DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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)(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. Claims 1 -2 , 6 , 8 -9 , 13 , 15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Komaba et al. ( US 20170040612 A1 ), hereinafter Komaba . Regarding claims 1 -2, 6, 8 -9, and 13 , Komaba teaches a rechargeable lithium battery , in this case a lithium cell [0007] capable of repeated charge-discharge cycles [ 0008 ], comprising: A positive electrode [0160] ; An electrolyte [01 60 ]; and a negative electrode [0160] , the negative electrode comprising: a silicon-based negative active material [ 0007, 0 139 ] ; and a binder [00 07, 0122 ] , wherein the binder is an acryl-based copolymer [0 122 ] , and the acryl-based copolymer comprises an acrylic acid first monomer [0122] , an acrylonitrile second monomer, in this case the compound of general formula (III) [0059], and a (meth)acrylate third monomer , in this case the compound of general formula (I) [0 045 ] , the acrylic acid first monomer comprises an acrylic acid (AA) substituted with a lithium ion, in this case lithium is known to be highly reactive with acrylic acid and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the acrylic acid to inherently include substituted lithium during repeated charging and discharging, and the (meth)acrylate third monomer comprises an ethylene glycol group and has a weight-average molecular weight (Mw) less than about 900 g/mol , in this case polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether methacrylate [0045], as also required by claims 6 and 13, which is considered to be equivalent to the 2.5 g, or 5.4 mmol, of methacrylate methoxypolyethylene glycol used in synthesis Example 3 [0165] that can be calculated to have a weight-average molecular weight of 462.96 g/mol , which also lies within the claimed range of 300 g/mol to 600 g/mol of claims 2 and 9 . "If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Regarding claims 15 and 18 , Komaba teaches t he negative electrode of claim 1 and the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 8, wherein the binder is a first binder, and the negative electrode further comprises a second binder, in this case a binder excluding the polymer pertaining to the invention of Komaba , wherein the second binder is an aqueous binder selected from among styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) and acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (ABR) [0148] . Regarding claims 17 and 20, Komaba teaches t he negative electrode of claim 1 and the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 8 , further comprising a carbon-based negative active material [0139]. 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 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaba . Regarding claim 5 and 12, Komaba teaches t he negative electrode of claim 1 and the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 8 . Komaba is silent as to an amount of the (meth)acrylate third monomer being about 5 wt % to about 30 wt % based on the total weight, 100 wt %, of the acrylic acid first monomer, the acrylonitrile second monomer, and the (meth)acrylate third monomer . However , Komaba teaches the compound shown by the general formula (I) being present in an amount of 10 to 1 weight parts based on the total weight of the acrylic acid first monomer, the acrylonitrile second monomer, and the (meth)acrylate third monomer [0133]. This overlaps with the claimed range. 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) . Claim s 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaba in view of Cho et al. ( US 20210305658 A1 ), hereinafter Cho . Komaba teaches t he negative electrode of claim 1 and the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 8. Komaba is silent as to the acrylic acid first monomer comprising an acrylic acid substituted with a lithium ion at a substitution degree of about 40 mol% to about 80 mol%. However, Cho teaches a binder that may be used in the negative electrode [0094] comprising polyacrylonitrile and polymethylmethacrylate [0045] in addition to a polyacrylic acid with a mole ratio of acrylic repeating units substituted with lithium ions of 0.3 to 0.8 [0043]. 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) . Komaba and Cho are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of acrylic polymer binders. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the copolymer of Komaba to include the lithium substituted acrylic acid of Cho as the first monomer . Doing so would have provided a binder with a reduced heat shrinkage rate and increased adhesion force, producing a lithium battery with enhanced thermal stability and suppressed deterioration in the charging and discharging process [0042]. Claim s 4, 11, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaba in view of Yoon et al. ( US 20180114988 A1 ) . Regarding claims 4 and 11 , Komaba teaches t he negative electrode of claim 1 and the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 8. Komaba is silent as to a weight ratio of the acrylic acid first monomer, the acrylonitrile second monomer, and the (meth)acrylate third monomer being about 60 to 25:40:5 to 35 by weight. However, Yoon teaches an acrylic binder comprising at least 30% by weight of an acrylic monomer, like acrylic acid [0019], 30 to 100 parts by weight of a polymerizable monomer having a polar functional group [0030], like acrylonitrile [0029], and 5 to 30 parts by weight of a n alkyl (meth)acrylate [0039]. This is equivalent to a ratio o 30 to 100:30 to 100:5 to 30. 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) . Komaba and Yoon are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of acrylic polymer binders. Examiner acknowledges that Yoon teaches the binder as being included in the cathode layer and is silent as to any interaction with the anode layer. However, Komaba teaches this particular composition as being compatible with the preparation of both positive electrodes and negative electrodes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the weight ratio of the three monomers of Komaba to match those taught by Yoon. Doing so would have provided a binder with excellent dispersion characteristics [0098], as well as prevented dissolution of the electrode active material and ensured excellent cycle characteristics [0097]. Regarding claims 16 and 19, Komaba teaches t he negative electrode of claim 1 and the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 8. Komaba further teaches the electrode composition containing preferably 1 to 10% by weight of the first binder [0147]. Komaba is silent as to a mixing ratio of the first binder and the second binder being about 70:30 to about 40:60 by weight. However, Yoon teaches an electrode composition containing 0.01 to 10 parts by weight of a similar acrylic binder [0052] and 0 to 20 parts by weight of a second non-acrylic binder [0062], such as styrene-butadiene rubber or acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber [0061], relative to 100 parts by weight of the solid content of the composition. 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) . I t would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mixing ratio of the first and second binders of Komaba with the weight contents taught by Yoon. Doing so would have imparted further resistance to dissolution for the electrolyte [0060] and secured desirable binding properties and dispersion characteristics [0052]. Claim s 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaba in view of Son et al. ( US 20140272574 A1 ), hereinafter Son . Komaba teaches t he negative electrode of claim 1 and the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 8. Komaba also teaches the negative electrode further comprising a carbon-based negative active material , as discussed regarding claims 17 and 20 above . Komaba is silent as to the silicon-based negative active material comprising silicon and carbon. However, Son teaches a similar negative electrode composition comprising both a non-carbon based negative active material, like silicon [0072, 0076], and a carbon-based negative active material that are present tangentially , for instance as two separate active materials, or as a n equivalent composite , for instance in a single silicon-based negative active material [0078]. Komaba and Son are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of negative electrodes comprising silicon and carbon active materials . Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the active material composition of Komaba to include the silicon carbon composite of Son. The selection of a known material , in this case a silicon carbon composite, based on its suitability for its intended use , in this case as a silicon-based negative active material, supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim s 1 -20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 8-12, and 18-20 of copending Application No. 18/504,987. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Instant claims 1 and 7 combine to be identical to claim 1 of 18/504,987. Instant claim 2 is identical to claim 8 of 18/504,987. Instant claim 3 is identical to claim 9 of 18/504,987. Instant claim 4 is identical to claim 10 of 18/504,987 and overlaps with claim 12 of 18/504,987. Instant claim 6 is identical to claim 11 of 18/504,987. Instant claim 8 is identical to claim 20 of 18/504,987. Instant claim s 15 and 16 are identical to claim s 18 and 19 of 18/504,987 with swapped dependency . Further, after combining claims 1 and 20 of 18/504,987: Instant claims 1, 8, and 14 combine to be identical to the prior specified combination . Instant claim 9 is also identical to claim 8 of 18/504,987. Instant claim 10 is also identical to claim 9 of 18/504,987. Instant claim 11 is also identical to claim 10 and overlaps with claim 12 of 18/504,987. Instant claim 13 is also identical to claim 11 of 18/504,987. Instant claims 18 and 19 are identical to claims 18 and 19 of 18/504,987 with swapped dependency. All other instant claims depend from claim 1 and are, therefore, also rejected. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DUSTIN KENWOOD VAN KIRK whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-4717 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST . 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 Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3433 . 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. /DUSTIN VAN KIRK/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722 /ANCA EOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722