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 s (IDS) submitted on Mar. 31, 2023 and Oct. 22, 2025 have been considered by the examiner. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections Claim s 1-2, 4-6, 9-10, 14 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: The “a width to length ratio of the anode active material” recited in claim 1, line 3 does appear to be “a width to length ratio of the anode active material particles ”. The issue also applies similarly to at least claims 2, 4-6, 9-10, 14 and 20. Appropriate correction is required. 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claim 4 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. In claim 4 , Dv99 and Dv50 are not defined , rendering the claim indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Claim s 1, 4, 6, 9, 12, 14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (CN 112689919 A, whose family application in English, US 20230052908 A1, is being employed for citation purposes, hereafter referred to as Jin ). Regarding claim 1 , Jin teaches an anode active material (“negative electrode active material”, [0006]) , comprising particles of the anode active material with a n AR 10 of <0.3 (See “greater than 3.3” in [0006], corresponding to a width/length ratio of <1/3.3, i.e., <0.3) and an AR 50 of <0.5 (See “great than 2” in [0009], corresponding to a width/length ratio of <1/2, i.e., <0.5), wherein AR 10 represents a width to length ratio of the anode active material when a cumulative volume percentage of particles in a volume-based particle size distribution reaches 10%, and AR 50 represents the width to length ratio of the anode active material when the cumulative volume percentage of particles in a volume-based particle size distribution reaches 50% . The claimed ranges of 0.1≤AR 10 <0.2 and 0.2≤AR 50 <0.4 lie inside or overlap the ranges of <0.3 and <0.5, respectively. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I) . Regarding claim 4 , Jin teaches the anode active material according to claim 1, wherein the anode active material has a ratio C004/C110 of diffraction peak area of a 004 crystal plane to that of a 110 crystal plane is in the range of 7 to 18 ([0022]). The instantly claimed ratio of 10 to 40 overlaps that of 7 to 18. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I) . Regarding claim 6 , Jin teaches the anode active material according to claim 1, and the instantly claimed ranges of 0.12≤AR 10 ≤0.19 and 0 .24≤AR 50 ≤0.39 lie inside or overlap the ranges of <0.3 and <0.5, respectively (See the rejection of claim 1). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I) . Regarding claim 9 , Jin teaches a secondary battery (“electrochemical apparatus”, [0107]) , comprising a cathode, a separator, an electrolyte, and an anode ([0108], [0102] -[0103] ) ; the anode (“negative electrode”) comprises an anode current collector and an anode active material layer ([0108]) , and the anode active material layer comprises an anode active material ([0108], [0006]) , wherein particles of the anode active material have a n AR 10 of <0.3 (See “greater than 3.3” in [0006], corresponding to a width/length ratio of <1/3.3, i.e., <0.3) and an AR 50 of <0.5 (See “great than 2” in [0009], corresponding to a width/length ratio of <1/2, i.e., <0.5), wherein AR 10 represents a width to length ratio of the anode active material when a cumulative volume percentage of particles in a volume-based particle size distribution reaches 10%, and AR 50 represents the width to length ratio of the anode active material when the cumulative volume percentage of particles in a volume-based particle size distribution reaches 50% . The claimed ranges of 0.1≤AR 10 <0.2 and 0.2≤AR 50 <0.4 lie inside or overlap the ranges of <0.3 and <0.5, respectively. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I) . Regarding claim 12 , Jin teaches the secondary battery according to claim 9, wherein the anode active material has a ratio C004/C110 of diffraction peak area of a 004 crystal plane to that of a 110 crystal plane is in the range of 7 to 18 ([0022]). The instantly claimed ratio of 10 to 40 overlaps that of 7 to 18. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I) . Regarding claim 14 , Jin teaches the anode active material according to claim 9 , and the instantly claimed ranges of 0.12≤AR 10 < 0.19 and 0 .24≤AR 50 ≤0.39 lie inside or overlap the ranges of <0.3 and <0.5, respectively (See the rejection of claim 9). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I) . Regarding claim 18 , Jin teaches the battery according to claim 9, wherein a ratio C004/C110 of a diffraction peak area of a 004 crystal plane to that of a 110 crystal plane may be, for example, 7 ([0022]), anticipating the instantly claimed range of ≤15. Regarding claim 20 , Jin teaches an electronic device (“electrochemical apparatus”, [0107]), comprising a secondary battery ([0109]), wherein the secondary battery comprises a cathode (“positive electrode” in Jin) , a separator, an electrolyte, and an anode ([0108], [0102] -[0103] ) ; the anode (“negative electrode” in Jin) comprises an anode current collector and an anode active material layer ([0108]) , and the anode active material layer comprises an anode active material ([0108], [0006]) , wherein particles of the anode active material have a n AR 10 of <0.3 (See “greater than 3.3” in [0006], corresponding to a width/length ratio of <1/3.3, i.e., <0.3) and an AR 50 of <0.5 (See “great than 2” in [0009], corresponding to a width/length ratio of <1/2, i.e., <0.5), wherein AR 10 represents a width to length ratio of the anode active material when a cumulative volume percentage of particles in a volume-based particle size distribution reaches 10%, and AR 50 represents the width to length ratio of the anode active material when the cumulative volume percentage of particles in a volume-based particle size distribution reaches 50% . The claimed ranges of 0.1≤AR 10 <0.2 and 0.2≤AR 50 <0.4 lie inside or overlap the ranges of <0.3 and <0.5, respectively. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I) . Claim s 2 -3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tang et al. (CN 112640163 A, whose family application in English , US 20230049766 A1, is being employed for citation purposes, hereafter referred to as Tang ) . Regarding claim s 2 -3 and 7-8 , Jin teaches the anode active material according to claim 1, but is silent as to an AR 90 in the inequations recited in claims 2-3 and 7-8. However, in the same field of endeavor, Tang discloses an AR 90 m ay be in the range of 0.82 to 0.90 ([0052], [0041]) , which may contribute to suppress a swelling of the negative electrode active material layer and thereby minimize a swelling problem of a lithium-ion battery during the cycle process ([0054]). Tang discloses that the AR 90 may be 0.82, for example ([0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Tang into Jin such that the AR 90 of the anode active material of Jin is 0.82 in order to achieve benefits/advantages stated above. As a result, 0.82 is close to the upper limit of the range as claimed in claim 2. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough . See MPEP § 2144.05. Further, in the case of AR 90 = 0.82, AR 90 /AR 5 0 > 1.64 . The claimed range in claim 3 overlaps the range of >1.64. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I) . Prima facie of obviousness exists for ranges as recited in claims 7-8 because of the similar reasons mentioned above. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ou et al. (CN 109817886 A, whose English machine translation is being employed for citation purposes, hereafter Ou ) . Regarding claim 5 , Jin teaches the anode active material according to claim 1, and teaches the anode active material comprises artificial graphite, but does not specify an artificial graphite as instantly claimed. Ou discloses that an artificial graphite used in an anode can be needle coke artificial graphite, petroleum coke artificial graphite and pitch (bitumen) artificial graphite ([0042]). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified Jin such that one or more of needle coke artificial graphite, petroleum coke artificial graphite and bitumen artificial graphite is used as the anode active material of Jin, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin , 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07 . Claims 10-11 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Tang . Regarding claims 10-11 and 15-16 , Jin teaches the anode active material according to claim 9 , but is silent as to an AR 90 in the inequations recited in claims 10-11 and 15-16 . However, in the same field of endeavor, Tang discloses an AR 90 may be in the range of 0.82 to 0.90 ([0052], [0041]), which may contribute to suppress a swelling of the negative electrode active material layer and thereby minimize a swelling problem of a lithium-ion battery during the cycle process ([0054]). Tang discloses that the AR 90 may be 0.82, for example ([0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Tang into Jin such that the AR 90 of the anode active material of Jin is 0.82 in order to achieve benefits/advantages stated above. As a result, 0.82 is close to the upper limit of the range as claimed in claim 10. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough . See MPEP § 2144.05. Further, in the case of AR 90 = 0.82, AR 90 /AR 5 0 > 1.64 . The claimed range in claim 11 overlaps the range of >1.64. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I) . Prima facie of obviousness exists for ranges as recited in claims 15-16 because of the similar reasons mentioned above. Claim s 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ou . Regarding claim 13 , Jin teaches the anode active material according to claim 9 , and teaches the anode active material comprises artificial graphite, but does not specify an artificial graphite as instantly claimed. Ou discloses that an artificial graphite used in an anode can be needle coke artificial graphite, petroleum coke artificial graphite and pitch (bitumen) artificial graphite ([0042]). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified Jin such that one or more of needle coke artificial graphite, petroleum coke artificial graphite and bitumen artificial graphite is used as the anode active material of Jin, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin , 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07 . Regarding claim 19 , Jin teaches the secondary battery according to claim 9, and the instantly claimed limitation represents a characteristic or property of the anode . Since Jin in view of Ou teach the same anode as that of instantly claimed/disclosed (see at least the rejections of claim 9 and 13), the claimed characteristic or property is necessarily present. R egarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Temmyo et al. (US 20120164530 A1, hereafter Temmyo ) . Regarding claim 17 , Jin teaches the secondary battery according to claim 9, but is silent as to instantly claimed configuration of the anode active material. In the same field of endeavor, however, Temmyo discloses that when a long diameter direction of particles of an anode active material, such as graphite, is substantially perpendicular to the surface of the negative electrode current collector (at least: Fig. 1, [0044]), the insertion and extraction of lithium ions can be facilitated and large-current characteristics can be significantly improved ([0046]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Temmyo into Jin such that a long diameter direction of particles of the anode active material of Jin is substantially perpendicular to the current collector in order to facilitate insertion and extraction of lithium ions and significantly improve large-current characteristics. Co rrespondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4809 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00 . 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 Barbara Gilliam can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1330 . 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. /ZHONGQING WEI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727