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 statements filed January 17, 2024; July 26, 2024; February 23, 2025; July 9, 2025; November 14, 2025; February 12, 2026 have 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 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 August 25, 2023 are acceptable for examination purposes. Specification The specification received August 25, 2023 has been reviewed for examination purposes. Claim Interpretation Note that various claims recite “and/or” limitations which, in the broadest reasonable interpretation, have been interpreted in the alternative at a minimum. The thickness capacity of claim 20 is interpreted in light of the specification (see para. [0101] as the unit thickness capacity of the negative electrode plate is a ratio of an actual capacity of the electrochemical energy storage apparatus to a thickness of the negative electrode active layer of the negative electrode plate in the electrochemical energy storage apparatus. For example, when the electrochemical energy storage apparatus is a lithium-ion battery, the unit thickness capacity of the negative electrode plate is a ratio of an actual capacity of the lithium-ion battery to a thickness of a negative electrode active layer of a negative electrode plate in the lithium-ion battery. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claims 1, 2, 19 and 2 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (CN10896325 4A). As to claim 1, Liu teaches a negative electrode plate, comprising a current collector and a negative electrode active layer disposed on at least one function surface of the current collector, wherein a negative electrode active material of the negative electrode active layer comprises a hard carbon ( first amorphous carbon material ) ; and an interlayer spacing d002 of the first amorphous carbon material is greater than 0.34 nm (see paras. [0023], [0065] which teaches that the interlayer spacing for the 002 crystal plane is 0.34nm to 0.45nm) , and an average pore diameter of pores of the first amorphous carbon material ranges from 2 nm to 20 nm (see paras. [0023], [0065] which teaches of a pore size from 0.1 nm to 50nm and examples 1 and 2 which teach of specific pore sizes of 10nm to 20nm in Example 1 (para. [007 4 ]) and 1nm to 5nm in Example 2 (para. [0078]). Thus at least Example 1 teaches of hard carbon (amorphous carbon) having an interlayer spacing d002 from 0.34 to 0.45 and a pore size from 10nm to 20nm. Therefore, Liu reasonably anticipates claim 1. As to claim 2, Liu teaches for Example 1 that the average particle diameter (D50) is 12 microns and the specific surface area is 6.2 m 2 /g (para. [0074]). As to claim 19, the electrode above is employed in an electrochemical energy storage apparatus such as a battery (para. [0083] for example). As to claim 22, the battery can power various electronic devices (para. [0004]). 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, 11, 13, 17, 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0129497) in view of Takami et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,753,387). As to claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a negative electrode plate, comprising a current collector 11 and a negative electrode active layer 12/13 disposed on at least one function surface of the current collector, wherein a negative electrode active material 13 of the negative electrode active layer comprises a hard carbon , glass carbon or DLC ( first amorphous carbon material , paras. [0059]-[0060]; [0086]-[0087]; [0089] ) . A morphous carbon is understood to have an interplanar spacing (d002) of more than 0.34. Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, expressed as a 102/103 rejection. “In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.” Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) In the case of the instant application the basis for expectation of inherency is that amorphous carbon materials are recognized in the art to be defined, in part, by an interplanar spacing (d002) of at least 0.34 which is understood to be the point above which amorphous carbon exists. The Examiner invites applicant to provide that that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same...[footnote omitted].” The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)). As to claim 11 , Yamamoto teaches that the negative electrode includes first amorphous carbon layer 13 and a graphite layer 12 which are stacked and the amorphous carbon layer 13 comprises the amorphous carbon having a d002 spacing of more than 0.34 and the graphite layer comprises a graphite material ( [0086]-[0087] and as further referenced above) . As to claim 1 3, the graphite layer 12 is close to the current collector 11 and the amorphous carbon layer 13 is further away from the current collector 12 (Fig. 1). As to claim 1 7 , Yamamoto teaches that the negative electrode includes first amorphous carbon layer 13 and a silicon layer 12 which are stacked and the amorphous carbon layer 13 comprises the amorphous carbon having a d002 spacing of more than 0.34 and the graphite layer comprises a graphite material (para. [0089]) . As to claim 19, the electrode of claim 1 above is provided to an electrochemical energy storage apparatus, such as the secondary battery of Yamamoto (title, abstract, examples). As to claim 22, the battery can power various electronic devices (para. [0004]). As to claim 1, Yamamoto does not explicitly teach of the average pore diameter ranging from 2nm-20nm. Takami is drawn to the same field of endeavor, carbon based electrodes for lithium rechargeable batteries. Takami recognized that if amorphous carbon has pores from 0.1-20nm and an interplanar spacing (d002) of 0.370 or more, the amount of lithium adsorption/desorption can increase and the battery can exhibit improved discharge capacity and improved charge/discharge cycle life (col. 5, ll.25-40). Takami reasonably teaches modifying amorphous carbon materials in an electrode active material to have pores in the range of 0.1-20 nm for the recognized and predictable benefits of increased lithium adsorption /desorption and improved discharge capacity and improved charge/discharge cycle life of the battery. T herefore 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 pore size of the hard carbon of Yamamoto to be in the range of 0.1-20nm which encompasses a range of 2-20nm with sufficient specificity as taught by Takami since it would have provided predictable benefits of increased lithium adsorption /desorption and improved discharge capacity and improved charge/discharge cycle life of the battery. Furthermore , 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). It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner , 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). I n addition, i n 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); In re Woodruff , 919, F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims 1, 9 -10 , 1 4 , 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. ( “The Power-Energy Coupling Effect of Mixed Hard-Carbon/Graphite Anode” ) in view of Takami et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,753,387). As to claim 1, Yin discloses a negative electrode plate, comprising a current collector (Cu foil page 18) and a negative electrode active layer (hard carbon / graphite mixture) disposed on at least one function surface of the current collector, wherein a negative electrode active material of the negative electrode active layer comprises hard carbon ( first amorphous carbon material ; see section 2.1 on page 18 ) . Hard carbon is known as a type of amorphous carbon coating and is understood to have an interplanar spacing (d002) of more than 0.34. Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, expressed as a 102/103 rejection. “In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.” Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) In the case of the instant application the basis for expectation of inherency is that hard carbon is recognized in the art to be defined, in part, by an interplanar spacing (d002) of at least 0.34 which is understood to be the point above which hard carbon exists. The Examiner invites applicant to provide that that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same...[footnote omitted].” The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)). As to claim 9 , the negative electrode active material is a mixture of hard carbon (first amorphous carbon) and graphite (see Experimental Section 2 and Table 1). As to claim 10, the mass ratio of hard carbon can be in excess of 28%, such as 50% and 75% hard carbon (Table 1, certain examples). As to claim 14, the graphite material comprises graphite particles ( see Experimental Section 2 and Table 1 ). As to claim 19, the electrode of claim 1 above is provided to an electrochemical energy storage apparatus, such as the secondary battery of Yin ( Fig. 1 ). As to claim 22, the battery can power various electronic devices as would have been readily understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed . As to claim 1, Yin does not explicitly teach of the average pore diameter ranging from 2nm-20nm. Yin recognized that hard carbon provides pores of at least 2nm and can introduce meso-pores into the anode thereby being more capable of ions transportation, which contributes to the potential of the higher power performance as reported in literature (last paragraph of section 3.1, page 22). Mesopores have been understood to define pores in the low nanometer range (2-50nm). Takami is drawn to the same field of endeavor, carbon based electrodes for lithium rechargeable batteries. Takami recognized that if amorphous carbon has pores from 0.1-20nm and an interplanar spacing (d002) of 0.370 or more, the amount of lithium adsorption/desorption can increase and the battery can exhibit improved discharge capacity and improved charge/discharge cycle life (col. 5, ll.25-40). Takami reasonably teaches modifying amorphous carbon materials in an electrode active material to have pores in the range of 0.1-20 nm for the recognized and predictable benefits of increased lithium adsorption/desorption and improved discharge capacity and improved charge/discharge cycle life of the battery. 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 pore size of the hard carbon of Yin to be in the range of 0.1-20nm which encompasses a range of 2-20nm with sufficient specificity as taught by Takami since it would have provided predictable benefits of increased lithium adsorption/desorption and improved discharge capacity and improved charge/discharge cycle life of the battery. Furthermore, 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). It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner , 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). 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); In re Woodruff , 919, F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claim s 1, 11, 13, 19, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0057401 ) in view of Takami et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,753,387). As to claim 1, Mori discloses a negative electrode plate 23 , comprising a current collector 23A and a negative electrode active layer 23a/23b disposed on at least one function surface of the current collector, wherein an amorphous carbon coating layer 23b (hard carbon) is provided. Amorphous carbon coating is understood to have an interplanar spacing (d002) of more than 0.34 . Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, expressed as a 102/103 rejection. “In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.” Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) In the case of the instant application the basis for expectation of inherency is that amorphous carbon materials are recognized in the art to be defined, in part, by an interplanar spacing (d002) of at least 0.34 which is understood to be the point above which amorphous carbon exists. The Examiner invites applicant to provide that that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same...[footnote omitted].” The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)). As to claim 11, Mori teaches that the negative electrode includes first amorphous carbon layer 23b and a graphite layer 23a which are stacked and the amorphous carbon layer comprises the amorphous carbon having a d002 spacing of more than 0.34 and the graphite layer comprises a graphite material. As to claim 13, the graphite layer 23a is close to the current collector 23A and the amorphous carbon layer 23b is further away from the current collector 23A ( Example 1-1, paras. [0088]-[0089] ). As to claim 19, the electrode of claim 1 above is provided to an electrochemical energy storage apparatus, such as the secondary battery of Mori (title, abstract, examples). As to claim 20, the total thickness of the negative electrode of example 1 is 100 micrometers (para. [0089]) and the initial capacity is 792mAh (Table 1). Therefore the thickness capacity of the negative electrode is 792mAh/100micrometers or 79.2mAh/micrometers. As to claim 22, the battery can power various electronic devices (para. [0004]). As to claim 1, Mori does not explicitly teach of the average pore diameter ranging from 2nm-20nm. Takami is drawn to the same field of endeavor, carbon based electrodes for lithium rechargeable batteries. Takami recognized that if amorphous carbon has pores from 0.1-20nm and an interplanar spacing (d002) of 0.370 or more, the amount of lithium adsorption/desorption can increase and the battery can exhibit improved discharge capacity and improved charge/discharge cycle life (col. 5, ll.25-40). Takami reasonably teaches modifying amorphous carbon materials in an electrode active material to have pores in the range of 0.1-20 nm for the recognized and predictable benefits of increased lithium adsorption/desorption and improved discharge capacity and improved charge/discharge cycle life of the battery. 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 pore size of the hard carbon of Mori to be in the range of 0.1-20nm which encompasses a range of 2-20nm with sufficient specificity as taught by Takami since it would have provided predictable benefits of increased lithium adsorption/desorption and improved discharge capacity and improved charge/discharge cycle life of the battery. Furthermore, 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). It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner , 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). 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); In re Woodruff , 919, F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claim s 1 , 1 5-16 , 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uhm et al. ( JP2018-098199A ) in view of Takami et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,753,387). As to claim 1, Uhm discloses a negative electrode plate, comprising a current collector (para. [0036]; [0038]) and a negative electrode active layer disposed on at least one function surface of the current collector (para. [0037]) , wherein a negative electrode active material of the negative electrode active layer comprises a n amorphous hard carbon ( first amorphous carbon material , paras. [0051]; [0052] ) ; and a negative electrode plate where amorphous hard carbon is mixed with silicon where the amount of silicon is 2-40% and the amount of hard carbon is 60-98% . An amorphous carbon , including hard carbon, coating is understood to have an interplanar spacing (d002) of more than 0.34. Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, expressed as a 102/103 rejection. “In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.” Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) In the case of the instant application the basis for expectation of inherency is that hard carbon is recognized in the art to be defined, in part, by an interplanar spacing (d002) of at least 0.34 which is understood to be the point above which hard carbon exists. The Examiner invites applicant to provide that that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same...[footnote omitted].” The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)). As to claim 15 , the negative active material comprises a mixture of the first amorphous carbon above and silicon base material ( example 1 ). As to claim 1 6 , the mass percentage of the silicon material ranges from 2-40 % with a specific example of 20.6% . By Example, 1, ~20% silicon is mixed with ~80% hard carbon (20.6:79.4 by weight) but Uhm appreciated silicon amounts lower than 20% as low as 2%, thereby appreciating silicon in amounts of less than 20% with sufficient specificity to teach of silicon amounts of 2-20% . As to claim 19, the negative electrode plate of claim 1 is further employed in a battery (experimental example 1, for example). As to claim 22, the battery can power various electronic devices (para. [0004]). As to claim 1, does not explicitly teach of the average pore diameter of hard carbon ranging from 2nm-20nm. Takami is drawn to the same field of endeavor, carbon based electrodes for lithium rechargeable batteries. Takami recognized that if amorphous carbon has pores from 0.1-20nm and an interplanar spacing (d002) of 0.370 or more, the amount of lithium adsorption/desorption can increase and the battery can exhibit improved discharge capacity and improved charge/discharge cycle life (col. 5, ll.25-40). Takami reasonably teaches modifying amorphous carbon materials in an electrode active material to have pores in the range of 0.1-20 nm for the recognized and predictable benefits of increased lithium adsorption/desorption and improved discharge capacity and improved charge/discharge cycle life of the battery. 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 pore size of the hard carbon of Yamamoto to be in the range of 0.1-20nm which encompasses a range of 2-20nm with sufficient specificity as taught by Takami since it would have provided predictable benefits of increased lithium adsorption/desorption and improved discharge capacity and improved charge/discharge cycle life of the battery. Furthermore, 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). It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner , 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). 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); In re Woodruff , 919, F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN108963254A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0068293) or Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0395600). Liu teaches of the electrochemical cell with an opposing electrode, both the positive electrode and negative electrodes having inherent but undisclosed thicknesses. Liu does not teach of the negative to positive thickness ratio (N/P ratio) being in the range from (0.93-1.68):1. Ratios near 1:1 thickness is further recognized as taught by Kim. Kim is drawn to the same field of endeavor, to battery designs for lithium ion secondary batteries where the electrodes can be regulated relative to each other, including ratio of thicknesses. Kim teaches that the ratio of the anode to cathode is in a preferably range from 0.8 to 1.2 noting that regulating the thickness ratio in this range provides for good electrochemical performance in a lithium secondary battery (para. [0047]). Even further the optimization of electrode thicknesses would have been of routine skill in the art to balance energy density and power. Chen is drawn to the same field of endeavor, to battery designs for lithium ion secondary batteries where the electrodes can be regulated relative to each other, including ratio of thicknesses. Chen teaches that the ratio of the anode to cathode (N/P ratio) is between 1.1 and 1.3 to help avoid overcharging and lithium plating of the anode (para. [0065]). 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 thickness ratio of Liu to be in the range of 0.8-1.2 taught by Kim or Chen since it would have expectedly provided for good electrochemical performance in a lithium secondary battery , avoided overcharging and lithium plating . Furthermore, 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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0129497) in view of Takami et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,753,387) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0068293) or Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0395600). Modified Yamamoto teaches of the electrochemical cell with an opposing electrode, both the positive electrode and negative electrodes having inherent but undisclosed thicknesses. Modified Yamamoto does not teach of the negative to positive thickness ratio (N/P ratio) being in the range from (0.93-1.68):1. Ratios near 1:1 thickness is further recognized as taught by Kim. Kim is drawn to the same field of endeavor, to battery designs for lithium ion secondary batteries where the electrodes can be regulated relative to each other, including ratio of thicknesses. Kim teaches that the ratio of the anode to cathode is in a preferably range from 0.8 to 1.2 noting that regulating the thickness ratio in this range provides for good electrochemical performance in a lithium secondary battery (para. [0047]). Even further the optimization of electrode thicknesses would have been of routine skill in the art to balance energy density and power. Chen is drawn to the same field of endeavor, to battery designs for lithium ion secondary batteries where the electrodes can be regulated relative to each other, including ratio of thicknesses. Chen teaches that the ratio of the anode to cathode (N/P ratio) is between 1.1 and 1.3 to help avoid overcharging and lithium plating of the anode (para. [0065]). 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 thickness ratio of modified Yamamoto to be in the range of 0.8-1.2 taught by Kim or Chen since it would have expectedly provided for good electrochemical performance in a lithium secondary battery, avoided overcharging and lithium plating. Furthermore, 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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. (“The Power-Energy Coupling Effect of Mixed Hard-Carbon/Graphite Anode”) in view of Takami et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,753,387) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0068293) or Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0395600). Yin teaches of the electrochemical cell with an opposing electrode, both the positive electrode and negative electrodes having inherent but undisclosed thicknesses. Yin does not teach of the negative to positive thickness ratio (N/P ratio) being in the range from (0.93-1.68):1. Ratios near 1:1 thickness is further recognized as taught by Kim. Kim is drawn to the same field of endeavor, to battery designs for lithium ion secondary batteries where the electrodes can be regulated relative to each other, including ratio of thicknesses. Kim teaches that the ratio of the anode to cathode is in a preferably range from 0.8 to 1.2 noting that regulating the thickness ratio in this range provides for good electrochemical performance in a lithium secondary battery (para. [0047]). Even further the optimization of electrode thicknesses would have been of routine skill in the art to balance energy density and power. Chen is drawn to the same field of endeavor, to battery designs for lithium ion secondary batteries where the electrodes can be regulated relative to each other, including ratio of thicknesses. Chen teaches that the ratio of the anode to cathode (N/P ratio) is between 1.1 and 1.3 to help avoid overcharging and lithium plating of the anode (para. [0065]). 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 thickness ratio of Yin to be in the range of 0.8-1.2 taught by Kim or Chen since it would have expectedly provided for good electrochemical performance in a lithium secondary battery, avoided overcharging and lithium plating. Furthermore, 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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0057401) in view of Takami et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,753,387) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0068293) or Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0395600). Mori teaches of the electrochemical cell with an opposing electrode, both the positive electrode and negative electrodes having inherent but undisclosed thicknesses. Mori does not teach of the negative to positive thickness ratio (N/P ratio) being in the range from (0.93-1.68):1. Ratios near 1:1 thickness is further recognized as taught by Kim. Kim is drawn to the same field of endeavor, to battery designs for lithium ion secondary batteries where the electrodes can be regulated relative to each other, including ratio of thicknesses. Kim teaches that the ratio of the anode to cathode is in a preferably range from 0.8 to 1.2 noting that regulating the thickness ratio in this range provides for good electrochemical performance in a lithium secondary battery (para. [0047]). Even further the optimization of electrode thicknesses would have been of routine skill in the art to balance energy density and power. Chen is drawn to the same field of endeavor, to battery designs for lithium ion secondary batteries where the electrodes can be regulated relative to each other, including ratio of thicknesses. Chen teaches that the ratio of the anode to cathode (N/P ratio) is between 1.1 and 1.3 to help avoid overcharging and lithium plating of the anode (para. [0065]). 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 thickness ratio of Mori to be in the range of 0.8-1.2 taught by Kim or Chen since it would have expectedly provided for good electrochemical performance in a lithium secondary battery, avoided overcharging and lithium plating. Furthermore, 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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uhm et al. (JP2018-098199A) in view of Takami et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,753,387) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0068293) or Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0395600). Uhm teaches of the electrochemical cell with an opposing electrode, both the positive electrode and negative electrodes having inherent but undisclosed thicknesses. Uhm does not teach of the negative to positive thickness ratio (N/P ratio) being in the range from (0.93-1.68):1. Ratios near 1:1 thickness is further recognized as taught by Kim. Kim is drawn to the same field of endeavor, to battery designs for lithium ion secondary batteries where the electrodes can be regulated relative to each other, including ratio of thicknesses. Kim teaches that the ratio of the anode to cathode is in a preferably range from 0.8 to 1.2 noting that regulating the thickness ratio in this range provides for good electrochemical performance in a lithium secondary battery (para. [0047]). Even further the optimization of electrode thicknesses would have been of routine skill in the art to balance energy density and power. Chen is drawn to the same field of endeavor, to battery designs for lithium ion secondary batteries where the electrodes can be regulated relative to each other, including ratio of thicknesses. Chen teaches that the ratio of the anode to cathode (N/P ratio) is between 1.1 and 1.3 to help avoid overcharging and lithium plating of the anode (para. [0065]). 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 thickness ratio of Uhm to be in the range of 0.8-1.2 taught by Kim or Chen since it would have expectedly provided for good electrochemical performance in a lithium secondary battery, avoided overcharging and lithium plating. Furthermore, 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). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-8, 12 and 18 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claims 3-8 , none of the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination a r e held to reasonably teach, suggest or render obvious the negative electrode plate wherein the negative electrode active material further comprises a second amorphous carbon material, and the second amorphous carbon material is in a shape of spherical particles; and an average particle size d2 of the spherical particles ranges from 0.2 μm to 4 μm; and/or, a specific surface area of the second amorphous carbon material ranges from 2 m 2 /g to 23 m 2 /g. While the references above teach of various amorphous carbon materials in combination with graphite and silicon, t here is no teaching or suggestion in the cited prior art of record to provide for both first and second amorphous carbon materials having the particular combination of properties/characteristics as recited in claim 3. Claims 4-8 are dependent upon claim 3 and allowable for at least the same reasons. With respect to claim 12 , none of the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination a r e held to reasonably teach, suggest or render obvious the negative electrode plate wherein a thickness H1 of the first amorphous carbon layer and a thickness H 3 of the graphite layer satisfy the following relationship: (H 1 + H 3 ) – 0.39D 3 ≥ H 1 ≥ 0.63D 1 wherein D 1 denotes a maximum particle size of the first amorphous carbon material, and D 3 denotes a maximum particle size of the graphite material. While the Yamamoto and Mori above teach of various amorphous carbon materials with a separate graphite layer, neither reference reasonably teaches of satisfying the relationship of claim 12 based on thickness and maximum particle size in the manner recited therein. With respect to claim 18 , none of the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination a r e held to reasonably teach, suggest or render obvious the negative electrode plate wherein a thickness H 1 of the first amorphous carbon layer and a thickness H 4 of the silicon-based active layer satisfy the following relationship: H 4 ≤ 0.2 (H 1 + H 4 ); and/or the silicon-based material is selected from at least one of a silicon material, a silicon oxide material, and a silicon-carbon composite material. While the Yamamoto above teach es of various amorphous carbon materials with a separate graphite layer, Yamamoto does not reasonably teach of satisfying the relationship of claim 12 based on thickness and maximum particle size in the manner recited therein. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0260497 discloses micropores, mesopores and macropores in terms of pore size (para. [0032]). Adam et al. “ Fabrication, characterization, and applications of hard carbons: A comprehensive review ” teaches that that c ompared to graphite, which has an interlayer spacing of ~0.335 nm, hard has a turbostatic structure with an increased interlayer spacing (d 002 ~0.36–0.40 nm ; page 10). 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