CTNF 18/255,140 CTNF 85366 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 1/23/2026 is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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 applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claim 6 is 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 6 recites the limitation "the silicon" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this office action, claim 6 will be interpreted as depending from claim 3, which defines silicon. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2019/0326645) in view of Ohtomo et al. (US 2016/0036091) . Regarding claims 1 and 2, Suzuki et al. discloses in Figs 1-9, a solid-state battery (ref 100B, [0035]) that includes a stack including a cathode layer (ref 2), a solid electrolyte layer (ref 1), and an anode layer (ref 3) containing an alloy-based anode active material ([0035]), wherein the anode layer (ref 3) in a stacking direction (Figs 4-6) comprises voids (refs 3b, Figs 4-6). While Suzuki et al. does not explicitly disclose the vol% of voids in the anode layer as greater than 36% or 55-100%, the change in the vol% of voids in the anode layer is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Suzuki et al. (see [0035], [0065]) teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention that varying the amount of voids in the anode layer will vary the ability of the anode layer to absorb volume change / structural integrity of said anode layer. Therefore the ability of the anode layer to absorb volume change / structural integrity is a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the amount of voids in the anode layer. For that reason, the amount of voids in the anode layer, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the amount of voids in the anode layer cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of voids in the anode layer in the anode layer of Suzuki et al. to obtain the desired ability of the anode layer to absorb volume change / structural integrity ( 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). Suzuki et al. does not explicitly disclose the anode current collector has surface roughness Rz of 0.8 4.0 microns. Ohtomo et al. discloses in Figs 1-8, an all-solid secondary battery ([0001]-[0003], ref 10) including an anode current collector (ref 1) having a surface roughness of 1.8 – 2.5 microns ([0019]). This configuration suppresses short-circuiting of the battery during operation, thereby enhancing battery safety and performance ([0018]-[0020]). Ohtomo et al. and Suzuki et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the anode collector of Suzuki et al. at the surface roughness of Ohtomo et al. to suppress short-circuiting of the battery during operation, thereby enhancing battery safety and performance. Regarding claim 3, modified Suzuki et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the alloy- based anode active material contains silicon ([0095], [0096]). Regarding claim 4, modified Suzuki et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the silicon is a particle ([0097]). Regarding claim 6, modified Suzuki et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the silicon is a thin film ([0097]). Regarding claim 7, modified Suzuki et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the solid electrolyte layer (ref 1) contains a sulfide solid electrolyte ([0098], [0103]) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2019/0326645) in view of Ohtomo et al. (US 2016/0036091) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2019/0157723) . Regarding claim 5, modified Suzuki et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the particle of the silicon has a particle diameter D50 of at most 1 micron. Suzuki et al. discloses in Figs 1-10, an all solid secondary battery including an anode (ref 220) electrode including an active material (ref 122) layer comprising silicon ([0015], [0017], [0087]) having a D50 particle size of 10 – 100 nm ([0087]). This configuration enhances the charge capacity and performance of the battery ([0005], [0087]-[0090]). Suzuki et al. and Suzuki et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the silicon of Suzuki et al. at the D50 particle size of Suzuki et al. to enhance charge capacity and overall battery performance . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Tajima et al. (US 2016/0013469) discloses in Figs 1-13, a secondary battery ([0052]) including a negative electrode layer including a plurality of slits therein to absorb active material volume change during battery use ([0113]-[0114]). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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. /KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/255,140 Page 2 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/255,140 Page 3 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/255,140 Page 4 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/255,140 Page 5 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/255,140 Page 6 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/255,140 Page 7 Art Unit: 1725