CTNF 18/648,218 CTNF 101423 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application Claim 20 is withdrawn in the application Election/Restrictions 08-08 AIA Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121: I. Claim s 1-19 , drawn to an all-solid secondary battery , classified in H01M 4/136 . II. Claim 20 , drawn to a method of preparing an all-solid secondary battery , classified in H01M 10/052 . 08-13 AIA The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because: 08-18 AIA Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process such as the M 2 S and molybdenum sulfide are mixed with the solid electrolyte and carbonaceous material in one step, as opposed to mixing the M 2 S and molybdenum sulfide first followed by the solid electrolyte and carbonaceous material . Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: -the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; -the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or -the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries) . 18-22 AIA Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention . The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. 08-23 AIA During a telephone conversation with Katherine L. Quigley on 1 June 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I , claim s 1-19 . Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. 08-21-04 AIA The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined. In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01. Double Patenting 08-35 AIA Claim s 1, 4, 10, 15-17 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 5, 9, 12-13, 15, and 17-19 of copending Application No. 18/496,685 (reference application), hereinafter ‘685 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because : Regarding Claim 1 , ‘685 claims an all solid secondary battery ( solid secondary battery ) comprising: a cathode layer; an anode layer; and a solid electrolyte layer between the cathode layer and the anode layer, wherein the cathode layer comprises a cathode current collector and a cathode active material layer on at least one side of the cathode current collector, wherein the cathode active material layer comprises a composite cathode active material ( claim 1 ), a carbonaceous material ( claim 12 ), and a solid electrolyte, wherein the composite cathode active material comprises a composite comprising: M 2 S, M being alkali metal, the alkali metal being lithium (Li) or sodium (Na) ( claim 1 ), and one or more molybdenum compounds selected from among molybdenum sulfide such as MoS 2 ( claim 1 and claim 5 ) and wherein the anode layer comprises an anode current collector and a first anode active material layer on at least one side of the anode current collector ( claim 13 ). Regarding Claim 4, ‘685 claims an amount of the solid electrolyte in the cathode active material layer is about 10 part by weight to about 60 parts by weight, with respect to 100 parts by weight of a total weight of the cathode active material layer ( claim 9 ), which overlaps with the claimed range of about 1 part by weight to about 15 parts by weight, with respect to 100 parts by weight of a total weight of the cathode active material layer. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). ‘685 further claims the solid electrolyte comprises a sulfide-based solid electrolyte, an oxide-based solid electrolyte, a polymer solid electrolyte, or a combination thereof ( claim 9 ). Regarding Claim 10 , ‘685 claims the all-solid secondary battery as claimed in claim 1, wherein the composite comprises transition metal sulfides comprising one or more transition metals selected from among iron, copper, cobalt, nickel, vanadium, niobium, tantalum, chromium, molybdenum, tungsten, zinc, manganese, and titanium, and wherein the transition metal sulfides further comprise Ti 4 O 7 -MoS 2 , V 2 O 5 -MoS 2 , TiS 2 , NbS 2 , Nb 3 S 4 , or a combination thereof ( claim 5 ). Regarding Claim 15 , ‘685 claims the electrolyte layer comprises a solid electrolyte, a gel electrolyte, or a combination thereof, the solid electrolyte comprising a sulfide-based solid electrolyte, an oxide-based solid electrolyte, a polymer solid electrolyte, or a combination thereof, the gel electrolyte comprising a polymer gel electrolyte ( claim 18 ). Regarding Claim 16 , ‘685 claims the solid electrolyte comprises the sulfide-based solid electrolyte; wherein the sulfide-based solid electrolyte is at least one selected from among Li 2 S-P 2 S 5 , Li 2 S-P 2 S 5 -LiX, wherein X is a halogen element, Li 2 S-P 2 S 5 -Li 2 O, Li 2 S-P 2 S 5 -Li 2 O-LiI, Li 2 S-SiS 2 , Li 2 S-SiS 2 -LiI, Li 2 S-SiS 2 -LiBr, Li 2 S-SiS 2 -LiCl, Li 2 S-SiS 2 -B 2 S 3 -LiI, Li 2 S-SiS 2 -P 2 S 5 -LiI, Li 2 S-B 2 S 3 , Li 2 S-P 2 S 5 -Z m S n , wherein m and n each are a positive number, and Z is Ge, Zn or Ga, Li 2 S-GeS 2 , Li 2 S-SiS 2 -Li 3 PO 4 , Li 2 S-SiS 2 -Li p MO q , wherein p and q each are a positive number and M is P, Si, Ge, B, Al, Ga or In, Li 7-x PS 6-x Cl x , wherein 0≤x≤2, Li 7-x PS 6-x Br x , wherein 0≤x≤2, and Li 7-x PS 6-x I x , wherein 0≤x≤2, wherein the sulfide-based solid electrolyte comprises an argyrodite-type solid electrolyte, wherein the argyrodite-type solid electrolyte comprises one or more selected from among Li 6 PS 5 Cl, Li 6 PS 5 Br, and Li 6 PS 5 I, and wherein the argyrodite-type solid electrolyte has a density of about 1.5 g/cc to about 2.0 g/cc ( claim 15 ) Regarding Claim 17 , ‘685 claims at least one of the cathode current collector or the anode current collector comprises a base film and a metal layer on at least one side of the base film, wherein the base film comprises a polymer, the polymer comprising polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polyimide (PI), or a combination thereof, and wherein the metal layer comprises indium (In), copper (Cu), magnesium (Mg), stainless steel, titanium (Ti), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), zinc (Zn), aluminum (Al), germanium (Ge), lithium (Li), or an alloy thereof ( claim 19 ). Regarding Claim 19 , ‘685 claims an inactive member on at least one side surface of the cathode ( claim 17 ) . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 08-37 AIA Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of copending Application No. 18/496,685, hereinafter ‘685 , in view of Le Cras (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0111709). ‘685 is relied upon as described above. ‘685 claims the all-solid secondary battery comprises about 1 part by weight to about 30 parts by weight of the molybdenum compounds, which overlaps with the claimed range of about 1 part by weight to about 40 parts by weight of the molybdenum compounds ( claim 3 ). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). ‘685 does not claim the all-solid secondary battery comprises about 60 parts by weight to about 99 parts by weight of M 2 S. Le Cras teaches an electrode for use in a lithium battery ( [0002] ). The electrode includes a composite of Li 2 S and Mo 6 S 8 ( [0072]- [0073] ). Le Cras is concerned with modulating the relative amounts of Li 2 S to (M+MS w ) where MS w refers to a sulfur containing materials including molybdenum sulfates. (par. [0073]-[0087] and par. [0103]). Le Cras teaches specific composition of ratios between the Li 2 S and MS w in the range of 1-3 following the solid line. (par. [0072] and Fig. 1a). Le Cras also teaches that, when making the Li 2 S-Mo 6 S 8 composite, increasing the amount of Li 2 S in the composite results in an increase of the battery capacity due to the increased participation of sulfur to redox processes ( [0104] ) whereas increasing the content of (M+ MS w ) results in improved cycling behavior. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the relative amounts of Li 2 S and Mo 6 S 8 in the cathode material claimed in ‘685 based on the teachings of Le Cras. Given Le Cras’ teachings of improved performance of the cathode material when the relative amounts of Li 2 S and MS w lies in the range of 1-3, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the content of Li 2 S in the range of 15% or more based on the claimed range of ‘685 of 1-30% by weight of Mo 6 S 8 . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to find the optimal relative ratio of Li 2 S and MS w in order to control the desired capacity and cycling behavior of the active material in Suo, given Le Cras’ explicit recognition of the result effective nature of the ratios of the materials. As the quantity and quality of the capacity and cycling behavior can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of the amount of Li 2 S, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 (II) . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Claims 3 and 5-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 3 of copending Application No. 18/496,685, hereinafter ‘685, in view of Suo (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2020/244333). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2020244333-A1 ‘685 is relied upon as described above. Regarding Claim 3 , ‘685 does not claim the carbonaceous material comprises a fibrous carbonaceous material, wherein the fibrous carbonaceous material comprises a carbon nanostructure, wherein the carbon nanostructure comprises carbon nanofibers, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanobelts, carbon nanorods, or a combination thereof, and wherein an amount of the carbonaceous material is about 0.1 parts by weight to about 10 parts by weight, with respect to 100 parts by weight of a total weight of the cathode active material layer. Suo teaches Suo teaches an all-solid secondary battery ( novel solid-state battery, title, which includes a solid electrolyte, [0017] ) which includes a cathode layer, an anode layer, and a solid electrolyte layer between the cathode layer and the anode layer ( abstract, [0041], and fig. 1, ref. #2-#4 ). Suo further teaches the carbonaceous material comprises a fibrous carbonaceous material, wherein the fibrous carbonaceous material comprises a carbon nanostructure of carbon nanotubes ( [0015] ). An amount of the carbonaceous material is 0 parts by weight to about 30 parts by weight, with respect to 100 parts by weight of a total weight of the cathode active material layer ( [0036] ), with the addition of the carbon nanotubes in this weight range increasing the conductivity of the cathode material ( [0004] ). This overlaps with the claimed range of about 0.1 parts by weight to about 10 parts by weight, with respect to 100 parts by weight of a total weight of the cathode active material layer. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the carbon nanotubes in the mass range of Suo in the claimed invention of ‘685. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion for the increased conductivity of the cathode material. Regarding Claim 5, ‘685 does not claim the composite further comprises a carbonaceous material, and wherein an amount of the carbonaceous material is about 1 part by weight to about 20 parts by weight, with respect to 100 parts by weight of a total weight of the M 2 S and the molybdenum compounds. Suo further teaches the composite further comprises a carbonaceous material, and wherein an amount of the carbonaceous material is 0 part by weight to 30 parts by weight, with respect to 100 parts by weight of the cathode active material layer ( [0036] ). Suo also teaches the mass range of the M 2 S and molybdenum compounds is 5 parts by weight to 100 parts by weight, with respect to 100 parts by weight of the cathode active material layer ( [0016] ), this results in an amount of the carbonaceous material is 0 part by weight to 30 parts by weight, with respect to 100 parts by weight of the cathode active material layer. The addition of the carbon nanotubes in this weight range increasing the conductivity of the cathode material ( [0004] ). The mass range of Suo overlaps with the claimed range of the carbonaceous material being about 1 part by weight to about 20 parts by weight, with respect to 100 parts by weight of a total weight of the M 2 S and the molybdenum compounds. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the carbon nanotubes in the mass range of Suo in the claimed invention of ‘685. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion for the increased conductivity of the cathode material. Regarding Claim 6 , ‘685 does not claim the carbonaceous material of the composite comprises a fibrous carbonaceous material, wherein the fibrous carbonaceous material comprises a carbon nanostructure, and wherein the carbon nanostructure comprises carbon nanofibers, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanobelts, carbon nanorods, or a combination thereof. Suo further teaches the carbonaceous material of the composite comprises a fibrous carbonaceous material, wherein the fibrous carbonaceous material comprises a carbon nanostructure, and wherein the carbon nanostructure comprises carbon nanotubes ( [0015] ), which is a conductive carbon material that increases the conductivity of the cathode material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the carbon nanotubes of Suo in the claimed invention of ‘685. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion for the increased conductivity of the cathode material. 08-37 AIA Claim s 11-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 14 of copending Application No. 18/496,685, hereinafter ‘685 , in view of Ku (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0280873). ‘685 is relied upon as described above Regarding Claim 11 , ‘685 does not claim the first anode active material layer comprises an anode active material and a binder, and wherein the anode active material has a form of particles, and the particles have an average particle diameter of 4 µm or less. Ku teaches an all-solid secondary battery that includes a cathode, an anode, and a solid electrolyte layer between the cathode and the anode ( [0016]-[0020] ). The anode layer includes a binder ( [0096] ), which helps to stabilize the first anode active material layer and suppress cracks in the first anode active material layer ( [0097] ), in turn increasing stability of the battery. Ku further teaches the first anode active material layer contains anode active material has in the form of particles with an average particle diameter of 4 µm or less, which allows for reversible absorbing and/or desorbing of lithium during charge/discharge. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the binder and particle anode active material of Ku in the anode active material layer of the claimed invention of ‘685. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion for the increased stability of the battery and for reversible absorbing and/or desorbing of lithium during charge/discharge. Regarding Claim 12, ‘685 claims the anode active material layer comprises at least one selected from among a carbonaceous anode active material and a metal or metalloid anode active material, wherein the carbonaceous anode active material comprises amorphous carbon, crystalline carbon, porous carbon, or a combination thereof, and wherein the metal or metalloid anode active material comprises gold (Au), platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd), silicon (Si), silver (Ag), aluminum (Al), bismuth (Bi), tin (Sn), zinc (Zn), or a combination thereof ( claim 14 ). Regarding Claim 13 , ‘685 does not claim the anode active material comprises a mixture of first particles comprising amorphous carbon, and second particles comprising a metal or metalloid, nor an amount of the second particles is about 1 wt% to about 60 wt% with respect to a total weight of the mixture. Ku further teaches the anode active material comprises a mixture of first particles comprising amorphous carbon, and second particles comprising a metal or metalloid ( [0094] ). Ku also teaches an amount of the second particles is about 8 wt% to about 60 wt% with respect to a total weight of the mixture ( [0095] ), which overlaps with the claimed range of the second particles is about 1 wt% to about 60 wt% with respect to a total weight of the mixture. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). The mixture of the first and second particles with this composition allows for improved cycle characteristics of the all-solid secondary battery ( [0095] ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the first and second particles with the composition as taught by Ku in the anode active material of the claimed invention of ‘685. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion to improve cycle characteristics of the all-solid secondary battery. Regarding Claim 14 , ‘685 does not claim teach a second anode active material layer between the anode current collector and the first anode active material layer, and/or between the anode current collector and the solid electrolyte layer, wherein the second anode active material layer is a metal layer, the metal layer comprising lithium or a lithium alloy. Ku further teaches a second anode active material layer between the anode current collector and the first anode active material layer which is a metal layer of lithium or a lithium alloy ( [0102] ). This second anode active material layer functions as a lithium reservoir ( [0102] ), in turn increasing improving cycle characteristics of the battery ( [0105] ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the second anode active material layer of Ku in the anode of the claimed invention of ‘685. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion to improve cycle characteristics of the battery . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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 applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-19 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 1 recites the limitation “one or more molybdenum compounds selected from among molybdenum sulfide (Mo 6 S 8 ) and lithiated molybdenum sulfide” in lines 12-13 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if “molybdenum sulfide (Mo 6 S 8 )” means that the molybdenum sulfide must be Mo 6 S 8 , or if be Mo 6 S 8 is an example of a molybdenum sulfide and other molybdenum sulfides (i.e. MoS 2 ) could be used. Furthermore, it is unclear if “lithiated molybdenum sulfide” must be lithiated Mo 6 S 8 or could be other lithiated molybdenum sulfides (i.e. lithiated MoS 2 ). Claim 5 recites the limitation “the composite further comprises a carbonaceous material” in lines 1-2 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear “a carbonaceous material” is the same carbonaceous material that is claimed in Claim 1, line 8, or if it is a separate, additional carbonaceous material. Claims 5-10 and 18 recite the limitation “the composite” which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if “the composite” is in reference to the “composite cathode active material” in claim 1 lines 7-8 or the “composite comprising: M 2 S; and one or more molybdenum compounds selected from among molybdenum sulfide (Mo 6 S 8 ) and lithiated molybdenum sulfide” in claim 1 lines 9-13. Claim 6 recites the limitation “the carbonaceous material” in lines 1-2 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear “the carbonaceous material” is the same carbonaceous material that is claimed in Claim 1, line 8, or “a carbonaceous material” in Claim 5, line 2. Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein, after milling, the molybdenum sulfide has a length, a thickness, and a width each in a range of about 0.01 µm to about 1 µm” in lines 12-13 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what is being milled, whether that be only the molybdenum sulfide, the composite in which it is included, or some mixture of the materials that are in the composite. Furthermore, it is unclear if the lengths, widths, and thickness of the molybdenum sulfide listed are used in the composite, or if the molybdenum sulfide used in the composite is the molybdenum sulfide after milling, as none of the sizes claimed for the molybdenum sulfide are identified as pre-milling or in the composite cathode active material. Furthermore, it is unclear if the limitation is claiming the size of the molybdenum sulfide used in the composite cathode active material or if it is a statement of intended use for the molybdenum sulfide. Claim 7 recites the limitation “the molybdenum sulfide has a form of plates or a form of fibers” in line 3, and “wherein, after milling, the molybdenum sulfide has a length, a thickness, and a width each in a range of about 0.01 µm to about 1 µm.” in lines 12-13 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear how the molybdenum sulfide can be in the form of a fiber and have sizes in a length dimension, a thickness dimension, and a width dimension. Claim 8 recites the limitation “molybdenum sulfide in a form of particles” which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if the molybdenum sulfide must be in the form of particles, or if this is an optional limitation only when the molybdenum sulfide in the form of particles, as the molybdenum sulfide being in the form of particles is not positively claimed. Claim 8 recites the limitation “the average particle diameter of the composite” in line 5 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the composite has an average particle diameter as none has been positively claimed. Claim 9 recites the limitation “the M 2 S is lithium sulfide (Li 2 S)” in lines 1-2 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear “the M 2 S is lithium sulfide (Li 2 S)” is positively claiming that the lithium sulfide must be Li 2 S, or that Li 2 S is an example of a possible lithium sulfide that can be used. Claim 9 recites the limitation “a Li 2 S-Li x Mo 6 S 8 (0<x≤4) composite” in lines 2-3 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear “a Li 2 S-Li x Mo 6 S 8 (0<x≤4) composite” is positively claiming that the value of x must be greater than 0 and less than or equal to 4, or if this is an example range of possible values of x. Claim 16 recites the limitation “the solid electrolyte comprises the sulfide-based solid electrolyte; wherein the sulfide-based solid electrolyte is at least one selected from among Li 2 S-P 2 S 5 , Li 2 S-P 2 S 5 -LiX, wherein X is a halogen element, Li 2 S-P 2 S 5 -Li 2 O, Li 2 S-P 2 S 5 -Li 2 O-LiI, Li 2 S-SiS 2 , Li 2 S-SiS 2 -LiI, Li 2 S-SiS 2 -LiBr, Li 2 S-SiS 2 -LiCl, Li 2 S-SiS 2 -B 2 S 3 -LiI, Li 2 S-SiS 2 -P 2 S 5 -LiI, Li 2 S-B 2 S 3 , Li 2 S-P 2 S 5 -Z m S n , wherein m and n each are a positive number, and Z is Ge, Zn or Ga, Li 2 S-GeS 2 , Li 2 S-SiS 2 -Li 3 PO 4 , Li 2 S-SiS 2 -Li p MO q , wherein p and q each are a positive number and M is P, Si, Ge, B, Al, Ga or In, Li 7-x PS 6-x Cl x , wherein 0≤x≤2, Li 7-x PS 6-x Br x , wherein 0≤x≤2, and Li 7-x PS 6-x I x , wherein 0≤x≤2, wherein the sulfide-based solid electrolyte comprises an argyrodite-type solid electrolyte, wherein the argyrodite-type solid electrolyte comprises one or more selected from among Li 6 PS 5 Cl, Li 6 PS 5 Br, and Li 6 PS 5 I, and wherein the argyrodite-type solid electrolyte has a density of about 1.5 g/cc to about 2.0 g/cc” in lines 1-15 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if the sulfide-based solid electrolyte is one of the materials listed in Claim 16 lines 3-9 and it is also an argyrodite-type solid electrolyte with the further limitations to the argyrodite-type solid electrolyte, or if the sulfide-based solid electrolyte is either one of the materials listed in Claim 16 lines 3-9 or an argyrodite-type solid electrolyte with the further limitations to the argyrodite-type solid electrolyte. Claim 16 recites the limitation “an argyrodite-type solid electrolyte” in lines 10-11 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if “the argyrodite-type solid electrolyte” is a solid electrolyte with an argyrodite crystal structure, or if is a solid electrolyte with properties similar to those with an argyrodite crystal structure. Claim 18 recites the limitation “a second peak appearing at a diffraction angle of 2θ=33±0.5°, corresponding to crystal plane (122) of Mo 6 S 8 on an XRD spectrum of Mo 6 S 8 utilized in preparation of the composite” in lines 4-6 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if Mo 6 S 8 is intended to be positively claimed as the molybdenum sulfide compound in the composite cathode active material, as it is listed in the alternative with lithiated molybdenum sulfide in Claim 1 lines 12-13. Claims 2-19 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 9, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Suo (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2020/244333). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2020244333-A1 Regarding Claim 1 , Suo teaches an all-solid secondary battery ( novel solid-state battery, title, which includes a solid electrolyte, [0017] ) which includes a cathode layer, an anode layer, and a solid electrolyte layer between the cathode layer and the anode layer ( abstract, [0041], and fig. 1, ref. #2-#4 ). The cathode layer comprises a cathode current collector ( fig. 1 ref. #1 ) and a cathode active material layer on at least one side of the cathode current collector ( fig. 1 ref. #2, and [0041] ). The cathode active material layer comprises a composite cathode active material ( [0028] ), a carbonaceous material, and a solid electrolyte ( [0036] ). The composite cathode active material comprises a composite comprising: M 2 S, M being the alkali metal Li ( Li 2 S, [0035] ) and the molybdenum sulfide Mo 6 S 8 ( [0034] and [0045] ). The anode layer comprises an anode current collector and a first anode active material layer ( fig. 1 ref. #4 ) on at least one side of the anode current collector ( fig. 1 ref. #5, and [0041] ). Regarding Claim 9 , Suo further teaches that the Li 2 S and Mo 6 S 8 are mixed by ball milling ( [0039] ), which will result in a Li 2 S-Mo 6 S 8 composite being formed. Regarding Claim 15, Suo further teaches the electrolyte layer comprises a sulfide-based solid electrolyte ( [0032] ). Regarding Claim 16 , Suo further teaches the solid electrolyte comprises the sulfide-based solid electrolyte, wherein the sulfide-based solid electrolyte is Li 2 S-P 2 S 5 ( [0032] ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suo (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2020/244333). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2020244333-A1 Regarding Claim 3, Suo further teaches the carbonaceous material comprises a fibrous carbonaceous material, wherein the fibrous carbonaceous material comprises a carbon nanostructure of carbon nanotubes ( [0015] ). An amount of the carbonaceous material is 0 parts by weight to about 30 parts by weight, with respect to 100 parts by weight of a total weight of the cathode active material layer ( [0036] ). This overlaps with the claimed range of about 0.1 parts by weight to about 10 parts by weight, with respect to 100 parts by weight of a total weight of the cathode active material layer. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Regarding Claim 4 , Suo further teaches the solid electrolyte comprises a sulfide-based solid electrolyte ( [0032]-[0033] ). An amount of the solid electrolyte in the cathode active material layer is 0 parts by weight to 30 parts by weight, with respect to 100 parts by weight of a total weight of the cathode active material layer ( [0036] ). This overlaps with the claimed range of an amount of the solid electrolyte in the cathode active material layer is about 1 part by weight to about 15 parts by weight, with respect to 100 parts by weight of a total weight of the cathode active material layer. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Regarding Claim 5 , Suo further teaches the composite further comprises a carbonaceous material, and wherein an amount of the carbonaceous material is 0 part by weight to 30 parts by weight, with respect to 100 parts by weight of the cathode active material layer ( [0036] ). As the mass range of the M 2 S and molybdenum compounds is 5 parts by weight to 100 parts by weight, with respect to 100 parts by weight of the cathode active material layer ( [0016] ), this results in an amount of the carbonaceous material is 0 part by weight to 30 parts by weight, with respect to 100 parts by weight of the cathode active material layer. This overlaps with the claimed range of the carbonaceous material being about 1 part by weight to about 20 parts by weight, with respect to 100 parts by weight of a total weight of the M 2 S and the molybdenum compounds. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Regarding Claim 6 , Suo further teaches the carbonaceous material of the composite comprises a fibrous carbonaceous material, wherein the fibrous carbonaceous material comprises a carbon nanostructure, and wherein the carbon nanostructure comprises carbon nanotubes ( [0015] ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suo (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2020/244333) in view of Le Cras (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0111709). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2020244333-A1 Suo is relied upon as described above. Suo further teaches the all-solid secondary battery comprises 5 parts by weight to about 100 parts by weight of the molybdenum compound, with respect to 100 parts by weight of the composite cathode active material ( [0016] ). This overlaps with the claimed range of about 1 part by weight to about 40 parts by weight of the molybdenum compounds, with respect to 100 parts by weight of the composite cathode active material. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Suo further teaches the all-solid secondary battery comprises up to 45 parts by weight of M 2 S ( [0048], in which S is used as an alternative for Li 2 S, listed in [0013] ). Suo does not explicitly teach the all-solid secondary battery comprises about 60 parts by weight to about 99 parts by weight of M 2 S. Le Cras teaches an electrode for use in a lithium battery ( [0002] ). The electrode includes a composite of Li 2 S and Mo 6 S 8 ( [0072]- [0073] ). Le Cras is concerned with modulating the relative amounts of Li 2 S to (M+MS w ) where MS w refers to a sulfur containing materials including molybdenum sulfates. ( [0073]-[0087] and [0103] ). Le Cras teaches specific composition ratios between the Li 2 S and MS w in the range of 1-3 following the solid line. ( [0072] and fig. 1a ). Le Cras also teaches that, when making the Li 2 S-Mo 6 S 8 composite, increasing the amount of Li 2 S in the composite results in an increase of the battery capacity due to the increased participation of sulfur to redox processes ( [0104] ) whereas increasing the content of (M+ MS w ) results in improved cycling behavior ( [0105]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the relative amounts of Li 2 S and Mo 6 S 8 in the cathode material disclosed in Suo based on the teachings of Le Cras. Given Le Cras’ teachings of improved performance of the cathode material when the relative amounts of Li 2 S and MS w lies in the range of 1-3, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the content of Li 2 S in the range of 15% or more (3x 5% of Mo 6 S 8 ) based on the disclosure in Suo of 5-100% by weight of Mo 6 S 8 . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to find the optimal relative ratio of Li 2 S and MS w in order to control the desired capacity and cycling behavior of the active material in Suo, given Le Cras’ explicit recognition of the result effective nature of the ratios of the materials. As the quantity and quality of the capacity and cycling behavior can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of the amount of Li 2 S, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 (II) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suo (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2020/244333) in view of Xu (Xu, Jili et. al., Chevrel Phase Mo6S8 Nanosheets Featuring Reversible Electrochemical Li-Ion Intercalation as Effective Dynamic-Phase Promoter for Advanced Lithium-Sulfur Batteries, 2023, Small, Volume 19, Issue 29, page 2300042), and Guo (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0373342) For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2020244333-A1 . Suo is relied upon as described above. Suo does not teach the molybdenum sulfide has the form of plates, the plates of the molybdenum sulfide have an average length of about 1 µm to about 50 µm, an average thickness of about 0.01 µm to about 10 µm, and an average width of about 1 µm to about 30 µm. Xu teaches Chevrel phase Mo 6 S 8 nanosheets for lithium sulfur batteries ( title ). Xu further teaches the molybdenum sulfide has the form of plates ( nanosheets ), the plates of the molybdenum sulfide have an average length and width that is “several micrometers” ( page 2, column 2, lines 2-4, and Supporting Information, fig. S3 and S4 ) which will be understood to mean more than 1 micrometer and less than 10 micrometers. Xu further teaches the thickness of the Mo 6 S 8 plates is tens of nanometers ( page 2, column 2, lines 2-3, and Supporting Information, fig. S3 ). Mo 6 S 8 nanosheets of this size allow for high electronic conductivity, fast Li-ion transport, and strong chemical adsorption ( page 8, column 1, lines 1-4 ). These sizes overlap with the claimed range of have an average length of about 1 µm to about 50 µm, an average thickness of about 0.01 µm to about 10 µm, and an average width of about 1 µm to about 30 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the Mo 6 S 8 plates of the sizes as taught by Xu in the positive electrode of Suo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use these Mo 6 S 8 plates for their high electronic conductivity, fast Li-ion transport, and strong chemical adsorption Suo and Xu do not explicitly teach the molybdenum sulfide has a specific surface area of about 1 m 2 /g to about 50 m 2 /g. Guo teaches a battery with a positive electrode that includes Mo 6 S 8 ( [0053] ). The Mo 6 S 8 in the positive electrode has a BET specific surface area of 6.9 m 2 /g ( [0040] ). This example overlaps with the claimed range of about 1 m 2 /g to about 50 m 2 /g. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the specific surface area as taught by Guo in the electrode of Suo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this surface area as it allows for a positive electrode active material with good cycle stability ( Guo, [0030] ). The limitation “wherein, after milling, the molybdenum sulfide has a length, a thickness, and a width each in a range of about 0.01 µm to about 1 µm.” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (MPEP 2111.02). The molybdenum sulfide of modified Suo would be capable of being milled to the specific sizes of the claimed dimension, therefore this limitation would be made obvious by modified Suo . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suo (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2020/244333) in view of Christensen (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0325849), Guo (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0373342) and Tamura (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2018/163895). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2020244333-A1 and JP-2018163895-A . Suo is relied upon as described above Suo further teaches the M 2 S is lithium sulfide ( [0035] ). Suo does not explicitly teach the average particle diameter of the lithium sulfide is about 0.1 nm to about 10 µm. Christensen teaches a lithium sulfur cell ( title ) which includes Li 2 S in the positive electrode active material. Christensen further teaches the average particle diameter of the Li 2 S is 100 nm to 10 μm ( [0016] ), which affords a positive electrode with improved rate capability. This range overlaps with the claimed range of about 0.1 nm to about 10 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the average diameter of Li 2 S as taught by Christensen in the positive electrode active material of Suo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this size for the improved rate capability. Suo and Christensen do not explicitly teach the average particle diameter of the of the molybdenum sulfide in a form of particles is greater than an average particle diameter of the lithium sulfide in a form of particles. Guo teaches a battery with a positive electrode that includes Mo 6 S 8 ( [0053] ). The Mo 6 S 8 in the positive electrode has an average particle size within the range of 1 µm to 2 µm ( [0054] ), which affords an electrode with positive cycle stability characteristics ( [0056] ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the size of Mo 6 S 8 as taught by Guo in the positive electrode active material of Suo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this size as it allows for a positive electrode with positive cycle stability characteristics. Within the range of size for Li 2 S and Mo 6 S 8 of modified Suo, an average particle diameter of the molybdenum sulfide in a form of particles may be greater than an average particle diameter of the lithium sulfide in a form of particles. Suo, Christensen, and Guo do not explicitly teach the average particle diameter of the composite is about 0.1 µm to about 50 µm. Tamura teaches a composite positive electrode active material containing Li, Mo, and S as constituent elements ( abstract ). Tamura further teaches that the composite positive electrode active material has an average particle size of 0.5 μm or more and 20 μm or less, which allows for good handling properties that allows for a higher density positive electrode ( [0017] ). This range overlaps with the claimed range of about 0.1 µm to about 50 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a composite with the size of Tamura in the electrode of modified Suo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this size in order to make a higher density electrode . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suo (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2020/244333) in view of Fanous (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0117547). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2020244333-A1 Suo is relied upon as described above. Suo further teaches the composite comprises transition metal sulfides comprising molybdenum ( [0034] and [0045] ). Suo does not explicitly teach the transition metal sulfides further comprises Ti 4 O 7 -MoS 2 , V 2 O 5 -MoS 2 , TiS 2 , NbS 2 , Nb 3 S 4 , or a combination thereof. Fanous teaches a cathode material for a lithium sulfur battery ( title ). The cathode material contains a transition metal sulfide selected from TiS 2 ( [0053] ), NiNb 3 S 4 , or NbS 2 , ( [0056] ), which enhances electrical conductivity ( [0039] ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the cathode materials of Fanous in the electrode of Suo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion to enhance electrical conductivity . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suo (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2020/244333) in view of Ku (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0280873). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2020244333-A1 Suo is relied upon as described above. Regarding Claim 11 , Suo does not explicitly teach the first anode active material layer comprises an anode active material and a binder, and wherein the anode active material has a form of particles, and the particles have an average particle diameter of 4 µm or less. Ku teaches an all-solid secondary battery that includes a cathode, an anode, and a solid electrolyte layer between the cathode and the anode ( [0016]-[0020] ). The anode layer includes a binder ( [0096] ), which helps to stabilize the first anode active material layer and suppress cracks in the first anode active material layer ( [0097] ), in turn increasing stability of the battery. Ku further teaches the first anode active material layer contains anode active material has in the form of particles with an average particle diameter of 4 µm or less, which allows for reversible absorbing and/or desorbing of lithium during charge/discharge. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the binder and particle anode active material of Ku in the anode active material layer of Suo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion for the increased stability of the battery and for reversible absorbing and/or desorbing of lithium during charge/discharge. Regarding Claim 12 , Suo further teaches the anode active material layer contains a metalloid anode active material comprising silicon (Si) ( [0031] ). Regarding Claim 13 , Suo does not explicitly teach the anode active material comprises a mixture of first particles comprising amorphous carbon, and second particles comprising a metal or metalloid, nor an amount of the second particles is about 1 wt% to about 60 wt% with respect to a total weight of the mixture. Ku further teaches the anode active material comprises a mixture of first particles comprising amorphous carbon, and second particles comprising a metal or metalloid ( [0094] ). Ku also teaches an amount of the second particles is about 8 wt% to about 60 wt% with respect to a total weight of the mixture ( [0095] ), which overlaps with the claimed range of the second particles is about 1 wt% to about 60 wt% with respect to a total weight of the mixture. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). The mixture of the first and second particles with this composition allows for improved cycle characteristics of the all-solid secondary battery ( [0095] ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the first and second particles with the composition as taught by Ku in the anode active material of Suo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion to improve cycle characteristics of the all-solid secondary battery. Regarding Claim 14 , Suo does not explicitly teach a second anode active material layer between the anode current collector and the first anode active material layer, and/or between the anode current collector and the solid electrolyte layer, wherein the second anode active material layer is a metal layer, the metal layer comprising lithium or a lithium alloy. Ku further teaches a second anode active material layer between the anode current collector and the first anode active material layer which is a metal layer of lithium or a lithium alloy ( [0102] ). This second anode active material layer functions as a lithium reservoir ( [0102] ), in turn increasing improving cycle characteristics of the battery ( [0105] ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the second anode active material layer of Ku in the anode of Suo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion to improve cycle characteristics of the battery . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suo (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2020/244333) in view of Oh et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0014031). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2020244333-A1 Suo is relied upon as described above. Suo further teaches the anode layer comprises an anode current collector with a metal layer that comprises copper (Cu) aluminum (Al), stainless steel, or nickel (Ni) ( [0031] ). Suo does not teach at least one of the cathode current collector or the anode current collector comprises a base film and a metal layer on at least one surface of the base film, and wherein the base film comprises a polymer, the polymer comprising polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polyimide (PI), or a combination thereof. Oh teaches one-sided electrode with reduced twisting for a secondary battery ( title ). Oh further teaches a base film ( electrode distortion-preventing layer ) on one surface of an electrode active material layer ( [0037] fig. 2 ref. # 120, #130 ). The base film is made of a polymer ( [0015] ) that is selected from polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), or a combination thereof ( [0043] ), which allows for the prevention of prevents distortion of the electrode, in turn improving the ease of manufacture ( Oh, [0026]-[0027] ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the base film layer of Oh in the anode or cathode of Suo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion as it prevents distortion of the electrode . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suo (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2020/244333) in view of Gofer (US Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0220699). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2020244333-A1 Suo is relied upon as described above. Suo does not explicitly teach a first diffraction angle of a first peak appearing at a diffraction angle 2θ=33±0.5°, corresponding to crystal plane (122) of Mo 6 S 8 on an X-ray diffraction spectrum (XRD) of the composite is smaller than a second diffraction angle of a second peak appearing at a diffraction angle of 2θ=33±0.5°, corresponding to crystal plane (122) of Mo 6 S 8 on an XRD spectrum of Mo 6 S 8 utilized in preparation of the composite. Gofer teaches Chevrel phase materials including Mo 6 S 8 that can be used in battery electrodes ( abstract, [0001], and [0020] ). Gofer also teaches a first diffraction angle of a first peak appearing at a diffraction angle 2θ=33±0.5°, corresponding to crystal plane (122) of Mo 6 S 8 on an X-ray diffraction spectrum (XRD) of the composite is smaller than a second diffraction angle of a second peak appearing at a diffraction angle of 2θ=33±0.5°, corresponding to crystal plane (122) of Mo 6 S 8 on an XRD spectrum of Mo 6 S 8 utilized in preparation of the composite ( fig. 3 ), which allows for an electrode with an expected specific capacity is not less than 85 mAh/gr and the reversibility should be close to 100% ( [0041] ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the Cheverel phase Mo 6 S 8 as taught by Gofer in the electrode. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this material as it allows for an electrode with an expected specific capacity is not less than 85 mAh/gr and the reversibility should be close to 100% . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suo (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2020/244333) in view of Ku (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0280873), further in view of Lee (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0143413). For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2020244333-A1 Suo and Ku are relied upon as described above. Suo and Ku do not explicitly teach an inactive member on at least one side surface of the cathode. Lee teaches an all-solid secondary battery includes a cathode layer; an anode layer; and a solid electrolyte layer disposed between the cathode layer and the anode layer ( abstract ). Lee also teaches an inactive member on at least one side surface of the cathode ( [0047] ), which helps prevent the generation of cracks within the solid electrolyte layer by a pressure difference during a pressing process ( [0051] ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the inactive member of Lee on the cathode layer of Suo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion to reduce cracks in the solid electrolyte layer. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Myles Alan Lovasz whose telephone number is (571)272-0214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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. /MAL/ Myles Alan LovaszExaminer, Art Unit 1788 06/12/2026 /ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/648,218 Page 2 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/648,218 Page 3 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/648,218 Page 4 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/648,218 Page 5 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/648,218 Page 6 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/648,218 Page 7 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/648,218 Page 8 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/648,218 Page 9 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/648,218 Page 10 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/648,218 Page 11 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/648,218 Page 12 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/648,218 Page 13 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/648,218 Page 14 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/648,218 Page 15 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/648,218 Page 16 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/648,218 Page 17 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/648,218 Page 18 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/648,218 Page 19 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/648,218 Page 20 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/648,218 Page 21 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/648,218 Page 22 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/648,218 Page 23 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/648,218 Page 24 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/648,218 Page 25 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/648,218 Page 26 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/648,218 Page 27 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/648,218 Page 28 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/648,218 Page 29 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/648,218 Page 30 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/648,218 Page 31 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/648,218 Page 32 Art Unit: 1788
Prosecution Insights