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. The Examiner notes that claim 5 recite(s) nominal methods of making limitations, in combination with product limitations encompassing those of claim 1. As such, there is presently no undue burden in examining these, technically, divergent statutory classes of invention. Should Applicants' amend these claims to include non-nominal method limitations, these newly added claims may be subject to restriction by original presentation. 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 1-5 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. Claims 1 and 3 recites the limitation "the ratio" and “the total mass”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 also recites the limitation "the average aspect ratio" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the solid electrolyte layer" and “the positive electrode active material layer” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 recites the limitation "The method" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, claim 5 additionally recite “a negative electrode active material layer”. It is unclear to the examiner if it refers to the same negative electrode active material layer in claim 1 or whether referring to a different negative electrode active material layer. For the purpose of this examination, the examiner is interpretation that it refers to the negative electrode active material recited in claim 1. 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. Claim s 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohata et al. (JP 2019-160407) . Regarding claim 1, Ohata discloses a negative electrode active material layer (2), wherein the negative electrode active material layer contains silicon particles, graphite particles, and inorganic solid electrolyte particles, [0019-002 2, 0027, 0031-0034, 0036], wherein the amount of graphite to Si is 0.18-0.43 [0025], which overlaps the claimed range. 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. Further, although Ohata discloses silicon particles, Ohata fails to explicitly disclose that it is porous. 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 porous. One of ordinary skill in the art would be well aware that silicon particles are either porous or nonporous. Thus, choice of being porous given only two alternatives would be well within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 3, Ohata discloses that the inorganic solid electrolyte particles are sulfide solid electrolyte particles [0027]. Ohata discloses that the weight ratio between graphite and silicon particles is 0.18-0.43 [0025] , and the content of the inorganic solid electrolyte particles is 10-90 wt.% [0032 , 0042 ] , thereby overlaps the ratio as claimed. 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. Further, Ohata discloses that the graphite has an average particle size of 0.1-100 µm [0024], with an overall shape of being oval [0024], thereby one of ordinary skill in the art recognize that it would encompass an aspect ratio of 1.5 or more (Fig. 2), and the silicon particle has a diameter of 5 nm to 50 µm [0038], and that all values within the range appears to be functionally equivalent . It would have been obvious to choose any diameter from that ranged based on the desired properties and that choosing diameter values would have rendered the claimed relationship between diameters of the graphite and silicon particle obvious in the absence of showing criticality. For example, taking the upper endpoint range of the graphite and silicon particle would read upon the claimed diameter relationship. Regarding claim 4, Ohata discloses a solid-state battery as claimed (Overview). Regarding claim 5, Ohata discloses pressing step as claimed [0015, 0068]. Claims 1 -5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohata et al. (JP 2019-160407) in view of Harata et al. (US 2021/0066713). Regarding claims 1-2, Ohata discloses a negative electrode active material layer (2), wherein the negative electrode active material layer contains silicon particles, graphite particles, and inorganic solid electrolyte particles, [0019-0022, 0027, 0031-0034, 0036], wherein the amount of graphite to Si is 0.18-0.43 [0025], which overlaps the claimed range. 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. Further, although Ohata discloses silicon particles, Ohata fails to explicitly disclose that it is porous clathrate silicon 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 porous. One of ordinary skill in the art would be well aware that silicon particles are either porous or nonporous. Thus, choice of being porous given only two alternatives would be well within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Nevertheless, Harata discloses a negative electrode active material containing porous silicon clathrate II (Abstract) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ohata’s silicon particles to be of a porous clathrate silicon particle, since Harata discloses that the expansion of the negative electrode active material is inhibited during charging, thereby inhibited from being degraded during charging and discharging [0012]. Regarding claim 3, Ohata discloses that the inorganic solid electrolyte particles are sulfide solid electrolyte particles [0027]. Ohata discloses that the weight ratio between graphite and silicon particles is 0.18-0.43 [0025], and the content of the inorganic solid electrolyte particles is 10-90 wt.% [0032, 0042], thereby overlaps the ratio as claimed. 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. Further, Ohata discloses that the graphite has an average particle size of 0.1-100 µm [0024], with an overall shape of being oval [0024], thereby one of ordinary skill in the art recognize that it would encompass an aspect ratio of 1.5 or more (Fig. 2), and the silicon particle has a diameter of 5 nm to 50 µm [0038], and that all values within the range appears to be functionally equivalent. It would have been obvious to choose any diameter from that ranged based on the desired properties and that choosing diameter values would have rendered the claimed relationship between diameters of the graphite and silicon particle obvious in the absence of showing criticality. For example, taking the upper endpoint range of the graphite and silicon particle would read upon the claimed diameter relationship. Regarding claim 4, Ohata discloses a solid-state battery as claimed (Overview). Regarding claim 5, Ohata discloses pressing step as claimed [0015, 0068]. 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