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 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. Claim(s) 1, 4, 11 – 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Iwasaki (US PG Pub. 2014 / 0170451 A1 ). Regarding Claims 1 and 12 , Iwasaki discloses an electronic device comprising an electrochemical device, that is Iwasaki teaches applying a battery pack 100 including batteries 10 in a vehicle (Figs. 1 and 6; [0159]) ( Claim 12 ), the electrochemical device {i.e. batteries 10 } comprising a positive electrode ( Figs . 2 and 3A – 3B, 3 ; [0059 – 0060]) comprising a current collector (Figs. 3A – 3B, 3a and 3c ; [0060]) and a positive electrode mixture layer provided on at least one surface of the current collector (Figs. 3A – 3B, 3b ; [0060]); the current collector comprising a first region provided with the positive electrode mixture layer (Refer to region 3 a of collector in Figs. 3A – 3B; [0060]) and a second region being a foil-free region {i.e. defined in instant specification as region of the positive electrode not coated with the positive electrode mixture layer in [0009]} (Refer to region 3c of collector in Figs. 3A – 3B; [0060]); and the positive electrode mixture layer comprising a positive electrode active material ( [0081 – 0082];[0084]) and a binder ([0081 – 0082];[0088]) ( Claims 1 and 12 ). In Example 1, Iwasaki discloses a particular embodiment of battery 10 having a positive electrode with a surface roughness in the region of the collector supporting the active material layer, Ra 2 , of 0.40 µm {i.e. surface roughness of 3a portion of collector} and a surface roughness of in the region of the collector that does not support the active material , Ra 1 , of 0.15 µm ([0165];[0167 – 0168]) . Ra 2 of Iwasaki , b y being a surface roughness of the region supporting the active material layer, corresponds to the claimed Sa 1 {i.e. a roughness of a surface of the current collector in the first region } ; and Ra 1 of Iwasaki, by being a surface roughness of the region of the collector that does not support active material layer , corresponds to the claimed Sa 2 {i.e. a roughness of a surface of the current collector in the second region } ([0020];[0022]) . As such, by providing an example embodiment where Sa 1 {i.e. Ra 2 } = 0.40 µm and Sa 2 {i.e. Ra 1 } = 0.15, Iwasaki f urther discloses wherein Sa 1 /Sa 2 ≈ 2.7 which is within the claimed range of 1 ≤ Sa 1 /Sa 2 ≤ 20 ( Claims 1 and 12 ). Regarding Claims 4 and 15 , Iwasaki discloses all limitations as set forth above. In Example 1, Iwasaki further teaches the binder of the positive electrode being polyvinylidene fluoride ( PVdF ) ([0164]); therefore Iwasaki further discloses wherein the binder comprises polyvinylidene fluoride . Regarding Claim 1 1 , Iwasaki discloses all limitations as set forth above. In Example 1, Iwasaki further teaches the current collector of the positive electrode having a thickness of 15 µm ([0165]); therefore Iwasaki further discloses (5) a thickness of the current collector within the claimed range of 7 µm to 20 µm, and thus discloses a positive electrode within the claimed scope of satisfying at least one of the claimed characteristics within claim 11. 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) 2 and 1 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (US PG Pub. 2014 / 0170451 A1 ), as applied to claim s 1 or 12 above, and further in view of Ryu (US PG Pub. 2012 / 0288756 A1 ) . Regarding Claims 2 and 1 3 , Iwasaki discloses all limitations as set forth above. In Iwasaki, the first region of the current collector {i.e. region that does not support the active material} has a surface roughness smaller than the surface roughness of the second region of the collector {i.e. region that supports the active material} so that the first regions of a plurality of the current collectors can be joined together at sufficient strength [0020 – 0022]). Iwasaki does not explicitly disclose wherein 0% ≤ (P 2 -P 1 )/P 2 ≤ 22%, where P 1 is a strength of the current collector in the first region and P 2 is a strength of the current collector in the second region. Ryu, directed to a current collector for a positive electrode of a lithium secondary battery, teaches a current collector having an uncoated coated portion and further teaches the current collector having a strength from 115 MPa to 265 MPa and preferably 115 MPa to 160 MPa for the purpose of ensuring that the electrode is resistant to being bent by the differences in elongation rates between the uncoated part of the current collector and the coated part of the current collector during pressing/compression ([0015 – 0017]). The current collector taught by Ryu is formed of an aluminu m alloy ([0018 – 0019]). Since Iwasaki also teaches pressing to form the positive electrode of their example embodiment and teaches using an aluminum current collector ([0165 – 0167]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the current collector of Iwasaki to be a current collector as taught by Ryu , with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining an collector suitable for the positive electrode a nd further resistant to being bent by the differences in elongation rates between the uncoated part of the current collector and the coated part of the current collector during pressing/compression . The current collector in Ryu is shown to have both a coated and uncoated portion, and further is taught to have only one collective strength of 115 MPa to 265 MPa (Fig. 2; [0015 – 0027]), as such one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the strength of the current collector in the first region, P1, and the strength of the current collector in the second region, P2, of modified Iwasaki to be the same, and thus provide a (P 2 -P 1 )/P 2 of 0% , which is within the claimed range of 0% ≤ (P 2 -P 1 )/P 2 ≤ 22%. Claim(s) 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (US PG Pub. 2014 / 0170451 A1 ), as applied to claim s 1 or 12 above, and further in view of Huang ( CN112151755A , Machine translation provided). Regarding Claims 3 and 1 4 , Iwasaki discloses all limitations as set forth above. In Example 1, Iwasaki further teaches electrode density of the positive electrode being 3.0 g/cm 3 ([0171]); however the density in Iwasaki is not explicitly disclosed/suggested to be the compacted density of the positive electrode mixture layer. Therefore , Iwasaki does not explicitly disclose wherein the compacted density of the positive electrode mixture layer is 3.0 g/cm 3 to 4.5 g/cm 3 . Huang , directed to a positive electrod e plates for lithium ion batteries , teaches having the positive electrode active material compaction density be within the range of 2.7 g/cm 3 to 3.7 g/cm 3 and preferably 2.9 g/cm 3 to 3.6 g/cm 3 for the purpose of obtaining an electrode with high energy density and good flexibility and overall obtaining a battery with reduced impedance and improved capacity retention ( [0005 – 0006]; [0031]). Since Iwas aki also teaches a positive electrode for a lithium ion battery and is concerned with achieving improved battery characteristics by using a particular electrode structures ( [0049] ) , i t would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the compacted density of Iwasaki’s positive electrode active material layer to be within the range taught by Huang , and thus overlapping the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a positive electrode having high energy density and good flexibility and further a battery with improved capacity retention. In general, Huang teaches that a high electrode compaction density improves volumetric energy density of battery, but simultaneously reduce s the porosity of the active material coating , thereby affecting lithium-ion conduction and causing DC internal resistance of to rise rapidly and capacity to decay quickly during long term cycling ([0005]). A higher electrode compaction density is also taught by Huang to increase the likeliness of breakage and powdering during electrode processing ([0005]). A low compaction density is taught by Huang to increase electrode porosity but also results in increased difficult in forming a conductive network and thus also lead to rapid capacity decay ([0005]). As such, selection of a compact density within the overlapping portion of the claimed range and Huang’s taught range would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize volumetric density of the battery while also ensuring suitable electrode porosity and flexibility {i.e. reduce chance of breakage/powdering} , with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)]. Claim(s) 5 – 6 and 16 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (US PG Pub. 2014 / 0170451 A1 ), as applied to claim 1 or 12 above, and further in view of Fujita ( JP2014165037A , Machine translation provided). Regarding Claims 5 – 6 and 16 – 17 , Iwasaki discloses all limitations as set forth above. For the negative electrode binder , Iwasaki particularly teaches using polyvinylidene fluoride with an average molecular weight of 3×10 5 to 20×10 5 to allow the peel strength between the negative electrode current collector and the negative electrode active material-containing layer to be 0.005 N/mm or more ([0102]). In Example 1, Iwasaki further teaches the binder of the positive electrode being polyvinylidene fluoride ( PVdF ) ([0164]) , but does not teach the particulars of the binder, and thus does not particularly disclose an embodiment of the positive electrode wherein a weight average molecular weight of the binder is 1,000,000 to 1,400,000 ( Claims 5 and 1 6 ) or wherein 1.9 ≤ Mw/Mn ≤ 2.5, where Mw represents a weight average molecular weight of the binder and Mn represents a number average molecular weight of the binder ( Claims 6 and 17 ) . Fujita, directed to electrodes for nonaqueous secondary batteries, teaches preferably using a resin , particularly containing polyvinylidene fluoride, having a weight average molecular weight of preferably 6 .5x10 5 or more and less than 1 .2X10 6 and a degree of dispersion {i.e. Mw/Mn} of 1.6 or more and less than 3.0 for the binder of the electrode, and further teaches that such a binder is applicable to both a negative electrode and positive electrode ([17];[23]). Fujita further teaches that using resin with a weight average molecular weight of 6.5x10 5 or more sufficient adhesion strength can be secured with a small amount of binder; however, when the weight average molecular weight is 1.2X10 6 or more, the molecular chain becomes too long, so even if the degree of dispersion is lowered the coatability of the current collector cannot be improved ([18]). With respect to the degree of dispersion, setting the degree of dispersion to 1.6 or more and less than 3.0 is taught by Fujita to reduce internal resistance and avoid excessive coating of the particles of the electrode active material ([19]). In general, Fujita teaches that lower degree s of dispersion improve battery performance by shortening the diffusion distance in the particles of the electrode active material and that too low degrees of dispersion result in excessive coating of the particles of the electrode active material ([19]). Since Iwasaki exemplifies using PVdF as the binder of the positive electrode, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the molecular weight of the binder and degree of dispersion of the binder as taught by Fujita, and thus obtain a binder with an overlapping weight average molecular weight and degree of dispersion {i.e. Mw/Mn}, with a reasonable expectation of obtaining a binder with sufficient adhesion strength and an electrode with reduced internal resistance. Selection of weight average molecular weight and degrees of dispersion within the overlapping portion of the claimed range s and taught range s would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize adhesion strength and internal resistance of the electrode while ensuring that the electrode active material particles are not excessively covered by binder, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)]. Claim(s) 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (US PG Pub. 2014 / 0170451 A1 ), as applied to claim 1 or 12 above, and further in view of Fujita ( JP2014165037A ) and Fukumine ( US PG Pub. 2009 / 0274958 A1 ) . Regarding Claims 7 and 18, Iwasaki discloses all limitations as set forth above. Example 1, Iwasaki further teaches the binder of the positive electrode being polyvinylidene fluoride ( PVdF ) ([0164]), but does not teach the particulars of the binder, and thus does not particularly disclose wherein the binder has a swelling ratio of 15% to 25% after being soaked in electrolytic solution at 85°C for 6 hours. However, the examiner notes that the limitation , “wherein the binder has a swelling ratio of 15% to 25% after being soaked in electrolytic solution at 85°C for 6 hour s” establishes an intended use/inherent function of the binder. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.)} In the instant specification, the binder capable of obtaining a swelling ratio within the claimed range is taught to include polyvinylidene fluoride , have a molecular weight within the range of 1 ,000,000 to 1,400,000 , and further have a molecular weight distribution wherein 1.9 ≤ Mw/Mn ≤ 2.5 (Refer to Table 2; [0013 – 0016]). As established above, Iwasaki explicitly teaches using a polyvinylidene fluoride ( PVdF ) for the positive electrode of example 1 ([0165]), but does not particularly disclose the molecular weight of the binder or molecular weight dispersion. Fujita, directed to electrodes for nonaqueous secondary batteries, teaches preferably using a resin, particularly containing polyvinylidene fluoride, having a weight average molecular weight of preferably 6.5x10 5 or more and less than 1.2X10 6 and a degree of dispersion {i.e. Mw/Mn} of 1.6 or more and less than 3.0 for the binder of the electrode, and further teaches that such a binder is applicable to both a negative electrode and positive electrode ([17];[23]). Fujita further teaches that using resin with a weight average molecular weight of 6.5x10 5 or more sufficient adhesion strength can be secured with a small amount of binder; however, when the weight average molecular weight is 1.2X10 6 or more, the molecular chain becomes too long, so even if the degree of dispersion is lowered the coatability of the current collector cannot be improved ([18]). With respect to the degree of dispersion, setting the degree of dispersion to 1.6 or more and less than 3.0 is taught by Fujita to reduce internal resistance and avoid excessive coating of the particles of the electrode active material ([19]). In general, Fujita teaches that lower degrees of dispersion improve battery performance by shortening the diffusion distance in the particles of the electrode active material and that too low degrees of dispersion result in excessive coating of the particles of the electrode active material ([19]). Since Iwasaki already exemplifies using PVdF as the binder of the positive electrode, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the molecular weight of the binder and degree of dispersion of the binder in Iwasaki as taught by Fujita, and thus obtain a binder with an overlapping weight average molecular weight and degree of dispersion {i.e. Mw/Mn}, with a reasonable expectation of obtaining a binder with sufficient adhesion strength and an electrode with reduced internal resistance. Selection of weight average molecular weight and degrees of dispersion in the overlapping portion of the claimed range and taught range , and thus selection of binder with properties capable of providing the swelling ratio when tested as claimed, would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize adhesion strength and internal resistance of the electrode while ensuring that the electrode active material particles are not excessively covered by binder, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)]. Assuming arguendo applicant is able to persuasively argue/show evidence that modified Iwasaki as established above would not inherently provide the swelling ratio when tested as claimed, the claimed swelling ratio wou ld further be obvious in light of the following: Fukumine teaches, with respect a lithium secondary battery, a binder used in at least one of a positive electrode or negative electrode having a swelling degree in electrolyte of 5 – 50 % and preferably 5 – 20% ([0020 – 0022];[0025]). Fukumine further teaches that the binder can be a fluorine resin fluorine resin such as polytetrafluoroethylene and polyvinylidene-fluoride ([0047]). Fukumine teaches controlling the swelling degree to balance the fluid retention of the binder and the binding strength, particularly Fukumine teaches that lower swelling degrees corresponds to lower fluid retentions which can cause deterioration in cycle characteristics while a higher swelling degrees correspond to lower binding strengths ([0025]). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the swelling degree of Iwasaki’s binder to be within the preferable range taught by Fukumine {i.e. 5 – 20%}, which overlaps the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a binder capable of providing improved cycle characteristics and sufficient binding strength. Furthermore, selection of a swelling ration within the overlapping portion of the claimed range and the taught range, would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize fluid retention of the binder while ensuring sufficient binding strength, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)]. Claim(s) 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (US PG Pub. 2014 / 0170451 A1 ), as applied to claim 1 or 12 above, and further in view of Song ( US PG Pub. 2016 / 0093880 A1). Regarding Claims 8 and 19 , Iwasaki discloses all limitations as set forth above. For the negative electrode binder , Iwasaki particularly teaches using polyvinylidene fluoride with an average molecular weight of 3×10 5 to 20×10 5 to allow the peel strength between the negative electrode current collector and the negative electrode active material-containing layer to be 0.005 N/mm or more ([0102]). In Example 1, Iwasaki further teaches the binder of the positive electrode being polyvinylidene fluoride ( PVdF ) ([0164]), but does not teach the particulars of the binder, and thus does not particularly disclose an embodiment of the positive electrode wherein an adhesion force between the positive electrode mixture layer and current collector is 15 N/m – 35 N/m. Song, directed t o manufacturing electrodes for, teaches that if an electrode is prepared with a low adhesion force between the active material layer and the collector, the active material layer and the current collector may be separated during post processing and thereby cause defects ([0007]). Song further teaches that improving the adhesion force between the active material layer and collector allows for the enhancement of battery characteristics ([0019]). Song teaches forming electrodes with an adhesion force of 20 gf/cm {i.e. ≈ 20 N/m} to 30 gf/cm {≈ 29 N/m} ([0038]). Since Iwasaki is concerned with peel strength and further already indicates, at least for the negative electrode, a desire to obtain peel strength s of 5 N/m or more (Table 1; [0102];[0189 – 0190]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the positive electrode of Iwasaki such that that the adhesion force between the active material layer and collector is within the range taught by Song, and thus within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success in preventing the active material layer and current collector from becoming separated during processing. Claim(s) 9 – 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (US PG Pub. 2014 / 0170451 A1 ), as applied to claim 1 or 12 above, as applied to claim s 1 or 12 above, and further in view of Oyama ( WO2015075520A2 ). Regarding Claims 9 – 10 and 20 , Iwasaki discloses all limitations as set forth above. In Example 1, Iwasaki teaches using lithium cobalt oxide as the active material ([0164]). Iwasaki does not particularly disclose the particulars of the active material; however, and thus does not explicitly disclose wherein a Dv50 of the positive electrode active material is 0.5 µm to 35 µm ( Claims 9 and 20 ) or wherein a relationship between the Dv10 and Dv50 of positive electrode active material satisfies 0.25 ≤ Dv10/Dv50 ≤ 0.5 ( Claim 10 ). Oyama , directed to a positive electrode active material including lithium composite cobalt-containing oxide particles, teaches controlling the particle size distribution of the active material such that the D10/D50 satisfies D10/D50 ≤ 0.75 for the purpose of improving cycle characteristics and simplifying production ([0005 – 0008]). Oyama further teaches setting the D50 to be 0.5 µm – 30 µm for the purpose of forming a dense, highly conductive positive electrode active material with suitable void space ([0030]). Since Iwasaki teaches a positive electrode including a lithium cobalt oxide as the active material, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the D50 and D10/D50 of Iwasaki’s active material as taught by Oyama , and thus obtain an active material having a D50 within the claimed range of 0.5 µm to 35 µm and a D10/D50 encompassing the claimed range of 0.25 ≤ Dv10/Dv50 ≤ 0.5, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a positive electrode active material that is capable of improving cycle characteristics, simplifying production, and forming a dense, highly conductive positive electrode active material layer with suitable void space . Oyama further teaches a particular preference for selecting D10/D50 ratios satisfying D10/D50 ≤ 0.6, because if the D10/D50 is too large, the gas amount during overcharge is insufficient and cycle characteristics are reduced ([0023]). When the D10/D50 is too small, the particles are taught by Oyama to be hard to produce and are unable to obtain the desired improvements in cycle characteristics ([0019 – 0020];[0023]). Therefore, selection of a D10/D50 within the overlapping portion of the claimed range and the taught range ( Claim 10 cont. ) , would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the overcharge gas amount of the active material {i.e. improvement in cycle characteristics provided by the particle size distribution} without increasing production difficulty, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ARYANA Y ORTIZ whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5986 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7:00 AM - 5:00 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. /A.Y.O./ Examiner, Art Unit 1751 /Haroon S. Sheikh/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751