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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 “at least one selected from the group consisting of a SnY compound phase and a AlY compound phase ”, however, the Markush group for Y is not defined in the claim limitation. Y is defined in the dependent claims 5-11. For the purposes of this examination , Y is defined as a group consisting all Y elements defined in claims 5-11. Claims 2 - 4 are rejected as containing the unclear language of the parent claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . Claim s 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Kimura et al. (US 20200251723 ) . Claim 1: Kimura ‘ 723 teaches a Si alloy for a negative electrode, wherein the Si alloy compr ises a Si phase , a Si - Zr compound phase and a Sn - Cu compound phase [0010] , wherein the active material comprising Si alloy powder has an average particle diameter within the range 1 µ m to 1 0 µ m [0027], and the proportion of the Si phase in an entire Si alloy is 10 mass% to 80 mass% [0015] . Kimura ‘723 does not identically teach the range 30 mass% to 95 mass% . However, overlapping ranges have been held to support a case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05.I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used a composition of the Si alloy comprising mass% of the Si phase in the range 30 mass% to 95 mass% with a reasonable expectation of success because they are within the range taught by Kimura ‘723. Claim 3: Kimura ‘723 teaches the negative electrode active material comprising the Si alloy powder has an average particle diameter within the range 1 µ m to 1 0 µ m [0027]. Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Kimura et al. (US 20200251723) , and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Kimura et al. (US 8715857) . Claim 2: Kimura ‘723 teaches a Si alloy powder comprising a Si compound phase, Si-Zr [0010]. Kimura ‘723 does not teach Si compounds containing other metals. However, Kimura ‘857 teaches a Si alloy powder comprising a Si -Fe compound (Col 2 line 64). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to modify Kimura ‘723’s anode active material Si alloy composition by substituting the Si-Zr compound phase with Si -Fe compound because Kimura ‘ 857 teaches that such a mixture makes an operative anode electrode. Claim 4: Kimura ‘ 723 teaches the Si phase, the Si -Zr compound phase, and the Sn -Cu phase are separately present in a separate state (Fig. 1) and the average size of the Si phase is 435 nm (the average size calculated from Table 2 ) . Kimura ‘723 does not teach the particle size diameters of the other phases. Kimura ‘857 does not explicitly teach the average particle size diameters of the different phases , however, Kimura ‘857 discloses the scanning electron microscop y (SEM) image analysis results of a negative electrode active material (Col lines 5-6) which distinctly show the particles of the Si -Fe compound phase ( Fig. 3A) , the Sn -Cu compound phase (Figs. 3B ) , and the Si phase (Fig . 3D). Th us, th e average particle diameter ratios can be calculated from estimat ed relative maximum average particle diameters for each phase in the images (see Fig. 1) . In accordance with this calculation, the average particle diameter ratios , mdSi / mdSi -Fe and mdSi / mdSn -Cu , are 2.1 and 2.5, respectively . These ratios are within the range 0.1 to 5.0. The ratios can be used to estimate the actual average particle diameters of the Si-Fe phase and the Sn-Cu phase based on the average particle size of the Si phase that Kim ‘857 teaches ( 1.6 µ m , calculated from Table 1 ). As such, the average particle diameters for the Si-Fe compound and the Sn-Cu compound phases are 0.8 µ m and 0.6 µ m , respectively. These average particle diameters are within the range 0.1 µ m to 50 µ m . Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to make Kimura ‘723’s Si alloy pow der wherein the average particle diameter s of the Si , Si -Zr and Sn -Cu, are 1.6 µ m , 0.8 µ m and 0.6 µ m , respectively, because Kimura ‘857 teaches that suc h is a functional Si alloy powder for an anode electrode . FIG. 1 Relative average diameters of the Si , Si-Fe and Sn-Cu phases. Claim s 5 -11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Kimura et al. (US 20200251723) , and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Park et al. (US 20220140343) . Claims 5-1 1 : Kimura ‘723 teaches a Si alloy for a negative electrode, wherein the Si alloy compr ises a Si phase , a Si -Zr compound phase and a Sn -Cu compound phase [0010]. Kimura ‘ 723 does not teach Al compounds, or Sn compounds comprising other elements except for Cu. However, Park teaches anode active material [0057] comprising Si [0058] , Si- Zr alloy [0058] and a Sn alloy Sn-R where R could be Ag , Ca , Ga , Mo , Os , Rh or Tl [0059]. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to modify Kimura ‘ 723 ’s anode active material Si alloy composition by substituting the Sn-Cu compound phase with one of Park’s Sn compounds because Park teaches that suc h are operative anode electrode. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. FILLIN "Enter the appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT Hirono et al. (US20140370386) teaches a Si-based alloy anode material comprising a Si phase, Si compound phas e and a Sn or Al compound phase comprising Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co Ni, cu, Zr or Nb. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LINAH RUSERE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9954 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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 Michael Cleveland can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1418 . 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. /L.N.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 1712 /MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712