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. 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. Claim 3 states that the claimed cathode is lithium iron phosphate “or an oxide of the lithium iron phosphate.” In general, l ithium iron phosphate is, itself, an oxide. Accordingly, Claim 3 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what material(s) constitute an “oxide” of an existing oxide (i.e. lithium iron phosphate) as instantly claimed. Proper clarification is required. Claim 6 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. Claim 6 recites the limitation " the weight ratio. " There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 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. Claim 9 states that the claimed in-situ reaction “takes 10 to 20 minutes.” Accordingly Claim 9 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what “about” the in-situ reaction takes 10 to 20 minutes. For example, it is unclear if the reaction takes 10 to 20 minutes to initiate, go to completion, etc. Proper clarification is required. 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. 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (CN 115207483, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes) , and further in view of Liu et al . (CN 114865060, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes). Regarding Claim 1, Feng teaches a solid-state battery (“all-solid-state lithium battery”) ([0004]). Feng teaches that the battery comprises an anode, wherein the anode comprises lithium metal (“solid lithium metal”) ([0004]). Feng teaches that the battery comprises a solid electrolyte (“solid-state electrolyte” ([0056]). As illustrated in Figure 1, Feng teaches that the battery comprises the anode (1), a cathode (2), the solid electrolyte (4), and an anode interface modification layer (3) (“joint interface region”) positioned between the anode and the solid electrolyte ([0028]). Feng teaches that the anode interface modification layer includes a self-supporting structural layer having both lithium nitride (“lithium nitride”) and a lithium metal alloy (“lithium alloy”) distributed inside and on the surface of the self-supporting structural layer ([0030]). Feng does not explicitly teach that the solid electrolyte comprises lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide. However, Liu teaches a solid state lithium-ion battery comprising an anode having lithium metal as an anode active material therein ([0002], [0004], [0006]). Liu teaches that the battery comprises, as a solid electrolyte material, LLZO ([0051]). Liu teaches that said solid electrolyte material is beneficial to the chemical stability and high ionic conductivity of the lithium metal ([0051]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would use, as the solid electrolyte of Feng, LLZO (“lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide”), as taught by Liu, given than an LLZO solid electrolyte would be beneficial to the chemical stability and high ionic conductivity of the lithium metal in the anode. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (CN 115207483, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes) , and further in view of Liu et al . (CN 114865060, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes) and Kim et al . (US 2023/0146632). Regarding Claim 2, Feng, as modified by Liu, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described. Feng, as modified by Liu, does not explicitly teach that the lithium metal alloy is lithium gallium alloy. However, Kim teaches an anode-solid electrolyte assembly for an all-solid secondary battery (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 1, Kim teaches that the assembly comprises an interlayer (22) positioned between a solid electrolyte (30) and an anode (23) ([0067]-[0068]). Kim teaches that the interlayer comprises a first metal (M1) dispersed alongside a lithium ion conductor ([0069]-[0070]). Kim teaches that the first metal is, for example, a lithium gallium alloy ([0072]). Furthermore, Kim teaches that the lithium ion conductor is, for example, lithium nitride ([0076]). Kim teaches that the interlayer improves durability, improves contact between the solid electrolyte and the anode, and reduces interfacial resistance between the solid electrolyte and the anode ([0069]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure that the lithium metal alloy of Feng, as modified by Liu, is lithium gallium alloy (“lithium gallium alloy”), as taught by Kim, given that the lithium gallium alloy in combination with the lithium nitride would help improve durability, help improve contact between the solid electrolyte and the anode, and help reduce interfacial resistance between the solid electrolyte and the anode. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (CN 115207483, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes) , and further in view of Liu et al . (CN 114865060, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes) and Beck et al. (US 2009/0186277). Regarding Claim 3, Feng, as modified by Liu, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described. Feng, as modified by Liu, does not explicitly teach that the cathode comprises lithium iron phosphate. However, Beck teaches a positive electrode active material (Abstract). Beck teaches that the positive electrode active material is lithium iron phosphate (Abstract, [0007]-[0009]). Beck teaches that lithium iron phosphate is not only a safe and reliable cathode material for secondary batteries, but also replacement for lithium cobalt oxide which is commercially used but hazardous ([0004]-[0005]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure that the cathode of Feng, as modified by Liu, comprises lithium iron phosphate (“lithium iron phosphate”), as taught by Beck, given that lithium iron phosphate is not only a safe and reliable cathode material for secondary batteries, but also replacement for lithium cobalt oxide which is commercially used but hazardous. Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 4-5, 7-8 are allowed (and Claim s 6, 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action). The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Independent Claim 4 requires that the method includes the instantly claimed first, second, and third steps such that the all-solid-state lithium battery contains at least lithium nitride and lithium alloy at the joint interface region between the anode and the solid-state electrolyte. The closest prior art references relevant to at least Claim 4 are Feng and Liu , as previously described, and Xu et al. (CN 114300662, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes). Feng neither teaches nor suggests that the solid-state battery is formed via a method which includes any of the instantly claimed first through third steps such that the battery contains at least lithium nitride and lithium alloy at the joint interface region between the anode and the solid-state electrolyte (See, for example, [0062]-[0068] of Feng). While Liu discloses LLZO, Liu does not cure the deficiencies in Feng. Furthermore, Xu teaches a solid-state lithium battery (Abstract, [0001]). Xu teaches that the battery comprises a composite lithium obtained by an in-situ reaction of molten lithium with a metal nitride ([0005], [0010]-[0012]). Xu teaches that the battery comprises LLZO as a solid electrolyte ([0014]-[0015]). Xu teaches that the method comprises melting metallic lithium to form molten lithium, adding a metal nitride to the molten lithium, continuously stirring the metal nitride and molten lithium to cause an in-situ reaction to form a composite metallic lithium electrode, and contacting both sides of an LLZO solid electrolyte with molten composite metallic lithium electrode material ([0051]-[0054]). However, Xu neither teaches nor suggests that a first step in the method involves mixing the metal nitride with the metallic lithium and heating to form molten lithium metal nitride alloy, or that an in-situ reaction takes place when contacting the LLZO with the molten composite metallic lithium electrode material. Accordingly, Xu also neither teaches nor suggests that upon cooling in the instantly claimed manner, the battery contains at least lithium nitride and lithium alloy at a joint interface region between the anode and the solid electrolyte (especially given that the claimed in-situ reaction is not necessarily carried out in Xu). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7595 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7AM-3PM 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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. /MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728