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. Summary This is the initial Office Action based on Application 18/240,811 filed 08/31/2023 by Myeong-Seong Kim, Ki-Hyun Kim, Yun-Jung Kim, and Do- Joong Lee. Claims 1-17 are currently pending and have been fully considered. 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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (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. Claim(s) 1- 4 , 6- 11 , and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a1) as being anticipated by ZAGHIB (US 2020/0365887 A1) . With respect to claims 1-3. ZAGHIB teaches an electrode material including metallic lithium and at least two additional metallic components X1 and X2 (paragraph 0041). These components X1 and X2 may include Mg and Sr (Table 1). With respect to claim 4 and 6- 9 . In one example there may be a binary Li-Mg alloy with lithium present in 90% by weight and mg in 10% by weight (paragraph 0094-0095). With respect to claim 10. ZAGHIB teaches the binary Li-Mg alloy is formed into a foil (paragraph 0097). With respect to claim 11. ZAGHIB teaches the lithium alloy is supported on a current collector (paragraph 0109). With respect to claims 16-17. ZAGHIB teaches melting lithium, magnesium is added, and the allow temperature is increased to 300 degrees C for 30 minutes to dissolve the magnesium and allow the homogenization of the liquid mixture (paragraph 0096). This is then cooled to room temperature (paragraph 0096). This is then taken to form a billet (paragraph 0097) which is taken to be analogous to the claimed ingot. The billet is then thinned to form the desired thickness (paragraph 0048 and 0097). 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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZAGHIB (US 2020/0365887 A1) . Claim 5 is dependent upon claim 1 which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of ZAGHIB. ZAGHIB teaches the amount of lithium compared to the metallic component may be 65-99.8 % by weight (paragraph 0057). Therefore this is taken to include an overlapping range with the claimed amount of 0.1 mol% to 1.3 mol%. See MPEP 2144.05(I). 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) . Claim (s) 12-1 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZAGHIB (US 2020/0365887 A1) in view of LEE (US 2021/0167385 A1) . Claim 12 is dependent upon claim 1, which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of ZAGHIB and claims 13-14 are dependent upon claim 12 . ZAGHIB teaches a battery cells using the negative electrode (paragraphs 0108-0122). ZAGHIB does not explicitly teach a separate separator and separate postivie electrode material containing sulfur. LEE teaches a lithium sulfur battery (paragraph 0047). The battery includes a negative electrode of a lithium alloy (paragraph 0049). There is a separator disposed between the negative and positive electrodes (paragraph 0051). Electrolytes may be used and include a lithium salt and a solvent (paragraph 0053). The solvents may include a mixture of two solvents (paragraph 0054). The solvents may include cyclic ether and acyclic ether solvents (paragraph 0054). The specific ratio of the two may be achieved as a matter of routine experimentation. At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the lithium alloy negative electrode in the lithium sulfur battery of LEE as this is a combination of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results. With respect to claim 15. LEE teaches a highly improved capacity (paragraph 0023). Therefore it would have been obvious to have the retention capacity rate of more than 95% would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed, as this would be achieved as a matter of routine optimization for one of ordinary skill in the art in order to maximize the capacity. 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 . Claims 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/240,718 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application ‘718 claims a negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery comprising a lithium magnesium-aluminum alloy (claim 1). Magnesium taken to be the claimed alkaline earth metal. 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 JONATHAN G JELSMA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5127 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM 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. /JONATHAN G JELSMA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722