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. Response to Preliminary Amendment The preliminary amendment filed September 22, 2023 is acknowledged. Action on the merits of claims 1-11 follows. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed September 22, 2023 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits. With respect to foreign language references and foreign language patent office communications with no translation of the document: “If no translation is submitted, the examiner will consider the information in view of the concise explanation and insofar as it is understood on its face, e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, English language abstracts, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiner in conducting searches.” See MPEP §609.04(a)(II) (D) and 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(ii). Drawings The drawings received September 22, 2023 are acceptable for examination purposes. Specification The specification received September 22, 2023 FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT has been reviewed for examination purposes. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “ suppresses” on page 13, third line from the end of the page should be “suppressed”. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 4 and 9-11 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 4 recites the limitation "the peak" and “the largest area” and “the peaks” in line 5; “the attenuated reflection method” in lines 8-9; “the diffuse reflection method” in line 9; "the peak" and “the largest area” and “the peaks” in line 10; “the attenuated reflection method” in lines 13-14; “the diffuse reflection method” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the composition" in line 3 which appears to rely on the antecedent basis language of the preamble, line 1. The alternative language of claim 9 is further unclear as this alternative using the material is not understood how it is different from the first claimed option of “the secondary battery electrode comprising the silicon compound coated metal magnesium particles” and, as best that the term “the composition” is understood (to be the “secondary battery electrode composition” at line 1 of claim 9), use of such would seem to define a secondary battery electrode using the electrode composition . If the language is meant to define using the composition (“the composition” understood to be the “secondary battery electrode composition” of claim 9, line 1 , then the latter recitation appears to require the secondary battery electrode composition and cannot be expressed in the alternative form as claimed . Claim 10 is dependent upon claim 9 and does not remedy this issue. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same reason. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the material" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 is further indefinite as it merely recites an alternative therein “or an implant using the material”. The alternative language of claim 11 is further unclear as this alternative an implant using the material is not understood how it is different from the first claimed option of “an implant material comprising the silicon compound coated metal magnesium particles” and, as best that the term “the material” is understood (to be the same particles), use of such would seem to define an implant material comprising the particles. If the language is meant to define an implant using the implant material, then the latter recitation appears to require the implant material and cannot be expressed in the alternative. 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. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1 - 3 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohtadi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0099135) in view of Enomura et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0217384). As to claim 1, Mohtadi discloses magnesium particles wherein an average particle diameter of the magnesium particles is 5 nm or more and 500 nm or less ( max average dimension of 100nm or less (para. [0024]) with specific example of 50nm (para. [0031]) ). Thus the core particle, magnesium nanoparticles having the same average particle diameter is taught by Mohtadi. As to claim 9, the composition of Mohtadi is used as a secondary battery electrode composition (title, abstract, paras. [0002]; [0033]). As to claim 10, the electrode of claim 9 above is employed in a secondary magnesium battery (title, abstract, paras. [0002]; [0033]). Mohtadi does not teach or suggest of the magnesium nanoparticles therein including a s ilicon compound coat ing in which at least a part of a surface of the metal magnesium particles is coated with the silicon compound and wherein a thickness of the silicon compound coating is 1 nm or more and 50 nm or less ( claim 1 ) ; of the particles not being aggregated ( claim 2 ); or the particles containing less than 1% by weight lithium ( claim 3 ). Mohtadi does teach that in order to maximize technological success and economic viability, it is desirable that the magnesium nanoparticles are of high purity, notably devoid of oxides and other undesirable contaminating species (para. [0004]). This teaching implicitly reflects concern about oxide formation. Enomura is drawn to coating metal powder with silicon based coatings and is reasonably pertinent to the problem as it provides a known solution to prevent oxidation and improve stability of metal particles by applying a silicon compound coating to core metal particles (abstract, examples) . The teachings of Enomura are reasonably pertinent when faced with the problem of oxidation and instability issues regarding metal particles as noted in paragraph [0002] which recognized the risk of explosive reaction due to rapid oxidation in the atmosphere, loss of properties anticipated of the fine metal particles due to oxidation . According to Enomura, f ine metal particles are materials that are used in a wide range of applications and is as fine as 1 μm or less . To such dimensions, the metal particles become improved in properties thereof and can become a composition suitable for use as a dispersion or the like. However, in any application, in accompaniment with the properties that are generated or improved as the metal particles are made finer, explosive reaction due to rapid oxidation in the atmosphere, loss of properties anticipated of the fine metal particles due to oxidation, hydroxylation, or the like due to contact with moisture, or so forth becomes more likely to occur at the same time, making it difficult to make maximum use of the properties as fine metal particles (para. [0002]) . Thus it can be seen that oxide prevention was a recognized problem for nanosized metal powder, an issue that Mohtadi also looks to avoid. At least a part of the surface of the magnesium nanoparticles of Mohtadi, coating with the silicon compound of Enomura would predictably provided an oxidation resistant coating to the magnesium nanoparticles of Mohtadi ( claim 1 ). Enomura further teaches that coating the surfaces of fine metal particles with the silicon compound, provides an advantage of enabling water resistance and chemical stability to be imparted to the fine metal particles is provided (para [ 0051]) as well as it prevent oxidation (para. [0002]) . Upon providing the silicon coating of Enomura , to the magnesium nanoparticles of Mohtadi, the coating w ould have provide the outer particle surface with a coating to separate the magnesium metal cores so they cannot coalesce and thus functions to prohibit aggregation , Enomura itself teaching of an embodiment where the coating is provided on each single metal particle ( para, [0018] claim 2 ). Neither Mohtadi nor Enomura teach of any amount of lithium present in either particles, therefore, the particles of Mohtadi in view of Enomura would expect ed ly have less than 1% by weight lithium therein ( claim 3 ). As Mohtadi teaches of avoiding oxide formation with magnesium nanoparticles, employing a known technical solution to prevent oxide formation would have been a reasonable approach. Enomura disclosed a known solution to preventing oxide formation and improving stability of metal particles by providing a silicon compound to the surface of metal particles. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the magnesium nanoparticles of Mohtadi with a thinner coating of a silicon compound as taught by Enomura since it would have provided the predictable benefits of preventing oxide formation and improving stability to the fine metal nano particles of Mohtadi. As to the relative thickness of the silicon compound coating (claim 1): it would have further been of routine optimization to modify the silicon coating thickness to be in a suitable nanoscale range compared to the nanometer size magnesium particles of Mohtadi whereby optimization of the thickness on the low nanometer range would have predictably provided a sufficient silicon coating thickness to attain the requisite oxidation resistance characteristic taught by Enomura and provide a high purity magnesium nanoparticle devoid of oxides as taught by Mohtadi itself. Given that the core particles of Mohtadi having a max average dimension of 100nm or less (para. [0024]) with specific example of 50nm (para. [0031]) it would have been reasonable to provide a relatively thinner shell to the core particles. Optimization of a sufficient thickness for the silicon compound coating on the order of less than 100nm and less than 50nm would have been readily apparent with the expectation that the coating thickness on such low nanometer range would effectively provide for suitable coating thicknesses for oxidation prevention and improved particle stability, absent clear evidence to the contrary. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the silicon compound coating thickness of modified-Mohtadi in relation to the nanoparticle core sizes of Mohtadi to include thicknesses in the range of 1-50nm since it would have provided a silicon compound coating of sufficient thickness to obtain the benefits of oxidation resistance and improved particle stability. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch , 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele , 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claim 7 i s rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohtadi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0099135) in view of Enomura et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0217384) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of either Suhara et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0271944) , Nakanishi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0377647) or Onishi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0199777). Modified-Mohtadi does not teach of the average circularity being 0.9 or more. The concept of high average circularity with respect to electrode active materials was conventionally regarded in the art. For example, Suhara teaches of substantially spherical active material powder (para. [0040]). While drawn to lithium batteries, Suhara does apply to the field of endeavor pertaining to electrode powder morphology in batteries. Nakanishi , drawn to metal active material particles recognized that high circularity on the order of 0.92-1 (para. [0044]) provided for a particle morphology having good fluidity and packability (para. [0042]). Similarly Onishi recognized that modifying electrode active material powder to have an average circularity preferably 0.9 or more, prevents deterioration of load characteristics and improves packing density (para. 0042]). It would have been of routine skill in the art to apply the teachings of Suhara , Nakanishi or Onishi to magnesium powder of modified-Mohtadi with the predictable expectation that providing powder with a high degree of circularity would have improved the fluidity and packing density and electrochemical performance of the powder. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the average circularity of the particles of modified-Mohtadi to be 0.9 or more as taught by either Suhara , Nakanishi or Onishi since such a particle morphology parameter was known to provide for improved fluidity, packing density and electrochemical performance of the powder. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claim 4 , none of the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination, are held to reasonably teach, suggest or render obvious the silicon compound coated metal magnesium particles wherein the ratio of Si-O bond to Mg-O bond, defined by the corresponding claimed attributions therein, the ratio being in the range from 0.1 to 2.0. Enomura teaches of the Si-O bond is attributed to the peak with the largest area among the peaks in the wavenumber range of 1000 cm⁻¹ to 1300 cm⁻¹ which are obtained by waveform separation of peaks in the wavenumber range of 400 cm⁻¹ to 1400 cm⁻¹, in the infrared absorption spectrum of the silicon compound coated metal magnesium particles measured using the attenuated total reflection method (ATR method) or the diffuse reflection method (para. [0023]). However, Enomura is silent regarding the Mg-O bond and does not reasonably teach or suggest satisfying the ratio of Si-O bond to Mg-O bond with any degree of specificity . With respect to claim 11 , none of the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination, are held to reasonably teach, suggest or render obvious an implant material comprising the particles or an implant using the implant material comprising the particles. While the application of magnesium in combination with silicon as a biodegradable material used in implants is known (U.S. Patent No. 11,109,976 ) , the particle and coating sizes are significantly different in this reference , thus fundamentally disclosing or claiming different structure from that of claim 11 . Claims 5, 6 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. With respect to claim 5 , none of the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination, are held to reasonably teach, suggest or render obvious the silicon compound coated metal magnesium particles containing a hydrocarbon group. Mohtadi and Enomura teach of avoiding oxidation of magnesium core particles, with Enomura teaches that modifying the surface of magnesium core particles with a silicon compound provides for oxidation resistance. But neither these two references nor the remaining cited prior art of record, reasonably teach or suggest the further inclusion of a hydrocarbon group which, according to the disclosure, is significant to adding hydrophobicity to the claimed particles. With respect to claim 6 , none of the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination, are held to reasonably teach, suggest or render obvious the silicon compound coated metal magnesium particles containing an M g -O-Si bond. Again, Enomura does recognize an Si-O bond relationship . However, Enomura is silent regarding an Mg-O -Si bond and does not reasonably teach or suggest satisfying this limitation with any degre e of specificity. With respect to claim 8 , none of the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination, are held to reasonably teach, suggest or render obvious the silicon compound coated metal magnesium particles showing the absorption peak of claim 8. According to the instant invention, absorption by surface plasmons of the obtained silicon oxide coated metal magnesium particles is possible from ultraviolet light to visible light. Similarly, absorption from ultraviolet light to visible light was obtained in other Examples, and it was confirmed that the silicon compound coated metal magnesium particles of the present invention have absorption from ultraviolet light to visible light. Since a light over a wide range from ultraviolet light to visible light can be used, the silicon compound coated metal magnesium particles of the present invention may be applied as a photocatalyst responsive to visible light for indoor use. In addition, by taking the advantage of this characteristic, it is now possible to apply to Raman scattering and infrared absorption spectrometry, where optical sensing materials mainly composed of a precious metal such as gold and silver have conventionally been used. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0075162 discloses magnesium powder as a material on an implant. U.S. Patent No. 11,109,976 discloses a core-shell magnesium particle with one or more coating layers for medical implants. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT GREGG CANTELMO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1283 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Thurs 7am to 5pm . 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 Basia Ridley can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1453 . 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. /GREGG CANTELMO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725