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. 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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17, in the reply filed on February 27, 2026 is acknowledged. Claim 18 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 1 03 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. Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 1 03 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2019/0157723 A1) , hereinafter “ Suzuki , ” in view of Yang et al., Ultrafine Silver Nanoparticles for Seeded Lithium Deposition toward Stable Lithium Metal Anode , L.Hu, Adv. Mater.2017, 29, 1702714, available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201702714, last visited March 25, 2026, hereinafter “ Yang, ” and Jang et al. (KR 2017-0088173 A), hereinafter “ Jang . ” Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses an all-solid lithium secondary battery comprising: a positive electrode active material layer , in this case the cathode active material layer (¶ 0077], Fig. 1, ref. no. 12); a negative electrode active material layer , in this case the anode active material layer, (¶ [0086], Fig. 1, ref. no. 22); and a solid electrolyte layer between the positive and negative active material layers (¶ [0066], Fig. 1, ref. no. 30). Suzuki does not disclose that the negative active material layer comprises graphitized platelet carbon nanofibers (GPCNF) and silver nanoparticles. However, Yang teaches an anode with silver nanoparticles anchored to carbon nanofibers (CNFs) (p. 1 of 8 ). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing this material in the negative electrode active material layer would have discouraged the growth of lithium dendrites (p. 1 of 8 to 2 of 8 ) . One having ordinary skill in the art would have further understood that dendrite formation reduces reversibility and cycle life and increases the potential for internal short circuits p. 1 of 8 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included carbon nanofibers and silver nanoparticles in the negative electrode active material in order to discourage lithium dendrite growth in order to have facilitated improved battery operation and safety. Neither Suzuki nor Yang specify that the CNFs are GPCNF . However, Jang teaches graphitized microstructure carbon nanofibers (graphitized platelet carbon nanofiber) may be included in negative electrodes to improve lithium ion transport within the battery (see Abstract, p. 4-5 & 11), thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have selected GPCNF as the carbon nanofiber in order to have facilitated improved battery operation. Regarding claim 2, the limitation “ wherein the GPCNF are formed by heat-treating platelet carbon nanofibers at a temperature of 2,000°C or higher ” is a product-by-process limitation. Applicant is reminded that “ [t]he patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. ” M.P.E.P. § 2113 I. Here, the cited references teach all of the positively-recited structural limitations of the claim, thereby rendering it obvious. Regarding claim 4, Suzuki does not disclose that the negative active material layer comprises silver nanoparticles disposed on the surface of the GPCNF . However, Yang teaches an anode with silver nanoparticles anchored to carbon nanofibers (CNFs) (p. 1 of 8 ). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing this material in the negative electrode active material layer would have discouraged the growth of lithium dendrites (p. 1 of 8 to 2 of 8 ). One having ordinary skill in the art would have further understood that dendrite formation reduces reversibility and cycle life and increases the potential for internal short circuits p. 1 of 8 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included carbon nanofibers and silver nanoparticles in the negative electrode active material in order to discourage lithium dendrite growth in order to have facilitated improved battery operation and safety. Regarding claim s 5 -7 , the combination of Suzuki, Yang, and Jang teaches all of the positively-recited structural limitations of the claim. The resulting structure would therefore, possess the same properties of the claimed structure, including X-ray diffraction measurement and intensity ratio results. Regarding claim 8, Yang further teaches that the diameter of the CNFs is 10 nm to 500 nm, in this case approximately 280 nm (p. 3 of 8 ). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing this material in the negative electrode active material layer would have discouraged the growth of lithium dendrites (p. 1 of 8 to 2 of 8 ). One having ordinary skill in the art would have further understood that dendrite formation reduces reversibility and cycle life and increases the potential for internal short circuits p. 1 of 8 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included carbon nanofibers and silver nanoparticles in the negative electrode active material in order to discourage lithium dendrite growth in order to have facilitated improved battery operation and safety. Regarding claim 9, Yang further teaches that the length of the CNFs is 0.1 μm to 5 μm , in this case at least 500 nm (= 0.5 μm ) (see Fig. 2(c)). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing this material in the negative electrode active material layer would have discouraged the growth of lithium dendrites (p. 1702714-1702715). One having ordinary skill in the art would have further understood that dendrite formation reduces reversibility and cycle life and increases the potential for internal short circuits p. 1702714). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included carbon nanofibers and silver nanoparticles in the negative electrode active material in order to discourage lithium dendrite growth in order to have facilitated improved battery operation and safety. Regarding claim 11, Suzuki further discloses that the carbon content of the negative electrode active material layer is 50 wt % to 98 wt %, in this case 40 wt % to 98 wt % (¶ [0086]). Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Regarding claim 12, Yang further teaches that the diameter of the silver nanoparticles is 1 nm to 100 nm, in this case approximately 40 nm (p. 2 of 8). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing this material in the negative electrode active material layer would have discouraged the growth of lithium dendrites (p. 1 of 8 to 2 of 8). One having ordinary skill in the art would have further understood that dendrite formation reduces reversibility and cycle life and increases the potential for internal short circuits p. 1 of 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included carbon nanofibers and silver nanoparticles in the negative electrode active material in order to discourage lithium dendrite growth in order to have facilitated improved battery operation and safety. Regarding claim 13, Yang further teaches that the silver nanoparticles are included in an amount of 1 wt % to 40 wt % based on the total weight of the GPCNF and silver nanoparticles, in this case the silver content is approximately 6 atom %, which overlaps with the claimed weight percentage range. Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing this material in the negative electrode active material layer would have discouraged the growth of lithium dendrites (p. 1 of 8 to 2 of 8). One having ordinary skill in the art would have further understood that dendrite formation reduces reversibility and cycle life and increases the potential for internal short circuits p. 1 of 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included carbon nanofibers and silver nanoparticles in the negative electrode active material in order to discourage lithium dendrite growth in order to have facilitated improved battery operation and safety. Regarding claim 14, Yang further teaches that the weight ratio of the GPCNF to the silver nanoparticles is 99:1 to 60:40, in this case the silver content is approximately 6 atom %, which overlaps with the claimed weight ratio range. Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing this material in the negative electrode active material layer would have discouraged the growth of lithium dendrites (p. 1 of 8 to 2 of 8). One having ordinary skill in the art would have further understood that dendrite formation reduces reversibility and cycle life and increases the potential for internal short circuits p. 1 of 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included carbon nanofibers and silver nanoparticles in the negative electrode active material in order to discourage lithium dendrite growth in order to have facilitated improved battery operation and safety. Regarding claim 15, Suzuki further discloses that the negative active material layer comprises a binder (¶ [0009] & [0101]). Regarding claim 16, Suzuki is silent as to the negative electrode active material layer’s thickness. However, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, the combination of references results in a functioning solid state lithium battery, thereby rendering the claim obvious. Regarding claim 17, Suzuki further discloses that the all-solid lithium secondary battery comprises: a negative electrode collector, in this case the anode current collector (¶ [0102], Fig. 1, ref. no. 21); and a metal layer comprising lithium disposed between the negative electrode active material layer and the negative electrode collector, in this case a lithium metal layer is formed between the anode active material layer and the anode current collector (¶ [0041]). Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 1 03 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, Yang, and Jang as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Hiraoka et al. (US 2016/0204430 A1), hereinafter “ Hiraoka . ” Regarding claim 10, Suzuki does not disclose the GPCNF specific surface area. However, Hiraoka teaches a lithium battery including carbon nanofibers with specific surface areas of 10 m 2 /g or more (¶ [0019]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that providing GPCNFs in the anode active material layer with such a specific surface area would have yielded the predictable result of a functional negative electrode. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. A. Additionally, Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the GPCNF specific surface area to be 5 m 2 /g to 100 m 2 /g in order to have yielded the obvious result of a functional negative electrode. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 3 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: no prior art reference could be found that fairly teaches or suggests an all-solid lithium secondary battery comprising a GPCNF with a curved portion that corresponds to a basal plane of a graphene sheet. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7641 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9 am to 5 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 Ula Ruddock can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1481 . 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. /SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729