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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 1/16/24 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3) (i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance (for Office Action from German Patent Office) , as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “26” has been used to designate both cathode current collector and cathode active layer (Fig. 2). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The use of the term “Super P”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term . Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. 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 20 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 20 contains the trademark/trade name “Super P”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson , 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe carbon black and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1 , 3, and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhamu et al. (US 2023/0231181 A1, hereinafter Zhamu). Re Claim 1. Zhamu teaches a n oxide-based solid-state battery cell (para. 11 & 13) comprising: a cathode electrode comprising: a cathode current collector (para. 67) ; a cathode active layer arranged adjacent to the cathode current collector and comprising cathode active material that exchanges lithium ions and a solid oxide electrolyte (para 67) ; and an in-situ polymerization gel (para. 11 & 27) ; a separator layer comprising a solid oxide electrolyte (para. 11) , a porous layer (para. 65) , and the in-situ polymerization gel (para. 11 & 27) ; and an anode electrode comprising an anode current collector (para. 69) , a silicon film (para. 70) , and the in-situ polymerization gel (para. 11 & 27) . Re Claim 3. Zhamu teaches wherein the silicon film comprises pure silicon (para. 70) . Re Claim 5. Zhamu teaches wherein the anode current collector is made of a material selected from a group consisting of stainless steel, nickel, copper (para. 69) . Re Claim 6. Zhamu teaches wherein the in-situ polymerization gel comprises a liquid electrolyte, a polymer monomer, and an initiator (para. 27) . Re Claim 7. Zhamu teaches wherein the liquid electrolyte comprises a lithium salt, a solvent, and an additive (para. 27) . Re Claim 8. Zhamu teaches wherein: the lithium salt comprises LiPF 6 (para. 58), the solvent comprises carbonate ester (para. 46) , and the additive comprises fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) (para. 49) . RE Claim 9. Zhamu teaches wherein the polymer monomer is selected from a group consisting of ethylene oxide (EO), vinylidene fluoride (VDF), VDF-hexafluoropropylene (VDF-HFP), propylene-oxide (PO), acrylonitrile (AN) (para. 14) . Re Claim 10. Zhamu teaches wherein the initiator is selected from a group consisting of peroxide, an azo compound (para. 61) . 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. 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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Zhamu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (WO 2020/214009 A1, hereinafter Kim, cited by applicant). Zhamu teaches that the solid oxide electrolyte comprises Li 1+x Al x Ti 2−x (PO 4 ) 3 (para. 95), but fails to specifically teach that 0.3 ≤ x ≤ 0.5. The invention of Kim encompasses solid electrolyte composite. Kim teaches that 0 ≤ x ≤ 1 (para. 45). In view of Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Zhamu to use 0 ≤ x ≤ 1, since using a well-known composition for the solid electrolyte is within purview of one 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. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (WO 2023/121462 A1, hereinafter Li). The teachings of Zhamu have been discussed above. Zhamu fails to specifically teach that the silicon film comprises columnar silicon. The invention of Li encompasses solid state Li-ion battery. Li teaches that the silicon film comprises columnar silicon (abstract) . In view of Li, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Zhamu to employ columnar silicon in the silicon film, since Li teaches the advantage of using it, which is restrict swelling behavior of silicon film (P13). Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim and Wang et al. (US 2024/0079565 A1, hereinafter Wang). Zhamu teaches the cathode active layer comprises: 75 wt% of cathode active material (para. 188), which comprises lithium ion manganese oxide (LMO) (Claim 25), 15 wt% of Li 1+x Al x Ti 2−x (PO 4 ) 3 electrolyte (para. 188), 5 wt% of carbon and carbon nanotube (para. 188) , 5 wt% of polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) (para. 188). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) See MPEP 2144.05, I. Zhamu fails to specifically teach lithium manganese iron phosphate (LMFP) in a range from 76 wt% to 20 wt% / 40 wt% to 48 wt% , lithium ion manganese oxide (LMO) in a range from 20 wt% to 76 wt% / 40 wt% to 48 wt% , and 0.3 ≤ x ≤ 0.5. The invention of Kim encompasses solid electrolyte composite. Kim teaches that 0 ≤ x ≤ 1 (para. 45). In view of Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Zhamu to use 0 ≤ x ≤ 1, since using a well-known composition for the solid electrolyte is within purview of one skill in the art. The invention of Wang encompasses modified positive electrode material. Wang teaches that cathode active material can comprise lithium manganese iron phosphate (LMFP) and lithium ion manganese oxide (LMO) (para. 80). In view of Wang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Zhamu in view of Kim to employ LMFP and LMO as cathode active material, since using well-known cathode active material is within purview of one skill in the art. As Zhamu teaches that the composition of the cathode active layer is a result effective variable (para. 31), one would perform routine experimentation to find out optimum composition of the cathode active layer. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ionescu et al. (US 2022/0263082 A1, hereinafter Ionescu). Zhamu fails to specifically teach that an N:P ratio of the oxide-based solid-state battery cell is in a range from 1 to 2.5. The invention of Ionescu encompasses silicon anode battery. Ionescu teaches that an N:P ration of the battery is in a range from 0.5 to 2 (para. 27). In view of Ionescu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Zhamu to have an N:P ratio of the oxide-based solid-state battery cell to be in a range from 0.5 to 2, since Ionescu teaches the advantage of using it, which is to increase the stability of the anode (para. 27). Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoo et al. (US 2019/0044178 A1, hereinafter Yoo). Zhamu fails to specifically teach that wherein the porous layer comprises polymer having a porosity in a range from 35% to 5 5%. The invention of Yoo encompasses thermally stable battery separator design. Yoo teaches that the porous layer comprises polymer having a porosity in a range from 35% to 6 5% (para. 7) . In view of Yoo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Zhamu to have the porous layer having polymer with a porosity in a range from 35% to 65%, since Yoo teaches the advantage of using it, which is to control over transfer across the separator (para. 39). Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu in view of Kim and Yoo. Re Claim 15. See rejections of Claims 1, 2, and 14, in combination. Re Claim 17. See rejection of claim 6. Re Claim 18. See rejections of claim 7, 9, and 10, in combination. Re Claim 19. See rejection of claim 8. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu in view of Kim and Yoo as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Li. See rejection of claim 4. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu in view of Kim and Yoo as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Wang. Zhamu teaches the cathode active layer comprises: 75 wt% of cathode active material (para. 188), which comprises lithium ion manganese oxide (LMO) (Claim 25), 15 wt% of Li 1+x Al x Ti 2−x (PO 4 ) 3 electrolyte (para. 188), 5 wt% of carbon and carbon nanotube (para. 188), 5 wt% of polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) (para. 188). Zhamu also teaches that carbon black (Super P) can be used with carbon nanotube (para. 67 & 206). The invention of Wang encompasses modified positive electrode material. Wang teaches that cathode active material can comprise lithium manganese iron phosphate (LMFP) and lithium ion manganese oxide (LMO) (para. 80). In view of Wang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Zhamu in view of Kim and Yoo to employ LMFP and LMO as cathode active material, since using well-known cathode active material is within purview of one skill in the art. As Zhamu teaches that the composition of the cathode active layer is a result effective variable (para. 31), one would perform routine experimentation to find out optimum composition of the cathode active layer. Conclusion The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5932 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Keith Walker can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-3458 . 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. /KEVIN E YOON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 3/11/2026