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. Examiner’s Comments The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the references as applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. 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. Claim 3 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. The term “ incompatible ” resin in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ incompatible ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of this examination, any type of resin would be considered to be “incompatible”. 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. Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected u nder 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Mercier et al. (US 2019/0221859) . Regarding claim 1, Le Mercier discloses a solid electrolyte comprising an electrolyte solution comprising a lithium salt and a carbonate solvent, and metal oxide particles, wherein the lithium sal t is LiBF 4 [0034] or Li bis( trifluorosulphonyl )imide [0105] , the carbonate solvent is PC or DMC [0037-0038], a molar ratio of the lithium salt to the carbonate solvent is 0.5-1.5 molar [0035], and that the metal oxide particles is in the range of 1-25 wt.% relative to the total weight of the electrolyte [0079], and a specific surface area of the metal oxide particles measured by a BET method is 100-650 m 2 /g [0068-0069]. Le Mercier discloses the listed materials in the electrol yte as the preferred material. Therefore, Le Mercier discloses that it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to use the claimed materials as Le Mercier has establish that they are functionally equivalent. Le Mercier and the claims differ in that Le Mercier does not teach the exact same proportions as recited in the instant claims. However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the concentration proportions taught by Le Mercier overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that; “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff , 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari , 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claims 2-3, Le Mercier discloses a resin binder as claimed [0106 -0107]. Regarding claim 6, Le Mercier discloses silica particles [0067]. Regarding claim 7, Le Mercier discloses precipitated silica particles [0067], however it is silent that it is dry silica particles. However, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to use dry silicas. One of ordinary skill in the art would be well aware that silica is either dry or wet. Thus, choice of being dry given only two alternatives would be well within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 8, Le Mercier discloses a battery as claimed (Abstract). Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Mercier et al. (US 2019/0221859) in view of Chang et al. (US 2018/0183055). Le Mercier discloses an electrolyte as set forth above, however, fails to disclose that the electrolyte comprises a PTFE binder with the concentration as claimed. Chang discloses an electrolyte comprising 1-20 parts by weight of PTFE binder of th e electrolyte, which thereby overlaps the claimed range (Abstract, [0004], [0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari , 182 USPQ 549. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Le Mercier to incorporate PTFE binder with the concentration as claimed, since Chang discloses that this will sufficiently form an electrolyte film and prevent from being hard and brittle [0020]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LINDA N CHAU whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5835 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9AM-5PM EST M-F . 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 Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1291 . 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. Linda Chau /L.N.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1785 /Holly Rickman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785