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. Priority Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S .C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has complied with all of the conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/17/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings received on 08/17/2023 were reviewed and are acceptable. Specification The specification filed on 08/17/2023 was reviewed and is acceptable. 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- 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hwang et al. (US 2022/0077469 A1; hereinafter “Hwang”). Regarding claim 1 , Hwang discloses a current collector for an anode-free all-solid-state battery (Title/Abstract; see also [0010] which describes solid state electrolytes), comprising: an anode current collector (A), and a metal nanoparticle layer (M) disposed on one surface of the anode current collector (as shown in Fig 1), wherein the metal nanoparticle layer comprises a lithiophilic metal ( lithiophilic nanoparticles may be e.g. Au, Pt, Pd, Si, Ag, Al, Bi, Sn, Zn, In, [0023]). Regarding claim 2 , Hwang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hwang further discloses that the lithiophilic metal is present in a shape of particles in the metal nanoparticle layer (as indicated by the term “ nanoparticles ”, as noted above; also as shown in Fig 1). Regarding claim 3 , Hwang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hwang further discloses that an average particle diameter of the lithiophilic metal is 50 to 200 nm (“around 50 nm”, [0029], which falls within the recited range). Regarding claim 4 , Hwang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hwang further discloses that a thickness of the metal nanoparticle layer is 100 to 1000 nm (“around 1 micron”, [0029], which falls within the recited range). Regarding claim 5 , Hwang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hwang further discloses that the lithiophilic metal is silver (Ag, [0023]). Regarding claim 6 , Hwang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hwang further discloses that the anode current collector is copper (copper foil, [0029]). Claim Rejections - 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 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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2022/0077469 A1; hereinafter “Hwang”), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Chen (US 2019/0379056 A1 ). Regarding claim 7 , Hwang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hwang discloses that the metal nanoparticles are attached to the current collector by a coating method ([0025]), but does not appear to be particularly concerned with the specific coating method, and therefore does not explicitly disclose sputtering. Chen teaches methods for components of lithium batteries (Title). Chen teaches that the metal anode may be lithium free and may be made by depositing a coating material on a metal substrate by vapor deposition, sputtering, spin coating, dip coating, or atomic layer/pulsed laser deposition ([0015-0017]). Hwang and Chen are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium batteries. Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely select sputtering as the coating method for the anode of Hwang, as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known method for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2022/0077469 A1; hereinafter “Hwang”) , as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0265665 A1; hereinafter “Kim”) . Regarding claim 8 , Hwang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hwang discloses the recited current collector in an anode-free all-solid-state battery (as noted above), which necessarily requires a cathode, the recited anode-free current collector, and a solid electrolyte layer interposed between the cathode and the current collector in order to function as a battery, but does not appear to be particularly concerned with the specifics of the solid electrolyte, and therefore does not explicitly disclose that the average particle diameter of the lithiophilic metal (“around 50 nm”, [0029] ) is smaller than an average particle diameter of an electrolyte in the solid electrolyte layer. Kim teaches an all-solid secondary battery (Title). Kim teaches that the solid electrolyte should have an average particle diameter in the range of about 0.1 m m to about 3 m m, in order to allow lithium ion transfer to the anode plate ([0044]). Hwang and Kim are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium batteries. Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the solid electrolyte of Hwang should have an average particle diameter in the range of about 0.1 to 3 m m, with the reasonable expectation that such a range allows for lithium ion transfer, as suggested by Kim. Accordingly, the skilled artisan would find it obvious that the average particle diameter of the lithiophilic metal (~50 nm) is smaller than an average particle diameter of the electrolyte (~0.1 to 3 m m). Claim(s) 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2022/0077469 A1; hereinafter “Hwang”) in view of Chen (US 2019/0379056 A1) and Choi et al. (US 2022/0223868 A1; hereinafter “Choi”). Regarding claim 9 , Hwang discloses a method of manufacturing a current collector for an anode-free all-solid-state battery (Title/Abstract; see also [0010] which describes solid state electrolytes), comprising: preparing an anode current collector (A), and forming a metal nanoparticle layer (M) by depositing a lithiophilic metal ( lithiophilic nanoparticles may be e.g. Au, Pt, Pd, Si, Ag, Al, Bi, Sn, Zn, In, [0023]) o n one surface of the anode current collector (as shown in Fig 1) . Hwang discloses that the metal nanoparticles are attached to the current collector by a coating method ([0025]), but does not appear to be particularly concerned with the specific coating method, and therefore does not explicitly disclose sputtering. Chen teaches methods for components of lithium batteries (Title). Chen teaches that the metal anode may be lithium free and may be made by depositing a coating material on a metal substrate by vapor deposition, sputtering, spin coating, dip coating, or atomic layer/pulsed laser deposition ([0015-0017]). Hwang and Chen are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium batteries. Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely select sputtering as the coating method for the anode of Hwang, as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known method for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result. Modified Hwang thus discloses forming the metal nanoparticle layer via sputtering, but does not disclose what power such sputtering is performed at, and thus does not explicitly disclose a power of 20 to 50 W. Choi teaches an anode-less lithium-sulfur battery (Title). Choi teaches that a lithium metal-free current collector may be formed by sputtering an interlayer metal, e.g. Sn, on a current collector ([0047]), wherein the sputtering is performed at a power between 5 to 100 W for a deposition time between 1 to 500 seconds ([0048]). Choi is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium batteries. Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the sputtering of modified Hwang must necessarily be performed at some power, and would thus find a power range of 5 to 100 W appropriate, as suggested by Choi. The skilled artisan would find it further obvious to routinely select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges (5 to 100 W completely overlaps 20 to 50 W) because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Regarding claim 10 , modified Hwang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Hwang further discloses that the lithiophilic metal is present in a shape of particles in the metal nanoparticle layer ( Hwang: as indicated by the term “nanoparticles”, as noted above; also as shown in Fig 1). Regarding claim 11 , modified Hwang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Hwang further discloses that an average particle diameter of the lithiophilic metal is 50 to 200 nm ( Hwang: “around 50 nm”, [0029], which falls within the recited range). Regarding claim 12 , modified Hwang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Hwang further discloses that a thickness of the metal nanoparticle layer is 100 to 1000 nm ( Hwang: “around 1 micron”, [0029], which falls within the recited range). Regarding claim 13 , modified Hwang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Hwang further discloses that the lithiophilic metal is silver ( Hwang: Ag, [0023]). Regarding claim 14 , modified Hwang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Hwang further discloses that the anode current collector is copper ( Hwang: copper foil, [0029]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JAMES M ERWIN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3101 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday: 6am-3pm PDT . 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 Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-3879 . 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. /JAMES M ERWIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 03/31/2026