DETAILED ACTION (1) 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. This is the first office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are pending before the Office for review. (2) 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. Claims 10-13 are 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 10 requires forming a first unit cell with “a” in line 3. It’s unclear what this feature of the claimed invention requires. It’s unclear if “a” is a designation for a structure within the battery or if this is a typographical error. Claim 13 is unclear as to the required structure for the battery. Claim 1, from which claim 13 depends, is directed toward a battery, which has a set structure. Claim 13 seems to suggest the structure is tuned, i.e. changed, to obtain different porosities. It’s unclear what this feature of the claimed invention requires. (3) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 requires a plurality of unit cells, which includes two or more unit cells. Claim 2 requires that the battery include first and second unit cells, which is also a requirement for two unit cells. Accordingly, the requirements of claim 2 are present in claim 1 and not further limiting thereof . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. (4) 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 , 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Jang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0293958), which is cited in Applicant’s information disclosure statement. With respect to claims 1 and 2 , Jang teaches a solid-state battery (Figure 3(B)) comprising a plurality of unit cells (unit cells 1 and 2), wherein each of the unit cells includes a cathode (16a, 16b), an electrolyte (not labeled; dispersed in the cathode layer) and an anode (20a, 20b), and further comprising a carbon-based bipolar membrane to separate the two unit cells. Figure 3(A) and Paragraphs 145, 146 and 151. The bipolar membrane is carbon-based within the scope of the claimed invention because it is coated with graphene. Paragraph 151. Jang further teaches a cathode and anode current collector (18a, 18c) provide a positive and negative pole, respectively, for the solid-state battery. Figure 3(B) and Paragraph 145. With respect to claim 13 , Examiner notes the statement “is tuned for a porosity to improve an active electrode adhesion and an electrochemical performance” is a statement of intended use that does not further limit the claimed invention. The cited statement recites a function performed by the carbon-based bipolar membrane. Any membrane meeting the requirements of the claimed invention is capable of the same use absent evidence to the contrary. Examiner notes Jang, as explained above, teaches a membrane within the scope of the claimed invention. Furthermore, the membrane is not required to have a specific porosity level or electrochemical performance. Accordingly, Jang’s membrane is “tuned” to meet an arbitrary porosity and performance standard within the scope of the claimed invention. (5) 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. 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 3, 4, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0293958) in view of Li et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0038998). With respect to claims 3 and 4 , Jang teaches a carbon-based bipolar membrane but is silent as to whether it comprises conductive carbon nanomaterial film. However, Li, which deals with solid-state batteries, teaches the bipolar membrane (14; clad foil) of such a battery is provided with a carbon nanotube film (conductive carbon nanomaterial film) to improve its thermal and electrical conductivity. Paragraphs 35, 43 and 44. The carbon nanotube film has a density of 2.1 g/cm 3 . As per the MPEP, "where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists." MPEP 2144.05(I) (internal citation omitted). It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jang’s carbon-based bipolar membrane to include the carbon nanotube film because Li teaches doing so improves the thermal and electrical conductivity. With respect to claims 18 and 20 , Examiner notes that the claim is a product-by-process claim. “If the product in the product-by-process is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP 2113. Modified Jang teaches a solid-state battery (Figure 3(B)) comprising a plurality of unit cells (unit cells 1 and 2), wherein each of the unit cells includes a cathode (16a, 16b) and electrolyte bilayer (electrolyte is not labeled; dispersed in the cathode layer) and a lithium anode (20a, 20b) attached to a solid electrolyte side thereof, and further comprising a carbon-based bipolar membrane comprising a carbon nanotube film to serially connect the two unit cells. Jang, Figure 3(A) and Paragraphs 145, 146 and 151 and Li, Paragraphs 35, 43 and 44. Jang further teaches a cathode and anode current collector (18a, 18c) provide a positive and negative pole, respectively, for the solid-state battery. Figure 3(B) and Paragraph 145. (6) Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0293958) in view of Herrmann et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0233768). With respect to claims 5 and 6 , Jang teaches the carbon-based bipolar membrane but is silent as to whether it is coated with a metallic layer. However, Herrmann, which deals with batteries, teaches it is known in the art to nickel-coat a bipolar current collector. Paragraph 19. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the combination of Jang with Herrmann is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Both Jang and Herrmann are directed toward bipolar current collectors. Herrmann teaches it is known in the art to nickel-coat the bipolar current collectors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly nickel-coat Jang’s current collector because Herrmann teaches this to be an effective technique in the art, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success. (7) Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0293958) in view of Li et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0038998), as applied to claim s 3, 4, 18 and 20 above, and further in view of Adamson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0069360). With respect to claims 7 and 8 , Jang teaches the carbon-based bipolar membrane but is silent as to whether it is coated with a titanium carbide ( TiC ) layer. However, Adamson, which deals with batteries, teaches it is known in the art to coat a bipolar plate with TiC . Paragraph 77. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the combination of Jang with Adamson is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Both Jang and Adamson are directed toward bipolar current collectors. Adamson teaches it is known in the art to coat the bipolar plate with TiC . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly nickel-coat Jang’s current collector because Adamson teaches this to be an effective technique in the art, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success. ( 8 ) Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0293958) in view of Li et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0038998), as applied to claim s 3, 4, 18 and 20 above, and further in view of Herrmann et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0233768). With respect to claim 19 , modified Jang teaches the carbon-based bipolar membrane but is silent as to whether it is coated with a metallic layer. However, Herrmann, which deals with batteries, teaches it is known in the art to nickel-coat a bipolar current collector. Paragraph 19. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the combination of Jang with Herrmann is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Both Jang and Herrmann are directed toward bipolar current collectors. Herrmann teaches it is known in the art to nickel-coat the bipolar current collectors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly nickel-coat Jang’s current collector because Herrmann teaches this to be an effective technique in the art, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success. (9) Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0293958) in view of Li et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0038998), as applied to claim s 3, 4, 18 and 20 above, and further in view of Adamson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0069360). With respect to claim 19 , modified Jang teaches the carbon-based bipolar membrane but is silent as to whether it is coated with a titanium carbide ( TiC ) layer. However, Adamson, which deals with batteries, teaches it is known in the art to coat a bipolar plate with TiC . Paragraph 77. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the combination of Jang with Adamson is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Both Jang and Adamson are directed toward bipolar current collectors. Adamson teaches it is known in the art to coat the bipolar plate with TiC . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly nickel-coat Jang’s current collector because Adamson teaches this to be an effective technique in the art, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success. (10) Allowable Subject Matter Claim 9 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. Claims 10-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 14-17 are in condition for allowance. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, individually or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest the solid-state battery of the claimed invention, the battery requiring a holey graphene-cathode-solid electrolyte trilayer , as required by claims 9 and 14. (11) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ELI S MEKHLIN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7597 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 7:00 am to 5:00 pm EST . 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 Duane Smith can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1166 . 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. /ELI S MEKHLIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759