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 (IDS) submitted on Aug. 7, 2023 has been considered by the examiner. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections Claim 13 is objected to because of the following : In claim 13, the term “concentration” generally refers to a ratio in a liquid phase. It is suggested that the term be modified. 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 s 13 , 19 and 23-2 6 are 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 13 recites an amount (“concentration” recited in the claim) of the constituent based on the total weight of the anode . An anode in the art normally refers to an anode active material layer combined with a current collector on which the said layer is deposited. However, based on the claim languages, i t appears that Applicant intends to claim an amount of the constituent in the anode active material layer. The scope of the claim is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite. For purposes of examination, the claimed amount is interpreted as referring to a ratio of the constituent based on a total weight of the anode active material layer only since it appears to be Applicant’s intent. The term “conductive” recited in claim 19 renders the claim indefinite since it may be electrically conductive or ion conductive. In claims 23 and 24, t he term “ weakening zone ” in claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ weakening zone ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 23 and 24 have been rendered indefinite due to the use of the relative term “weakening zone” . Moreover, the term “temperature sensitivity” recited in claim 24 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to what the term is defined and what the scope of the claim is. The term “substantially” in claim 25 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ substantially ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation in the last paragraph of claim 25 has been rendered indefinite due to the use of the term. In claim 26, it is unclear how to define “inhomogeneities within the electrode arrangement”, which renders the claim indefinite. 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. (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. 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 (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. 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). 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 th r ough 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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103 Claim s 1 0- 12, 14 and 20-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wöhrle et al. (WO 2015114074 A1, whose English machine translation is being employed for citation purposes, hereafter Wöhrle ) . Regarding claim s 1 0 and 11 , Wöhrle teaches a method for producing and operating a lithium-ion battery (at least: Abstract, [0075]) , the method comprising: providing a casing (housing, “1” in Fig. 1); introducing an electrode arrangement (electrode assembly comprising anode 2 and cathode 3, see Fig. 1) into the casing , the electrode arrangement including alternating layers of a cathode and an anode (See Fig. 1), wherein at least one layer of the anode comprises an anode active material including a silicon-based constituent (e.g., “silicon-carbon composite material”, [0024]); arranging at least one flexible volume compensation element (“elastic volume-compensating element” 5) between the electrode arrangement and the casing, the volume compensation element comprising a shell (“51”, Fig. 1) and an electrolyte accommodated within the shell ([0040] , [0073] -[ 0074] ), and the volume compensation element being configured to counteract expansion of the electrode arrangement ([0050-[0052] , [0063] ); and sealing the casing to form the lithium-ion battery (implicitly taught by Wöhrle , because Wöhrle discloses the use of liquid electrolyte and any battery using liquid electrolyte must be sealed). Wöhrle is silent on the limitation recited in the last paragraph of claim 1, however, Wöhrle does disclose that the compressive forces may be sufficient to damage the housing ([0076] -[ 0079] ). If the occurring forces can be great enough to cause damage to the housing or cause it to burst without the volume compensation element, it is implicitly disclosed that the much thinner and mechanically less stable coating of the volume compensation element ([0065]) will accordingly be damaged and bursts as well, and as a result, the last limitation of claim 1 0 is also implicitly taught. Regarding claim 12 , Wöhrle teaches the method according to claim 11. The instantly claimed limitation represents characteristics or properties or functions of “the silicon- and/or titanium-based constituent”. Since Wöhrle teaches a silicon-based constituent, as addressed above, the claimed characteristics or properties as claimed are necessarily present. Regarding 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. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber , 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . See MPEP § 2112.01 . Regarding claim 1 4 , Wöhrle teaches the method according to claim 10, and further discloses that an electrical insulation element can be integrated with the volume compensation element ([0059]). In this case, the electrical insulation element is considered to be the shell of the volume compensation element and reads on “the shell comprises an electrically insulating material” as claimed. Regarding claim s 2 0 -2 6 , Wöhrle teaches the method according to claim 10, and the limitations recited in claim 2 0 - 22 and 25 -26 represent functions, characteristics, or properties of the shell , the ele ctrode arrangement, and the lithium-ion battery. Since Wöhrle teaches substantially the same structure of the lithium-ion battery comprising the shell and the elect rode arrangement , the claimed functions, characteristics, or properties are necessarily. Note that 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. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . See MPEP § 2112.01 . In this case, the portion of the inner wall of the housing that causes the hous ing to be damaged and the shell to be opened (See the rejection of claim 1) reads on “an edge within the casing” as an opening element as claimed. Also see at least paragraphs [0051] -[ 0052], [0063] and [0075]-[0076]. Furthermore, the portion of the shell that starts to open reads on “a weakening zone” as claimed , and one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that the region of the weakening zone of the shell has a lower mechanical resistance than a remainder of the shell. Regarding claim 27 , Wöhrle teaches the method according to claim 10, wherein the at least one flexible volume compensation element is arra nged between the electrode arrangement and the casing at both ends of the electrode arrangement, and the casing thereby containing two flexible volume compensation elements (See Fig. 1). Regarding claim 28 , Wöhrle teaches a rechargeable lithium-sulfur battery produced by the method according to claim 10 (at least Abstract). The lithium-sulfur battery can be considered as a lithium-ion battery since it uses lithium ions. However, based on the teachings in at least paragraphs [0001] - [ 00 12 ] , one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that other type of lithium-ion battery can be similarly produced by the method. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claim s 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wöhrle . Regarding claim 1 3 , Wöhrle teaches the method according to claim 11. When a silicon-carbon composite material is used as the only anode active material ([0024]), the amount of the said material is 100% based on the total weight of the anode active material layer. The 100% is close to the range as claimed. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of Amer. v. Banner , 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP § 2144.05 (I). Regarding claim 1 9 , Wöhrle teaches the method according to claim 10, and the instantly claimed limitation is not patentably distinguishable, because it is generally knowledge for one of ordinary skill that an electrolyte comprising a solvent and a conductive lithium salt (e.g., LiPF 6 ) is widely used in the battery field. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wöhrle , as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Mazza et al. (US 20200227794 A1, hereafter Mazza ) . Regarding claim 15 , Wöhrle teaches the method according to claim 10, and further discloses that an electrical insulation element can be integrated with the volume compensation element ([0059]). In this case, the electrical insulation element is considered to be the shell of the volume compensation element and reads on “the shell comprises an electrically insulating material” as claimed. Wöhrle is silent as to the shell comprising a polymer as instantly claimed. Mazza , however, discloses that a film formed from a polypropylene polymer material can be positioned between individual battery cells so as to prevent electrical current between battery cells ([0043]). Moreover, Wöhrle discloses that the electrical insulation element (shell) integrated with the volume compensation element is the same as that arranged between individual battery cells ([0059]) . 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 teachings of Mazza into Wöhrle such that a film formed of a polypropylene polymer material is positioned between individual battery cells of Wöhrle and integrated with the volume compensation element in order to prevent electric current. It is also noted that 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 . Claim s 1 6-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wöhrle , as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Schröter et al. (WO 2012167812 A1, whose English machine translation is being employed for citation purposes, hereafter Schröter ) . Regarding claims 16-18, Wöhrle teaches the method according to claim 10, but is silent on an inert gas included in the volume compensation element. Schröter , however, discloses a pressure compensation element (“2”, in Figs . 3-6 ) in the form of an elastic hollow body (Abstract, [0046], [0127], etc.) , wherein the pressure compensation element is filled with an inert gas, such as carbon dioxide ([0170]). The pressure compensation element is employed to equalize pressure between the interior of the housing and external environment ([0065], [0019], [0030], [0059], [0063], [0132], [0140], [0144], [0150], etc.) and thereby prevent the energy storage unit from damage, explosion or implosion ([0028] , [0034], [0112], [0134], etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have employed the pressure compensation element taught by Schröter as an alternative to the volume compensation element of Wöhrle to equalize pressure for the battery safety. Wöhrle in view of Schröter teaches a degassing step to remove the inert gas released from the volume compensation element (See, e.g., P1 in Fig. 3 and related description). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily had the s hell opened during a first-time charging of the lithium-ion battery by operating a valve ([0032], [0044], [0083] -[ 0084], [0174], [0195], [0207], [0218], etc., Schröter ). 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