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 Objections When Applicant reference s a “gasket… using one ” in claim 7 , they are ostensibly referring to a resin composition having the makeup that follows. Applicant should replace “one” with “resin composition” to eliminate the ambiguity. 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. Claim s 1 , 3, 7, are 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0127580 . Applicant is directed to the abstract where there is described a resin composition comprising polyphenylene ether, polypropylene, and a hydrogenated block copolymer that is a hydrogenated styrene-butadiene block copolymer in a most preferred embodiment [0189-0200] . In each of the inventive examples summarized in Table 1- see [0181-0191] for a characterization of compounds (I), (II), and (III)- the relative quantities of polyphenylene ether and polypropylene are consistent with the range outlined in claim 1 (as is the ratio of hydrogenated block copolymer to a combined 100 parts of the polyphenylene ether and polypropylene in claim 3 ). Also germane to claim 3, isoprene may also be used in place of butadiene [0096] and the styrene content may be preferably between 30-80 mass% according to [0104], which of course is encompassing of the claimed range. 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). At this point, the Examiner will acknowledge that nothing has been said to address the fact that the claims define a gasket for a non-aqueous electrolyte battery. Inagaki admittedly never mentions expressly this particular article of manufacture. What the reference does say, however, is that the compositions have utility in the production of lithium ion secondary battery components [0174]. Further, one of the ways in which the composition is evaluated is to determine its tensile strength retention rate after exposure to an electrolyle solution. See [0222-0225]. In light of these two observations, it is the position of the Office that any internal part of a non-aqueous secondary battery, non - aqueous to the extent that the electrolyte solution mentioned in [0223] is organic solvent-based , that (i) comes into contact with the electrolyte and (ii) is recognized in the prior art as having been produced from thermoplastics or their mixtures would be a logical candidate for the use of the prior art composition including the gaskets. The mixtures are processed with extruders having different configurations [0238-0252] and the incorporation of additives such as slip agents and antioxidants are contemplated in [0135] thus satisfying all elements of claim 7 . The pellets provided from the extruder may be subjected to injection molding at a mold temperature of 70° C according to [0224]. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MARC S ZIMMER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1096 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8:30-5:00 . 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 Heidi Kelley can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-1831 . 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. March 18, 2026 /MARC S ZIMMER/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1765