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 § 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 7 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. Claim 7 recites “wherein the central core material has a monocrystalline or monocrystalline-like morphology” (emphasis added). Here, the term “monocrystalline-like” is unclear, since the term “monocrystalline-like” is a relative term which is not defined by the claim, the instant 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. As such, it is unclear what degree of deviation from monocrystalline is allowed for a “monocrystalline-like” morphology . As such, Claim 7 is rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, since the instant specification does not provide any indication of what degree of crystallinity constitutes a “monocrystalline- like” morphology , it will be interpreted that the central core material has a monocrystalline morphology . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 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 , 5, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a ) (1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Miyaji et al. (JP - 2014192069 - A; cited in IDS filed 09/13/2023; see also attached English translation for citations) as evidenced by ChemicalBook (“SDS Magnesium Phosphate”; see attached NPL for citations) . Regarding Claim 1, Miyaji discloses a secondary battery [0045], comprising: a positive electrode sheet (positive electrode) having a positive electrode active material [ 0037, 0042]; and a non-aqueous electrolyte [ 0044 ]; wherein: the positive electrode active material comprises a central core material (lithium-containing transition metal oxide 11; [0037]) and a modification layer (layer comprising magnesium phosphate 15) disposed on a surface of the central core material (see Fig. 1; [ 0041 ] ). Miyaji discloses that the modification layer comprises magnesium phosphate [0041]. Although Miyaji does not explicitly disclose the chemical formula of magnesium phosphate, and therefore does not explicitly teach that the magnesium phosphate is an orthophosphate which satisfies the claimed molecular formula, Miyaji discloses Mg 3 (PO 4 ) 2 as a possible form of magnesium phosphate [0022], and ChemicalBook evidences that “magnesium phosphate” is commonly accepted as having the formula Mg 3 (PO 4 ) 2 (Pg. 2: Section 3). Therefore, it is understood that the use of magnesium phosphate corresponds to the use of Mg 3 (PO 4 ) 2 , which reads on an orthophosphate with a molecular formula A a+ x [PO4] 3- y (i.e. A = Mg; a = 2; x = 3; y = 2 ; and ax=3y ). Assuming, arguendo , that Applicant is able to persuasively argue or show by means of evidence that magnesium phosphate does not have the chemical formula Mg 3 (PO 4 ) 2 , 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 the form of magnesium phosphate to be Mg 3 (PO 4 ) 2 since Miyaji teaches that Mg 3 (PO 4 ) 2 is a form of magnesium phosphate [0022], and since Chemi c alBook evidences that Mg 3 (PO 4 ) 2 is a common form of magnesium phosphate (Pg. 2: Section 3). Miyaji also discloses that the non-aqueous electrolyte comprises lithium difluoride phosphate (i.e. LiPO 2 F 2 ) [0044], which reads on a fluorinated phosphate with a molecular formula B b+ m [PO 1+c F 3-c ] c- n (i.e. B = Li; b = 1; m = 1; c = 1; n = 1 and bm= cn ). Regarding Claim 5 , Miyaji anticipates / renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Miyaji further discloses a specific example wherein the central material is Li 1.03 Ni 0.5 Co 0.2 Mn 0.3 O 2 [0037]. Therefore, Miyaji discloses that the central core material comprises element Mn. Regarding Claim 8 , Miyaji anticipates / renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the modification layer comprises Mg 3 (PO 4 ) 2 (see rejection of Claim 1, above; [0022, 0038-0041]). This corresponds to A = Mg, which is within the list of claimed elements denoted by A. Miyaji also discloses that the fluorinated phosphate comprises LiPO 2 F 2 (i.e. lithium difluoride phosphate) [0044]. This corresponds to B = Li, which is within the list of claimed elements denoted by B. Regarding Claim 10 , Miyaji anticipates / renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the modification layer comprises Mg 3 (PO 4 ) 2 , which is within the list of claimed orthophosphate compounds (see rejection of Claim 1, above; [0022, 0038-0041]) . Furthermore, Miyaji discloses that the fluorinated phosphate comprises LiPO 2 F 2 (i.e. lithium difluoride phosphate), which is within the list of claimed fluorinated phosphate compounds [0044]. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior section of this Office action. Claim(s) 2 - 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyaji et al. (JP - 2014192069 - A; cited in IDS filed 09/13/2023; see also attached English translation for citations) as evidenced by ChemicalBook (“SDS Magnesium Phosphate”; see attached NPL for citations) . Regarding Claim 2 , Miyaji anticipates / renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Although Miyaji does not teach a specific example wherein a mass percentage C% of the orthophosphate based on a total mass of the positive electrode active material falls within the range of 0.2-20, Miyaji does disclose that the amount of orthophosphate is preferably within the range of 0.01% by mass or more and 3% by mass or less relative to the positive electrode active material (lithium-containing transition metal oxide) [0021]. If the mass falls below 0.01 mass%, there is not enough orthophosphate to achieve the beneficial benefits of suppressing rise in battery temperature [0018, 0021]. However, if the mass of orthophosphate compound exceeds 3 mass%, the amount of positive electrode active material decreases, which can reduce battery capacity [0021]. 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 optimized the mass of orthophosphate, including selecting the orthophosphate to have a mass percentage is 0.2-3%, with a reasonable expectation that such a mass% of orthophosphate would result in a successful balance between ensuring sufficient orthophosphate to ensure the beneficial effects while still maintaining high battery capacity (MPEP 2144.05, II). A mass percentage of orthophosphate of 0.2-3% is within the claimed range of C of 0.2-20. Regarding Claim 3 , Miyaji anticipates / renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Although Miyaji does not teach a specific example wherein “a mass of element P in the modification layer to a total mass of the positive electrode active material is 0.05-6”, Miyaji does disclose that the amount of orthophosphate is preferably within the range of 0.01% by mass or more and 3% by mass or less relative to the positive electrode active material (lithium-containing transition metal oxide) [0021]. If the mass falls below 0.01 mass%, there is not enough orthophosphate to achieve the beneficial benefits of suppressing rise in battery temperature [0018, 0021]. However, if the mass of orthophosphate compound exceeds 3 mass%, the amount of positive electrode active material decreases, which can reduce battery capacity [0021]. 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 optimized the mass of orthophosphate, thereby inherently optimizing the mass of element P in the modification layer , to a total mass of the positive electrode active material, including selecting contents of orthophosphate which result in a mass of element P in the modification layer to the total mass of the positive electrode active material to be 0.05-6 (i.e. within the claimed range) , with a reasonable expectation that such a mass of element P would result in a successful balance between ensuring sufficient orthophosphate to ensure beneficial effects while still maintaining high battery capacity (MPEP 2144.05, II). Regarding Claim 11 , Miyaji anticipates / renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Miyaji discloses that magnesium phosphate (i.e. the orthophosphate of the modification layer) is “deposited on the particle surface” [0041], that the process of coating the central core material involves forming the orthophosphate material onto the central core material from a slurry [0038-0041] . Furthermore, Miyaji depicts the modification layer (i.e. the layer comprising the orthophosphate) as completely surrounding the central core material (see Fig. 1). B y coating the particle surface with the orthophosphate, it is possible to suppress the reaction between the positive electrode active material and the non-aqueous electrolyte in the event of an internal short circuit [0018 , 0057 ]. Therefore, although Miyaji does not explicitly teach that the modification layer is disposed on 50%-100% of a surface of the central core material, 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 the modification layer to be disposed on 50-100% of the surface of the central core material since Miyaji strongly suggests that the orthophosphate material entirely covers the central core material (see Fig. 1; [0038-0041]), and since such a configuration would have a reasonable expectation of coating a sufficient surface area of the positive electrode active material such that it does not react with the non-aqueous electrolyte in the event of an internal short circuit. Claim(s) 4 , 6 and 12 -15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyaji et al. (JP-2014192069-A; cited in IDS filed 09/13/2023; see also attached English translation for citations) as evidenced by ChemicalBook (“SDS Magnesium Phosphate”; see attached NPL for citations) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in further view of Park et al. ( US - 20170179484 - A 1). Regarding Claim s 4 and 6 , Miyaji anticipates / renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Miyaji discloses that the positive electrode active material can comprise a lithium transition metal oxide as the core material [0012-0013, 0020, 0037]. Although Miyaji discloses that the core material can comprise magnesium [0012, 0037], Miyaji does not teach that the central core material is one or more of “spinel-type lithium manganate LiM p Mn 2-p O 4 , lithium manganese phosphate LiN q Mn 1-q PO 4 , and a layered manganese-rich material Li 1+t Mn 1-w L w O 2+t ”. Park teaches a similar positive electrode active material including a core material that is coated with a material comprising a phosphate compound (see Fig. 1; Abstract; [0013, 0044, 0054, 0075 , 0077, 0089-0091 ]). Park teaches that the core material is capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium ions, and may be any material available in the art suitable for use as a positive electrode active material [0013, 0077, 0089]. A specific example of such a positive electrode active material is LiE 2-b B’ b O 4-c D’ c wherein E can be Mn, b can be 0.5, B’ can be Ni, and c can be 0 [0090-0091]. Therefore, Park renders obvious the use of LiMn 1.5 Ni 0.5 O 4 . I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the core material of Miyaji to be LiMn 1.5 Ni 0.5 O 4 with a reasonable expectation that such a core material would result in a successful core material which is able to be coated with a phosphate compound and result in a successful positive electrode active material for use in a secondary battery (MPEP 2143, B; MPEP 2144.07). The use of LiMn 1.5 Ni 0.5 O 4 corresponds to a central core material which comprises a spinel-type lithium manganate represented by the formula LiM p Mn 2-p O 4 wherein M = Ni and p = 0.5 as required by Claim 6 . Since modified Miyaji renders obvious the use of LiMn 1.5 Ni 0.5 O 4 as the core material for the positive electrode active material, the positive electrode active material is thereby understood to inherently have a voltage plateau of ≥3.8V vs Li+/Li as required by Claim 4 , and as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 0012- 0013, 0071-0073, 00148]. Regarding Claim 12 , Miyaji anticipates / renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Miyaji discloses that the positive electrode active material can comprise a lithium transition metal oxide as the core material, and can be in particulate form [0012-0013, 0020, 0037]. Miyaji does not teach the volume particle diameter of the positive electrode active material, and therefore does not teach that the positive electrode active material has a volume particle diameter Dv50 of 1 µm-20 µm. Park teaches a similar positive electrode active material including a core material that is coated with a material comprising a phosphate compound (see Fig. 1; Abstract; [0013, 0044, 0054, 0075, 0077, 0089-0091]). The core material can be a lithium transition metal oxide [0078-0079, 0089-0091]. Park teaches that the core can have an average particle diameter of 0.1 µm to 20 µm [0082], and that the coating layer can have a thickness of 10 to 900 nm [0076]. Therefore, Park renders obvious that the positive electrode active material has a total volume particle diameter of 0.11 µm to 20.9 µm. 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 the particle diameter Dv50 of the positive electrode active material of Miyaji to be with the range of 0.11 µm to 20.9 µm with a reasonable expectation that such a particle diameter would result in a successful positive electrode active material. This range overlaps the claimed range. 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 any portion of the range rendered obvious by the prior art, including the overlapping portion of the range, with a reasonable expectation that such a particle diameter would result in a successful positive electrode active material for use in a secondary battery (MPEP 2144.05, I). Regarding Claim 13 , Miyaji anticipates / renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Although Miyaji discloses a secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1, above; [0045]), Miyaji does not explicitly teach a battery module including the secondary battery. Park teaches a similar positive electrode active material including a core material that is coated with a material comprising a phosphate compound (see Fig. 1; Abstract; [0013, 0044, 0054, 0075, 0077, 0089-0091]). Park teaches that the positive electrode active material can be used to form a battery assembly (reads on secondary battery; [0117]). Park further teaches that a plurality of battery assembl ies can be stacked to form a battery pack to power a device [0118]. A battery module is understood to comprise multiple battery cells . Therefore, absent a special definition, a battery pack is interpreted as reading on a battery module. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided a battery module ( i.e. battery pack) comprising the secondary battery according to claim 1 with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful battery module (battery pack) capable of powering a device. Regarding Claims 14-15 , Miyaji anticipates / renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Although Miyaji discloses a secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1, above; [0045]), Miyaji does not explicitly teach a battery pack including the secondary battery. Park teaches a similar positive electrode active material including a core material that is coated with a material comprising a phosphate compound (see Fig. 1; Abstract; [0013, 0044, 0054, 0075, 0077, 0089-0091]). Park teaches that the positive electrode active material can be used to form a battery assembly (reads on secondary battery; [0117]). Park further teaches that a plurality of battery assembled can be stacked to form a battery pack, which can be used to power a device which requires high capacity and high output [0118]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided a battery pack comprising the secondary battery according to claim 1, as required by Claim 14 , with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful battery pack capable of powering a device. It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided an electrical device (corresponds to device) comprising the secondary battery according to claim 1, as required by Claim 15 , with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful electrical device. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyaji et al. (JP-2014192069-A; cited in IDS filed 09/13/2023; see also attached English translation for citations) as evidenced by ChemicalBook (“SDS Magnesium Phosphate”; see attached NPL for citations) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in further view of Cho et al. (US-20190296324-A1). Regarding Claim 7 , Miyaji anticipates / renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Miyaji discloses that the positive electrode active material can comprise a lithium transition metal oxide as the core material [0012-0013, 0020, 0037]. Miyaji does not teach that the central core material has a monocrystalline morphology. Cho teaches a monocrystalline lithium transition metal oxide material as a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery [0009-0010]. Cho teaches that current nickel-based cathode active materials are synthesized in a manner which results in secondary particles formed as agglomerates of small primary particles [0004]. Micro-cracks can form between the secondary particles over long periods of time , thereby generating newly exposed surfaces which accelerate side reactions, leading to gas generation and battery performance degradation and deterioration of lifetime characteristics [0004 -0005, 0051 ]. Advantageously , Cho teaches a monocrystalline cathode active material which is free of the above-described drawbacks, thereby resulting in an active material with high energy density and long lifetime characteristics [0006, 0019, 0029, 0052-0053]. By having a single crystal phase, the monocrystalline cathode active material may have an increased structurally stable region available as an active material, and thus high capacity characteristics [0056]. 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 the central core material of Miyaji to have a monocrystalline morphology as taught by Cho with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful central core material for a positive electrode active material capable of high capacity characteristics and long lifetime characteristics. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyaji et al. (JP-2014192069-A; cited in IDS filed 09/13/2023; see also attached English translation for citations) as evidenced by ChemicalBook (“SDS Magnesium Phosphate”; see attached NPL for citations) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in further view of Onizuka et al. (US-20140099555-A1). Regarding Claim 9 , Miyaji anticipates / renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the fluorinated phosphate is lithium difluoride phosphate (i.e. LiPO 2 F 2 ) [0044]. This corresponds to a phosphate compound wherein c = 1 in the molecular formula B b+ m [PO 1+c F 3-c ] c- n (see rejection of Claim 1, above). Accordingly, Miyaji does not disclose that c denotes 2. Notably, Miyaji discloses that other additives may be added to the non-aqueous solvent to improve battery performance, and Miyaji contemplates the use of modified versions of lithium difluoride phosphate in the non-aqueous electrolyte [0030, 0034]. Onizuka teaches a secondary battery comprising a nonaqueous electrolyte [0003, 0009 , 0027, 0039 ]. Onizuka teaches that the nonaqueous electrolyte can comprise a fluorine-containing phosphate compound [0011, 0052]. Advantageously , the fluorine-containing phosphate compound can be decomposed during charging to form a coating on the surface of the negative electrode which improves the endurance of the battery and reduces internal resistance [0006-0007, 0011-0012]. Suitable examples of the fluorine-containing phosphate compounds include, from a list of possible candidates, lithium monofluorophosphate (Li 2 PO 3 F) and lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO 2 F 2 ) [0052]. Onizuka teaches that these comp ounds can be used alone in or combinations of two or more [0052]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added lithium monofluorophosphate instead of / in addition to the lithium difluorophosphate disclosed by Miyaji with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful secondary battery with improved endurance and reduced internal resistance (MPEP 2144.06, I-II). Lithium monofluorophosphate (Li 2 PO 3 F) corresponds to a phosphate compound wherein c = 2 in the molecular formula B b+ m [PO 1+c F 3-c ] c- n . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9873 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM . 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. /D.C.N./ Examiner, Art Unit 1751 /Haroon S. Sheikh/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751