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. Information Disclosure Statement The BB entry on the 1/16/2024 IDS was lined through because applicant didn’t actually provide the KR reference, only a translation of the KR reference. The examiner has included it in the attached 892 to complete the record. The examiner is also separately listing the translation of the KR reference, but is not including it. Applicant has already provided the translation. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The drawing reference numbers 80 and 82 (fig. 3A-3C) do not appear to be set forth in the specification. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 6 and 17 are 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. With respect to claims 6 and 17, they recite the limitation “where Me is a transition metal”. This is confusing because no where else in the claim is there a reference to an Me structure. 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. Claim (s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 2022/0123352) in view of any of KR 20190049348 ( “ KR ‘348 ” ) , Kim et al (US 2014/0186678) , CN 109390625 (“CN ‘625”), or Christensen et al (US 2020/0335818). With respect to claim 1, Li discloses a solid-state battery cell comprising an anode electrode 22 comprising a current collector 32, an anode active material 50, and a solid electrolyte 90. Li also discloses a cathode 24 comprising a cathode current collector 34, a cathode active material 60, and a solid electrolyte. The separator (electrolyte) layer 26 comprises solid electrolyte particles. See fig. 1A, 1B and par. 0052-0055. With respect to the battery containing a gel polymer electrolyte in the anode, cathode, and separator, Li further discloses that all the battery components further contain an iongel 100 which contains anions and cations and has a polymeric component (par. 0080-0086) which inherently constitutes a gel polymer electrolyte. Moreover, Li further teaches that traditional gel polymer electrolytes are old in the art and useable in the same manner as the ionogel earlier (par. 0107) . Li does not explicitly disclose that the solid electrolyte of the separator layer is a solid electrolyte coating of an oxide core. KR ‘348 discloses that instead of using a unitary solid electrolyte particles , electrolyte performance can be improved by using core/shell technology where a oxide core material LLZO with coated with a solid electrolyte such as LPS and this provide improved conductivity over using only LLZO. See translation par. 0008 and 0039. Kim similarly taught the use of a core/shell structure where the core is a oxide LLT and the solid electrolyte shell LLZ is coated onto that. This configuration provided a balance between the high conductivity of LLT with relative stability of LLZ. See the figures and par. 0030-0033. CN ‘625 teaches an alternative separator construction that has improved performance over LLZO that comprises an oxide core of SiO 2 or TiO 2 nanofibers that are coated with a solid polymer electrolyte (see entire translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize the core/shell structure of any of KR ‘348 , Kim , or CN ‘625 for the solid electrolyte particles of Li in order to get improved ionic conductivity or to be able to get both high conductivity with relative stability. Alternatively for the separator limitation of claim 1, Christensen teaches that a separator configuration where the solid electrolyte is a thin film 112 deposited over the top of a layer of porous ceramic fibers 114 (fig. 1 and step 402 of fig. 4). These fibers are described as being metal oxides. See par. 0022, 0023, 0033, 0034, and 0042. This thin film deposited on the oxide ceramics reads on an solid electrolyte coating arranged on a n outer surface of an oxide core giving the claim language its broadest reasonable interpretation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize the separator of Christensen for the battery of Li in order to strengthen the electrolyte when materials that have high electrochemical performance but are otherwise not mechanically strong, such as LiPON , are utilized (Christensen par. 0009). With respect to claims 2-4, Li disclosed that both the anode and cathode also contained solid electrolyte particles as well and KR ‘348 , Kim , CN ‘625, and Christensen all taught core/shell solid electrolyte particles that had improved performance. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these improved particles could also be utilized for the solid electrolyte of either the anode and/or the cathode as well. With respect to claim 5, Li teaches the use of Li 4 Ti 5 O 12 among other materials as the anode active material (par. 0071). With respect to claim 6, Li teaches the use of at least layered-oxides and spinel type oxides (par. 0076) . With respect to claim 7, KR ‘348 teaches sulfide-based solid electrolytes (Li 7 P 3 S 11 ) (par. 0039) , Kim teaches oxide based solid electrolytes like Li 7 La 3 Zr 2 O 12 (par. 0032) , Christensen teaches the oxide and nitride based electrolyte LiPON (par. 0009) , and CN ‘625 teaches PEO or polyethylene oxide based solid electrolyte. With respect to claim 8, KR ‘348 teaches the oxide core can be constructed with elements such as TiO2 or ZrO2 (par. 0023) and Kim teaches a core is constructed with TiO2 based oxides (par. 0030) , CN ‘625 teaches SiO2 and TiO2 (p. 2 of translation), and Christensen suggests any number of potential ceramics including specifically titanium oxide (par. 0023). With respect to claim 9, Li teaches for the gel polymer a solid component in the range of 0.5-20%, which is a polymer, and liquid electrolyte (ionic liquid) making up the rest. See par. 0081 and 0086. With respect to claim 10, Li teaches the use of a lithium salt (par. 0083), a solvent ( either diluent solvent of par. 0085 or the ionic liquid itself (par. 0083) which claim 12 evidences constitutes a solvent). Any materials, including the already set forth element of the gel polymer electrolyte would read on the broadly defined “additive”. With respect to claim 11, Li teaches a lithium containing cation (par. 0083) and an anion that can include DMSI, BETI, BOB, and BFMB (par. 0084). With respect to claim 12, Li teaches a carbonate solvent (ethylene carbonate) (par. 0085) and also teaches ionic liquids (par. 0082), both of which read on the defined solvents. With respect to claim 13, see the rejection of claims 1, 7, and 8 above. With respect to claims 14-17, see the rejection of claims 2-6 above. With respect to claims 18-20, see the rejection of claims 9-12 above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KAJ K OLSEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1344 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 8 AM - 5 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450 . 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. /KAJ K OLSEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714