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 § 102 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. Claim s 1-3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020/090801. Yura et al (US 20210203025) is an English equivalent of WO ‘801. Regarding claim 1, Yura et al. teach a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode (2) composed of a sintered body containing lithium cobaltate ([0034]), a negative electrode (3) , and a separator (41) being comp osed of a sintered body containing MgO ([0057]). Although the reference does not expressly teach that an intermediate layer containing an oxide containing Co and Mg is present between the positive electrode and separator, the position is taken that such a layer would inherently be present in the battery of Yura et al. based on the method of production of the battery of Yura et al. In Example 3 ([0132]), Yura et al. teach that a laminate of green sheets (positive electrode comprising lithium cobaltate , separator comprising MgO, and negative electrode) is degreased at 600C for five hours, then subjected to a firing where the temperature was increased up to 900C at 100 0 C/h and kept for three hours, and then cooled. The instant application teaches a similar method of forming the intermediate layer using the same positive electrode and separator composition in Examples 4, 5, and 7. In these Examples, a debindering step at 600C is followed by firing where the temperature was increased up to 950C at 1000C/h and kept for different times (20h, 30m, 5m) , and then cooled . In each of these Examples, intermediate layers containing oxides of Co and Mg were formed at various thicknesses (15, 1, 0.5 micron). The position is taken that the process of Yura et al. would inherently result in the formation of the recited intermediate layer. This is because the processes of Yura and the instant application are substantially identical. Note: it is acknowledged that the temperature in the reference is 900 C whereas the temperature in the instant application is 950 C . However, absent evidence to the contrary the position is taken that the intermediate layer would form at a temperature of 900 C . The instant application further discloses Comparative Example 1, which was fired at 800 C, and did not produce an intermediate layer but provides no further guidance regarding firing temperatures . The Office submits that a preponderance of the evidence shows that the layer would be present at a firing temperature of 900C. Accordingly, the layer is submitted to be inherent in the reference. See MPEP 2112. Regarding claim 2, the separator is a plate-shaped separator having first and second main surfaces and the positive electrode, separator and negative electrode constitute an integrated plate. Regarding claim 3, the intermediate layer of Yura et al. would inherently have a thickness within the claimed range. This is because as noted above, thickness is dependent upon firing time. For a firing time of 3h in Yura et al., the resultant intermediate layer would inherently have a thickness in the claimed range of 1-50 microns. Similar rationale applies to claims 5 and 6. The intermediate layer oxide would inherently have a particle size within the claimed range of 1-10 microns, and the ratio of Mg/Co present in the intermediate layer would decrease from a separator side to a positive electrode side. This would be due to the natural diffusion gradients of each of these elements coming from their respective source layers. 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. 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yura et al. Yura et al. is applied to claims 1-3, 5 and 6 for the reasons stated above. However, the reference does not expressly teach that the intermediate layer has a porosity of 15-50% as recited in claim 4. However, the porosity range would be obvious to one skilled in the art as the porosity would be a function of the porosities of the positive electrode and separator abutting each other, as well as the firing time which provides an indication of degree of densification. The positive electrode in Yura et al. is disclosed as having a porosity of 20-60%, especially preferably 30-45%. The recited porosity range encompasses the preferred range of porosity of the positive electrode. Further, it would have been obvious to optimize/adjust porosities of the electrode/separator for reasons known in the art, that is, degree of ion diffusivity, electrolyte permeation, etc. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to obtain an intermediate layer having the recited porosity based on the above factors. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 7 recites that the intermediate layer has a first portion and a second portion, and the first portion has a porosity different than the second portion. Yura et al., the closest prior art, does not teach or fairly suggest an intermediate layer having portions having different porosities. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan Crepeau whose telephone number is (571) 272-1299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher , can be reached at (571) 270-3879 . The phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272-1700. Documents may be faxed to the central fax server at (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /Jonathan Crepeau/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 DATE \@ "MMMM d, yyyy" \* MERGEFORMAT March 12, 2026