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. Claims 2 , 3 , 7 and 15 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 2 recites a method of using the apparatus which renders the claim indefinite. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. See MPEP §2173.05(p)(II). Claim 3 recites a method of using the apparatus which renders the claim indefinite. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. See MPEP §2173.05(p)(II) . Regarding claims 7 and 15, it is unclear how the particle size is measured. As such the claims are indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. 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 . Claim(s) 1 -8 , 11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon et al. U.S. Patent No. 7,838,152) in view of Evshchik et al. (Li4Ti5O12/LiFePO4 Solid-State Lithium-Ion Full Cell with LithiatedNafion membrane) . Regarding claim 1, Cheon et al. discloses a composite electrode (abstract), comprising: an electrode plate comprising a carrying surface (column 1, lines 48-50; column 12, lines 39-43) ; and a composite positive electrode material layer coated on the carrying surface of the electrode plate (column 12, lines 25-43) , wherein the composite positive electrode material layer comprises: a plurality of positive electrode material particles composed of ternary materials with the composition of Li [ NixCoyMnz ]O2, wherein x+y+z =1, 0.8<x<1, 0<y<0.2, and 0<z<0.2 (column 5, lines 3-8; column 5, lines 16-17 (formula 5); column 5, lines 51; column 5, lines 57-58; (while not specifically stated in column 5, x+y+z always equals 1 in all examples given in column 9)) ; a first conductive carbon pre-coated on surfaces of the plurality of positive electrode material particles through a dry mechanical mixing method, wherein a weight percent of the first conductive carbon relative to the plurality of positive electrode material particles is ranged from 1 wt. % to 5.5 wt. % (column 1, lines 45-50; column 2, lines 45-51; column 5, lines 62-65; column 6, lines 40-60) (it is noted that this limitation is a product-by-process limitation, and said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious as the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.). See MPEP 2113 and 2114. In the instant case the conductive carbon of Cheon et al. is structurally the same as recited in this limitation ) . Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Cheon et al. continues to teach that when the weight ratio is less than 3, the amount of conductive agent is insufficient, thereby decreasing battery power; and when the weight ratio is more than 20, the conductive agent and the active material are not well mixed, thereby reducing the energy density of the battery (columns 5-6, lines 65-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to optimize the weight percentage in order to achieve a desired balance between battery power and energy density of the battery. Cheon et al. discloses a binder polymer material covering the surfaces of the plurality of positive electrode material particles and bonded among the surfaces of the plurality of positive electrode material particles, wherein a weight percent of the binder polymer material relative to the plurality of positive electrode material particles is ranged from 10 wt. % to 20 wt. % (column 7, lines 4-9; column 7, lines 19-22; column 7, lines 32-33) . Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Cheon et al. continues to teach that when the weight ratio is less than 2 , the binding property is insufficient to laminate the conductive layer ; and when the weight ratio is more than 1 0, the excess binder reduces electron conductivity and decreases power (columns 7 , lines 33 - 40 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to optimize the weight percentage of the binder in order to achieve a desired balance between battery power and lamination of the conductive layer. Cheon et al. teaches the binder can be many types of polymers ( column 7, lines 19-22 ), however, the reference does not explicitly disclose a Li- nafion polymer material. Evshchik et al. teaches another lithium battery (page 2216-2217, introduction paragraph 1). The reference teaches a Li- Nafion polymer material covering the surfaces of the plurality of positive electrode material particles and bonded among the surfaces of the plurality of positive electrode material particles, wherein a weight percent of the Li- Nafion polymer material relative to the plurality of positive electrode material particles is ranged from 10 wt. % to 20 wt. % (page 2218, last paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select the Li- nafion polymer binder of Evschchik et al. as the binder of Cheon et al. because selecting one of known materials for a binder would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing and because Li- nafion polymer binder increases the safety of the battery and makes it possible to achieve flexible thin-film batteries ( Evshchik et al. page 2224, conclusion paragraph). Regarding claim 2, Cheon et al. in view of Evshchik et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the dry mechanical mixing method is a mechanical fusion method comprising steps of mixing at a first rotational speed of 600 rpm for 10 minutes and mixing at a second rotational speed of 4200 rpm for 30 minutes, and having an operating temperature ranged from 30° C. to 40° C (column 2, lines 45-51; column 6, lines 41-47) . I t is noted that this limitation is a product-by-process limitation, and said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious as the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.). See MPEP 2113 and 2114. In the instant case the composite electrode Cheon et al. is structurally the same as recited in this limitation . Regarding claim 3, Cheon et al. in view of Evshchik et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the Li- Nafion polymer material is mixed with a solvent to form a Li- Nafion polymer solution, and then mixed with the plurality of positive electrode material particles and the first conductive carbon, wherein the Li- Nafion polymer solution has a weight percent concentration of 10 wt. %, the solvent is composed of ethanol and n-butanol, and a weight ratio of the ethanol to the n-butanol is 1:2. It is noted that this limitation is a product-by-process limitation, and said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious as the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.). See MPEP 2113 and 2114. In the instant case the composite electrode of Cheon et al. as modified by Evshchik et al. is structurally the same as recited in this limitation ( Evshchik et al. page 2218, last paragraph ). Regarding claim 4 , Cheon et al. in view of Evshchik et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the composite positive electrode material layer further comprises a second conductive carbon, and the second conductive carbon is mixed with the plurality of positive electrode material particles pre-coated with the first conductive carbon and the Li- Nafion polymer material, wherein a weight percent of the second conductive carbon relative to the plurality of positive electrode material particles is ranged from 5.5 wt. % to 15 wt. %. (column 2, lines 45-51; columns 4-5, lines 53-2). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Cheon et al. continues to teach that when the weight ratio is less than 2 5:75 , the specific area is reduced thereby decreasing electro-conductivity ; and when the weight ratio is more than 75:25 the specific surface area increases, thereby reducing the density of the active mass (columns 4-5, lines 53-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to optimize the weight percentage of the second conductive carbon in order to achieve a desired balance between electro-conductivity and density of the active mass . The recitation of “ the second conductive carbon is mixed with the plurality of positive electrode material particles pre-coated with the first conductive carbon and the Li- Nafion polymer material ” is a product-by-process limitation, and said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious as the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.). See MPEP 2113 and 2114. In the instant case the composite electrode with second conductive carbon of Cheon et al. is structurally the same as recited in this limitation. Regarding claim 5 , Cheon et al. in view of Evshchik et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the composite positive electrode material layer has a compacted density ranged from 3.1 g/cm3 to 3.3 g/cm3 ( columns 1-2, lines 63-3; column 6, lines 17-27) . Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Cheon et al. continues to teach that when the density is less than 0.5g/cc , good dispersion is not achieved during mixing of the slurry ; and when the density is more than 5 g/cc, electrolyte immersion is decreased due to increased electrode density (column 6 , lines 2 3-2 7 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to optimize the density in order to achieve a desired balance between good dispersion and electrode density . Regarding claim 6 , Cheon et al. in view of Evshchik et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the electrode plate is an aluminum plate (column 12, lines 39-42) . Regarding claim 7 , Cheon et al. in view of Evshchik et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the plurality of positive electrode material particles have a first average particle size ranged from 10 μm to 20 μm ( figures 5 and 6; columns 11-12, lines 37-24, including table 1) . While the reference does not explicitly disclose the first conductive carbon has a second average particle size ranged from 50 nm to 200 nm , the second average particle size is not considered to confer patentability to the claim. Cheon et al. teaches that the uniformity of the thickness of the conductive layer formed, the efficiency of the electrochemical reaction, and electrochemical characteristics of the battery are all be modified by the particle size of the positive electrode particles and first conductive carbon (columns 11-12, lines 37-24). Therefore, the uniformity of the thickness of the conductive layer formed, the efficiency of the electrochemical reaction, and electrochemical characteristics of the battery are variables that can be modified, among others, by varying the particle size of the positive electrode particles and first conductive carbon . For that reason the particle size would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. As such, without showing unexpected results, the particle size cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the particle sizes in the composite electrode of Cheon et al. to obtain the desired electrochemical characteristics of the battery (In re Boesch , 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223) . Regarding claim 8 , Cheon et al. discloses a preparation method of a composite electrode (abstract), comprising the steps of : (a) providing a plurality of positive electrode material particles and a first conductive carbon column 1, lines 45- 50) , wherein the plurality of positive electrode material particles are composed of ternary materials with the composition of Li [ NixCoyMnz ]O2, wherein x+y+z =1, 0.8<x<1, 0<y<0.2, and 0<z<0.2 (column 5, lines 3-8; column 5, lines 16-17 (formula 5); column 5, lines 51; column 5, lines 57-58; (while not specifically stated in column 5, x+y+z always equals 1 in all examples given in column 9)); (b) coating the first conductive carbon on surfaces of the plurality of positive electrode material particles through a dry mechanical mixing method, wherein a weight percent of the first conductive carbon relative to the plurality of positive electrode material particles is ranged from 1 wt. % to 5.5 wt. % ( column 1, lines 45-50; column 2, lines 45-51; column 5, lines 62-65; column 6, lines 40-60 ); (c) providing a binder polymer material, wherein a weight percent of the binder polymer material relative to the plurality of positive electrode material particles is ranged from 10 wt. % to 20 wt. % (column 7, lines 4-9; column 7, lines 19-22; column 7, lines 32-33) ; (d) mixing the polymer material and the plurality of positive electrode material particles pre-coated with the first conductive carbon to form a composite positive electrode material slurry (column 1, lines 45-50 ) ; (e) coating the composite positive electrode material slurry on a carrying surface of an electrode plate (column 1, lines 45-50; column 12, lines 25-43 ) ; and (f) drying to form the composite electrode, wherein the polymer material covers the surfaces of the plurality of positive electrode material particles and is bonded among the surfaces of the plurality of positive electrode material particles (column 7, lines 23-26; column 12, lines 38-43) . Regarding the weight percent of the first conductive carbon relative to the plurality of positive electrode material particles , ov erlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Cheon et al. continues to teach that when the weight ratio is less than 3, the amount of conductive agent is insufficient, thereby decreasing battery power; and when the weight ratio is more than 20, the conductive agent and the active material are not well mixed, thereby reducing the energy density of the battery (columns 5-6, lines 65-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to optimize the weight percentage in order to achieve a desired balance between battery power and energy density of the battery. Regarding the weight percent of the binder polymer material relative to the plurality of positive electrode material particles , o verlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Cheon et al. continues to teach that when the weight ratio is less than 2, the binding property is insufficient to laminate the conductive layer; and when the weight ratio is more than 10, the excess binder reduces electron conductivity and decreases power (columns 7, lines 33-40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to optimize the weight percentage of the binder in order to achieve a desired balance between battery power and lamination of the conductive layer. Cheon et al. teaches the binder can be many types of polymers (column 7, lines 19-22), however, the reference does not explicitly disclose a Li- nafion polymer material. Evshchik et al. teaches another lithium battery (page 2216-2217, introduction paragraph 1). The reference teaches a Li- Nafion polymer material covering the surfaces of the plurality of positive electrode material particles and bonded among the surfaces of the plurality of positive electrode material particles, wherein a weight percent of the Li- Nafion polymer material relative to the plurality of positive electrode material particles is ranged from 10 wt. % to 20 wt. % (page 2218, last paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select the Li- nafion polymer binder of Evschchik et al. as the binder of Cheon et al. because selecting one of known materials for a binder would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing and because Li- nafion polymer binder increases the safety of the battery and makes it possible to achieve flexible thin-film batteries ( Evshchik et al. page 2224, conclusion paragraph). Regarding claim 11 , Cheon et al. in view of Evshchik et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses a second conductive carbon is further added in the step (d), so that the second conductive carbon is mixed with the plurality of positive electrode material particles pre-coated with the first conductive carbon and the Li- Nafion polymer material, wherein a weight percent of the second conductive carbon relative to the plurality of positive electrode material particles is ranged from 5.5 wt. % to 15 wt. %. (column 2, lines 45-51; columns 4-5, lines 53-2). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Cheon et al. continues to teach that when the weight ratio is less than 25:75, the specific area is reduced thereby decreasing electro-conductivity; and when the weight ratio is more than 75:25 the specific surface area increases, thereby reducing the density of the active mass (columns 4-5, lines 53-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to optimize the weight percentage of the second conductive carbon in order to achieve a desired balance between electro-conductivity and density of the active mass. Regarding claim 13 , Cheon et al. in view of Evshchik et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the composite positive electrode material layer has a compacted density ranged from 3.1 g/cm3 to 3.3 g/cm3 (columns 1-2, lines 63-3; column 6, lines 17-27) . Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Cheon et al. continues to teach that when the density is less than 0.5g/cc, good dispersion is not achieved during mixing of the slurry; and when the density is more than 5 g/cc, electrolyte immersion is decreased due to increased electrode density (column 6, lines 23-27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to optimize the density in order to achieve a desired balance between good dispersion and electrode density. Regarding claim 14 , Cheon et al. in view of Evshchik et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the electrode plate is an aluminum plate (column 12, lines 39-42) . Regarding claim 15 , Cheon et al. in view of Evshchik et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the plurality of positive electrode material particles have a first average particle size ranged from 10 μm to 20 μm (figures 5 and 6; columns 11-12, lines 37-24, including table 1). While the reference does not explicitly disclose the first conductive carbon has a second average particle size ranged from 50 nm to 200 nm , the second average particle size is not considered to confer patentability to the claim. Cheon et al. teaches that the uniformity of the thickness of the conductive layer formed, the efficiency of the electrochemical reaction, and electrochemical characteristics of the battery are all be modified by the particle size of the positive electrode particles and first conductive carbon (columns 11-12, lines 37-24). Therefore, the uniformity of the thickness of the conductive layer formed, the efficiency of the electrochemical reaction, and electrochemical characteristics of the battery are variables that can be modified, among others, by varying the particle size of the positive electrode particles and first conductive carbon. For that reason the particle size would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. As such, without showing unexpected results, the particle size cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the particle sizes in the composite electrode of Cheon et al. to obtain the desired electrochemical characteristics of the battery (In re Boesch , 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223) . Claim(s) 1 0 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon et al. in view of Evshchik et al. as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Sompalli et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,316,144 ). Regarding claim 10 , Cheon et al. in view of Evshchik et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the Li- Nafion polymer binder is mixed with the plurality of positive electrode material particles and the first conductive carbon, wherein the Li- Nafion polymer solution has a weight percent concentration of 10 wt. % ( Cheon et al. column 1, lines 45-50 ; column 7, lines 23-40 ). However, the reference as modified does not specifically recite wherein the Li- Nafion polymer material provided in step (c) is mixed with a solvent to form a Li- Nafion polymer solution . Sompalli et al. teaches another lithium ion battery (title). The reference teaches wherein the Li- Nafion polymer material provided in step (c) is mixed with a solvent to form a Li- Nafion polymer solution (table 3; table 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to mix the solvent to form a Li- Nafion polymer solution as taught by Sompalli et al. in the method of Cheon et al. in order to achieve the appropriate viscosity ( Sompalli et al. column 15, lines 21-22). While the reference as modified does not explicitly disclose the solvent is composed of ethanol and n-butanol, and a weight ratio of the ethanol to the n-butanol is 1:2 , Cheon et al. teaches that many types of nonlimiting examples of suitable non-aqueous organic solvents may be used as a medium for mobilizing the ion capable of participating in the electro-chemical reaction (column 8, lines 17-37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select the the solvent is composed of ethanol and n-butanol, and a weight ratio of the ethanol to the n- butanol is 1:2 as the solvent of Cheon et al. because selecting one of known materials for a solvent would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin , 125 USPQ 416. Claim(s) 1 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon et al. in view of Evshchik et al. as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Ho et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0095117). Regarding claim 12, Cheon et al. in view of Evshchik et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, the reference does not disclose the precise surface density. Ho et al. teaches another cathode slurry for a secondary battery comprising a cathode active material and binder (title; abstract). The reference teaches the composite positive electrode material slurry has a surface density ranged from 9 mg/cm2 to 12 mg/cm2 ([0119]). The electrochemical performance and rate of electron transfer are modified by the surface density . Therefore, the electron transfer and electrochemical performance of the battery are variables that can be modified, among others, by varying the surface density . For that reason the surface density would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. As such, without showing unexpected results, the surface density cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the surface density in the composite electrode of Cheon et al. to obtain the desired electron transfer and electrochemical performance of the battery (In re Boesch , 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223) . While the reference as modified discloses wherein the composite positive electrode material slurry is coated on the carrying surface of the electrode plate through various method s in the step (e) (column 6, lines 41-45), the reference does not explicitly disclose the method to be through a doctor blade method. It is well known in the art that the doctor blade method may be used in the coating step, as evidenced by Ho et al. ([0041]; [0131]; [0166]; [0178]; [0180]; [0199]; [0208]; [0210]). I t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to select the coating method of Cheon et al. to be through a doctor blade method as taught by Ho et al. , because selecting one of known coating methods would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing and because coating through a doctor blade method allows for the coating thickness to be controlled (Ho et al. [0041]). 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0492 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm . 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 Claire X Wang can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-1051 . 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. /ELIZABETH INSLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774