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. DETAILED ACTIO N 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 . Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2012185974. Regarding claim 1, JP ‘974 is directed to an all-solid battery comprising cathode and anode current collectors (11, 21), cathode and anode layers (12, 22), and a solid electrolyte (40). The cathode layer contains a cathode active material and a first solid electrolyte, the anode layer contains an anode active material and a second solid electrolyte and the electrolyte layer contains a third solid electrolyte ([0026], [0027], [0034], [0035]). The cathode contains a peripheral (end) portion (12h) and a central portion (12c), and the amount of positive electrode material in the peripheral portion is smaller than an amount in the central portion (abstract). Therefore, the limitation “the cathode layer includes a region where the plurality of particles constituting the first solid electrolytes are filled or continuously densely packed in a sliced surface of the cathode layer in a case where an end of the cathode layer is sliced” is met. This is because in a hypothetical sliced surface in the end portion of the cathode, there would exist a region that includes the first solid electrolyte being “filled or continuously densely packed” since there are fewer active material particles in the end portion. The reference does not expressly teach the limitation in claim 1 that a distance between two adjacent active material particles having a positional relationship across the region is 2 times or more than an average particle size of the cathode active materials as recited in claim 1. However, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the reference first indicates that the particle size of the positive electrode material is 1-20 microns ([0043]). The reference further teaches in an example that the overall weight ratio of active material:electrolyte in the positive electrode is 70:30 ([0059]) but that the amount of positive active material in the peripheral region is 50 wt % or more. This provides guidance for relative amounts of active material in the center and peripheral regions. Depending on the particle size used (especially i f toward the lower end of 1 micron) and the weight ratio used, the distance between the particles would be larger, that is, the gap would be filled in by electrolyte particles as noted above . Therefore, the claimed limitation is considered to be a result of the optimization of the particle size vs. the amount in the peripheral portion, the ranges o f which are broadly taught by the reference. It would have been within the skill of the art to construct a positive electrode meeting the claim limitation, as this would have only involved routine skill in the art based on the teachings of JP ‘974 . Regarding claim 2, the claim recites first and second sliced surfaces obtained by slicing the end of the cathode layer and a central portion of the cathode layer respectively, the first surface has a proportion occupied by cathode material per unit area A and the second surface has a proportion occupied by cathode material per unit area B, and A/B is than or equal to 0.9. Based on the information provided above regarding positive active material content, is it submitted that this relationship would be met based on the relative amounts in each region. The invention of JP ‘974 helps solve the problem of high current concentration near the peripheral areas of the cathode by decreasing the cathode materials in the peripheral area. Accordingly, the claimed ratio would be rendered obvious to one skilled in the art. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 3 recites, in addition to the subject matter of claim 2, that in a case where the cathode layer includes third and fourth surfaces obtained by slicing the end and the central portion of the cathode respectively, that the third surface has a proportion occupied per unit area C of cathode active materials, and that the fourth surface has a proportion occupied per unit area D of cathode active materials, and C/D is greater or equal to 1.1 is satisfied. JP ‘974, the closest prior art, teaches less material in the peripheral (end) portion than the center and does not teach or suggest the claimed ratio. Claim 4 recites a method for producing the all-solid battery of claim 1 which comprises a cathode layer forming step of dry coating a cathode layer, a preliminary pressurizing step of pressurizing the coating to form a cathode layer, a stacking step of stacking the cathode layer, solid electrolyte, and anode layer, and a pressing step of pressurizing the stacked body, wherein the in the preliminary pressurizing step a first portion of the cathode is pressurized with a stronger pressure than a second portion. JP ‘974, the closest art, teaches that pressure molding conditions can be “appropriately selected” when making the cathode on the cathode current collector, but does not teach or suggest the claimed preliminary pressing step of pressurizing different portions of the cathode at different pressures as claimed. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan Crepeau whose telephone number is (571) 272-1299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher , can be reached at (571) 270-3879 . The phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272-1700. Documents may be faxed to the central fax server at (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /Jonathan Crepeau/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 DATE \@ "MMMM d, yyyy" \* MERGEFORMAT March 17, 2026