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. Election/Restrictions Claims 15-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/06/2026. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 01/06/2026 is acknowledged. 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 s 1-14 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. Regarding claim 1, the limitation of “ a polymer binder PB 1 having an adsorption rate of less than 60% with respect to the inorganic solid electrolyte in the dispersion medium ” is unclear as a n adsorption rate is known in the art as molecules per unit area per unit time and the instant application does not sufficiently redefine adsorption rate. For the purposes of examination an adsorption rate of less than 60% is being interpreted as less than 60% of the original amount of polymer binder stays in contact with the inorganic solid electrolyte. Regarding claims 2 -14, they are being rejected under the same issue s as described above due to their dependence upon or inclusion of claim 1. 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 -8 and 10 -14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kushida et al. (US 20190319303 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Kushida teaches a sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte that has an ion conductivity of metals belonging to group I or II of the periodic table ( Kushida 0053). Further, a polymer binder ( Kushida 0009) and a dispersion medium ( Kushida 0134) can be mixed with the electrolyte. Regarding the permanent strain of the polymer within a binder , Kushida teaches a polymer binder which contains a polymer in the form of a block copolymer ( Kushida 0144). While the prior art does not explicitly teach a polymer binder having a tensile permanent strain under 50% , these properties are considered inherent in the prior art barring any differences shown by objective evidence between the polymer disclosed in the prior art and the applicant. As the composition taught by the prior art and the applicant are identical within the scope of claim 1 , Kushida inherently teaches that the polymer has a tensile permanent strain under 50% ,. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) MPEP 2112.01. Similarly , While the prior art does not explicitly teach a polymer binder having an adsorption rate of less than 60% in relation to the inorganic solid electrolyte , these properties are considered inherent in the prior art barring any differences shown by objective evidence between the polymer disclosed in the prior art and the applicant. As the polymer taught by the prior art and the applicant are identical within the scope of claim 1 , Kushida inherently teaches that the polymer has an adsorption rate of less than 60% in relation to the inorganic solid electrolyte . Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) MPEP 2112.01. Further, Kushida says that multiple binders may be combined , so , for example, a binder containing butyl (meth)acrylate, acrylonitrile, and styrene (Kushida 0144) can be combined with a binder containing polyvinyl alcohol (0084) and the combination is rendered obvious (Kushida 0146) . Regarding claim 2, Kushida teaches claim 1 as described above and , w hile the prior art does not explicitly teach a polymer binder having a tensile permanent strain under 25% , these properties are considered inherent in the prior art barring any differences shown by objective evidence between the polymer disclosed in the prior art and the applicant. As the composition taught by the prior art and the applicant are identical within the scope of claim 2 , Kushida inherently teaches that the polymer has a tensile permanent strain under 25% ,. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) MPEP 2112.01. Regarding claim 3, Kushida teaches claim 1 as described above and meets the limitation of this claim as the breaking elongation can be between 10% to 1000% (0047) which makes 400% or more obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Regarding claim 4, Kushida teaches claim 1 as described above which contains butyl (meth)acrylate and acrylonitrile which both have an ester bond , and styrene which has an aryl group (Kushida 0144) . Regarding claim 5, Kushida teaches claim 4 as described above, K ushida further teach es the overall binder is between .01% by mass to 10% by mass (Kushida 0153) and, as all of the constitutional components contain a described functional group there is significant overlap with the claimed limitation , In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists , See MPEP 2144.05.I . Regarding claim 6, Kushida teaches claim 1 as described above and meets the limitation of this claim as the polymer is a block polymer (Kushida 0144) . Regarding claim 7, Kushida teaches claim 1 as described above and meets the limitation of the polymer having a constitutional component derived from a (meth)acrylic acid ester compound as butyl (meth)acrylate is described as a (meth)acrylic acid ester compound (instant 0061) . Regarding claim 8, Kushida teaches claim 1 as described above and meets the limitation of a segment A containing a constitutional component derived from a vinyl compound or (meth)acrylic acid ester compound having a glass transition temperature of 50°C or higher , as well as a segment B containing a constitutional component derived from a (meth)acrylic acid ester compound having a glass transition temperature of 15°C or lower . In this case, Kushida teaches a combination of butyl (meth)acrylate, acrylonitrile, and styrene (Kushida, 0144) in the form of a block copolymer (Kushida 0146). Acrylonitrile is a vinyl compound, as it contains a vinyl group, and has a glass transition temperature over 50 o C , and butyl acrylate is a (meth) acrylic acid ester and has a glass transition temperature under 15 o C. Regarding claim 10, Kushida teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches that there is an active material (Kushida 0007) . Regarding claim 11, Kushida teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches that there is a conductive auxiliary agent (Kushida 0206). Regarding claim 12, Kushida teaches claim 1 as described above which teaches a sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte (Kushida 0051). Regarding claim 13, Kushida teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches that there is a secondary battery containing the composition of claim 1 (Kushida 0008). Regarding claim 14, Kushida teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches that there is a positive electrode, the solid electrolyte layer as described in claim 1, and a negative electrode (Kushida 0041). Claim (s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kushida et al. (US 20190319303 A1) in view of Teng (US 20070172766 A1) . Regarding claim 9, Kushida teaches claim 1 as described above. Kushida is silent to the chain polymerization aspect of the limitation which prompts one of ordinary skill to look into similar art describing the formation of polymers . Teng teaches the chain polymerization of polymers including (meth)acrylate units (Teng 0033) which is also present in Kushida in the form of copolymers of acrylic acid and methyl acrylate that form a binder that can be combined with two or more other binders (Kushida 0144, 0146). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the copolymers of acrylic acid and methyl acrylate that form a binder can be made via chain polymerization as known in the art to produce high molecular weight polymers having diverging properties as shown and used by Teng . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SEAN ROBERT BROWN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0640 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 9-5 ET . 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 Galen Hauth can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5516 . 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. /SEAN R. BROWN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1743 /ADAM J FRANCIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728