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. Claim Interpretation For claims 2-6, the applicant use “includes” with a list, the examiner thinks the applicant intends it to be “including at least one” otherwise the enter list would be required. And for claim 2 the applicant has an “and” the examiner thinks the applicant means to have an “or” otherwise it would be an electrode including a positive electrode material and a negative electrode material. Last for claim 6 the R groups should end in “or” as the R groups cannot be to different things at the same time. 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. Claims 1-10 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. The term “ low toxicity environmentally friendly solvent ” in claim 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ low toxicity environmentally friendly solvent ” 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. For the porous of examination any organic solvent will be interpreted as a low toxicity environmentally friendly solvent . Claim 10 recites the limitation "the adhesive solution" in claim 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner does not know if the adhesive solution is added at some point of if the solution with the active material, adhesive, conductive material and solvent is the adhesive solution. Thus, either will be used as the adhesive solution until further clarification is given. Claim 10 also states an “ agitation temperature ” this is not well defined within the art and “ agitation temperature ” has to do with living beings such as fish and bacteria as acting in a certain manor at specific temperatures. The term only appears once and within the claim. Thus, the examiner is unsure the scope of the term “ agitation temperature ” and request further clarification. 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. Claim s 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igarashi (US 2023/0100631) . As to claim 1, Igarashi discloses a n improved electrode ([0076]-[0086], positive electrode; discussed throughout) structure comprising mainly of the following features: an electrode material ([0080]-[0082], positive electrode active material, discussed throughout) , wherein the weight percentage of the electrode material is 80-96% ([0080]-[0082], discussed throughout) ; an electrically conductive material ([0084]-[0085], discussed throughout) , wherein the weight percentage of the electrically conductive material is 2-10% ([0084]-[0085], discussed throughout) ; an adhesive ([0083], binder, discussed throughout) , wherein the weight percentage of the adhesive is 2-10% ([0083], discussed throughout) ; a low toxicity environmentally friendly solvent ([0086], discussed throughout) , wherein the weight percentage of the low toxicity environmentally friendly solvent is 20-70% in positive electrode material ([0086], discussed throughout) , and is 100-150% in negative electrode material ([0099], discussed throughout). Igarashi does not specifically state wherein, the improved electrode structure is given with treatment of baking temperature of 50-150° C., process time of 8 to 12 hours. However, Igarashi does disclose drying the slurry ([0078], discussed throughout). Furthermore, this is a product by process limitation. E ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113) . 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). (NOTE: this is a 103 type rejection because of overlapping ranges). As to claim 2, Igarashi discloses wherein, the electrode material includes lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (NMC), Lithium iron phosphate (LFP), Lithium Manganese Iron Phosphate (LMFP), lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide(NCA), silicon oxide carbon composite material ( SiOx /C), silicon carbon composite material(Si/C), Mesocarbon Microbead(MCMB) and Lithium-titanate(LTO) ([0080]-[0081], discussed throughout) . As to claim 3, Igarashi discloses wherein, the electrically conductive material includes electrically conductive carbon black(Super-P), Ketjenblack auxiliary conductive agent(KB), carbon nano tube(CNT) and Graphene ([0085], discussed throughout) . As to claim 4, Igarashi discloses wherein, the adhesive includes polyvinylidene difluoride(PVDF), Polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer(PVDF-HFP), Polyimide and polyethylene oxide(PEO) ([0083], discussed throughout) . As to claim 5, Igarashi discloses wherein, the low toxicity environmentally friendly solvent includes Dimethylformamide(DMF), diethylformamide (DEF), Dimethyl acetamide(DMAC) and Tetrahydrofuran(THF) ([0086], DMF and DMAC, discussed throughout) . As to claim 6, Igarashi discloses wherein, the low toxicity environmentally friendly solvent has chemical formula of (NR 2 R 3 OR 1 ), wherein R 1 ═ H, Me(-CH 3 ), R 2 ═ =H, Me(-CH 3 ), Et(-CH 2 CH 3 ), R 3 ═ H, Me(-CH 3 ), Et(-CH 2 CH 3 ) ([0086], discussed throughout) . As to claim 7, Igarashi discloses wherein, the low toxicity environmentally friendly solvent has boiling point ≤180° C. at 1 ATM ([0086], DMF and DMAC, discussed throughout). As to claim 8, Igarashi discloses wherein, the low toxicity environmentally friendly solvent has flash point ≥60° C, ≤80° C. at 1 ATM ([0086], DMF and DMAC, discussed throughout) . A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05 I, NOTE this is for DMF which has 58 degrees Celsius, DMAC is within the required range) . As to claim 10, Igarashi does not specifically state wherein, the adhesive solution has agitation temperature ≤60° C, and process time from 0.5 to 6 hours. However, Igarashi discloses the same materials within the same location within the same concentration (claim 1 above), thus, the same material would exhibit the same properties (see MPEP 2112). Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igarashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sun (US 2023/0268499) . As to claim 9, Igarashi is silent to the electrode material has thickness in the range from 50 μm to 200 μm . Sun discloses a positive electrode slurry for a lithium ion battery ([0011]) wherein the thickness of the positive electrode material in the range from 50 μm to 200 μm ([0073]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the thickness from Sun within Igarashi as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 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. (see MPEP 2144.05). Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRIAN R OHARA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0728 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:30 AM-3:30 PM EST M-F . 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 Miriam Stagg can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5256 . 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. /BRIAN R OHARA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1724