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. Status of Claims Claims 1-4 are currently pending in the application and are being examined on the merits in this Office Action. 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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0212491) and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0062199) . Regarding claim 1, Collins teaches a solid electrolyte mate r ial (i.e., electrolyte layer) (502) which has a pair of surfaces facing each other (paragraph [0063]) (see figure 8 below ) and includes at least one of a halide-based solid electrolyte and a sulfide-based solid electrolyte represented by the following Expression s (paragraph [0063]) : Li 2 ZrBr 4 (1) ; Li 2 MgBr 4 ( 2 ) ; Li 3 AlF 6 (3) ; and Li 2 MgCl 4 (4) w here in Expression (1) , the claimed a=0, E is Zr where b=0, c=0 and X is Br where d=4 is satisfied , wherein Expression (2) , the claimed a=0, b=1, G is Mg where b=1, c =0, and X is Br where d=4 is satisfied wherein Expression (3), the claimed a=0, E is Al where b=1, c=0 and X is F where d= 6 is satisfied . wherein Expression (4), the claimed a=0, b=1, G is Mg where b=1, c=0 a nd X is Cl where d= 4 is satisfied. Collins does not teach the at least one of the pair of surfaces has a surface ten-point average roughness Rz J IS in a range of 20 nm or more and 1500 nm or less. Kim, directed to an electrolytic copper foil (paragraph [0025]) , teaches the electrolytic copper foil having a surface roughness of 500nm to 2700nm (i.e., 0.5 to 2.7µm) (paragraph 0019]). Further, Kim teaches adhesion strength between the electrolytic copper foil and active material layers may be improved by controlling the surface roughness (paragraph [0061]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the surface roughness of the electrolyte of Collins to 500nm to 2700nm as suggested by Kim in order to improve adhesion strength between the electrolyte and other layers applied in the surfaces of the electrolyte . For instance, it would be apparent to a skilled artisan that if the surface roughness of the electrolyte layer (502) of Collins is considered between 500nm to 2700nm, the adhesion strength between the electrolyte layer (502) and the anode (402) and between the electrolyte layer (502) and the cathode (602) would be improved (paragraph [0067]-[0068) . It is noted that Kim differ in the exact same surface roughness range as recited in the instant claim however, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the surface roughness range of Kim overlap the instant claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It has been held in the courts that i n 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). Regarding claim 2, Collins teaches the solid electrolyte material has a thickness of 20 nm to 20µm which overlaps the claimed range. It is noted that Collins differ in the exact same electrolyte material thickness range as recited in the instant claim however, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the surface thickness range of Collins overlap the instant claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It has been held in the courts that i n 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). Regarding claims 3, Collins teaches a positive electrode mixture layer ( 6 02) in contact with one of the pair of surfaces of the solid electrolyte material (502) ; and surfaces of the solid electrolyte material (paragraph [0067]-[0068]) (see figure 8 above) . Regarding claim 4, Collins teaches and a negative electrode mixture layer (402) in contact with the other of the pair of surfaces of the solid electrolyte material (502) (paragraph [0067]-[0068]) (see figure 8 above) . Pertinent Prior Art The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kato et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0263341). Kato teaches a surface modified lithium-containing composite having the following Expression (1): Li 2 ZrF 6 , wherein the claimed a=0, E is Zr where b=0, c=0 and X is F where d=6 is satisfied in Expression (1). Co rrespondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5098 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 pm . 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 TONG GUO can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-3066 . 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. /CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723