as Compound A/first fraction in the positive electrode with a D50 between 10 and 20 microns and compound B/second fraction in the positive electrode, which are primary particles, with a D50 between 2 and 8 microns ) ; when 20%≤A≤100%, D l −(Dv 99 −D c )≥0.8 (see paragraph 148 which discloses that the film layer/positive active material layer can be up to 50 microns, the D 99 i s less than 50 microns and the thickness D c of the current collector, per paragraph 173 is 15 microns, these values produce a range which encompasses values of this inequality of upwards of 49 (50 microns – (19 microns -18 microns) and see paragraph 80 which teaches that the primary particles, such as compound B, are present in the active material between 15-65%, which overlaps the claimed range ) . While Kumakura does not explicitly teach the claimed ranges of A, and the inequality D l −(Dv 99 −D c ) ≥0.8 (and up to ≥ 8.7, as in claim 4) , it does teach overlapping ranges. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)). Regarding claims 5 and 6 , Kumakura does not explicitly teach the claimed ranges, but teaches a range of D l /D c (or 50 or less microns divided by 18 microns, see rejection of claim 1 above which defines these values for Kumakura) that overlaps the claimed range. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)). Regarding claim 11 , Kumakura further discloses a compaction density of the film layer is 2 g/dm3 to 4.3 g/dm3 (paragraph 3) . Regarding claim 15 and 17-19 , Kumakura discloses a n electrochemical device, comprising a positive electrode (as described in the abstract) , wherein the positive electrode comprises a current collector (see paragraph 173 which discloses coating a positive active material slurry on an 15 micron thick current collector) and a film layer containing a positive active material (also see paragraph 173 which discloses a positive active layer on the current collector) , the film layer is disposed on at least one surface of the current collector (paragraph 173) , and the positive active material comprises a primary particle and/or a secondary particle (see paragraph 14 which discloses the presence of primary particles, such as Compound A/first fraction in the positive electrode with a D50 between 10 and 20 microns and compound B/second fraction in the positive electrode, which are primary particles, with a D50 between 2 and 8 microns) ; when 20%≤A≤100%, D l ≥ Dv 99 −D c (see paragraph 148 which discloses that the film layer/positive active material layer can be up to 50 microns, the D99 is less than 50 microns and the thickness D c of the current collector, per paragraph 173 is 15 microns, these values produce a range which encompasses values of this inequality 50 microns ≥ 50 microns – 18 microns and see paragraph 80 which teaches that the primary particles, such as compound B, are present in the active material between 15-65%, which overlaps the claimed range). While Kumakura does not explicitly teach the claimed ranges of A, and the inequality D l ≥ Dv 99 −D c , it does teach overlapping ranges as described above . As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)). Regarding claim 16 , Kumakura does not explicitly teach the claimed ranges, but teaches a range of D l /D c (or 50 or less microns divided by 18 microns, see rejection of claim 1 above which defines these values for Kumakura) that overlaps the claimed range. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)). Claim (s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumakura (US 2020/0381727) in view of Wang (CN 109301322 A with references made to the Englis h Language Equivalent US 2020/0099103) . Regarding claims 13-14, Kumakura teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte, but is silent regarding the inclusion of 0.01-15wt% of an ether dinitrile compound in the electrolyte. Wang also discloses a lithium-ion battery (see abstract). Wang teaches, like Kumakura, teaches the inclusion of a non-aqueous electrolyte solution comprising a dimethyl carbonate solution (DMC see paragraph 114). Wang goes on to teach the inclusion of a dinitrile ether compound (see paragraph 97 which gives several examples of dinitrile ether compounds) in the electrolyte in a range of 0.1 wt% to 15 wt% (paragraph 98). Wang teaches such an additive to control the expansion of the electrochemical device which assists in excellent cycling and storage (see abstract). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the dinitrile ether compound of Wang to the electrolyte of Kumakura in the content disclosed by Wang in order to control the expansion of the electrochemical device which assists in excellent cycling and storage . Furthermore, Kumakura, as modified above, teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising DMC and includes 0.1 – 15wt% of a dinitrile compound . While not explicitly stating the conductivity of the electrolyte, modified Kumakura teaches an identical electrolyte composition and the conductivity is assumed to be the same as that of the claimed invention. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Claim (s) 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumakura (US 2020/0381727) in view of Uchida (US 2014/0079872) and Toyama (US 2016/0087280) . Regarding claims 12 and 20, Kumakura teaches coating the electrode onto a current collector, but is silent regarding a blank portion and a coated portion of the current collector. Uchida also discloses a battery system (see abstract ). Uchida, like Kumakura, teaches coating a current collector with a positive active material (see abstract) and goes on to teach that this active material is coated on only a portion of the current collector while another portion uncoated (see abstract). Uchida teaches such a configuration in order to form a pattern of coated and uncoated portions of the current collector as this reduces penetration resistance of the electrodes while also maintaining high peel strength of the collector and active material (paragraph 9). As such, it would have been obvious to adopt the covered/uncovered pattern of Uchida in the current collector of modified Kumakura in order to form a pattern of coated and uncoated portions of the current collector as this reduces penetration resistance of the electrodes while also maintaining high peel strength of the collector and active material. Furthermore, Kumakura, as modified above, does not teach a controlled roughness of each region. It is also noted that the two roughness ranges claimed overlap in scope meaning that the covered and uncovered regions may indeed exhibit the same roughness. Toyama also discloses a battery system where a current collector is coated with a positive active material (see abstract) . Toyama teaches controlling the roughness of the current collector surface above 0.1 microns such that the adhesion between the current collector and the electrode layer can be enhances (paragraph 11). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the roughness of the current collector surface of modified Kumakura such that the adhesion between the electrode layer and the current collector are optimized, as taught by Toyama. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9813 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm . 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 Basia Ridley can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1453 . 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. /MATTHEW J MERKLING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725