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 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 1 - 14 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. Regarding claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9-13, the term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ about ” 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 term appears in the following lines for each claim. Claim 1: Appearing in both line 3 and line 4, the particle diameter is rendered indefinite by the relative term. Claim s 2 , 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 : Appearing in line 2, the wt % of is rendered indefinite by the relative term. Claims 4 and 13: Appearing twice in line 2, the particle diameter is rendered indefinite by the relative term. For the purpose of examination, the examiner is interpreting the ranges to be bound by the exact values listed, ignoring “about”. Further regarding claim 1, the phrasing “with a particle diameter” in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine if the particle diameter is describing the diameter of the core or the particle diameter of the silicon particles the core comprises. Regarding c laims 2- 14 , they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for their dependency on claim 1, which has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as explained above. Further regarding claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12, the limitation “the total 100%” lacks antecedent basis. Beyond the issue of antecedent basis, the phrase creates indefiniteness because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine what is meant by “a total 100 wt % of the negative active material”. The examiner suggests a correction that would read: “ a total 100 wt % weight of the negative active material. ” The limitation appears in the following lines of the individual claims: Claims 2, 3, 11, 12: Line 3; Claims 6, 7, 9, 10: Lines 2 and 3. Claim Interpretation Regarding c laim s 1 -4, 6, 7, and 9-13, the term “about” is being ignored when interpreting the ranges. The exact values listed will be treated as the endpoints for the ranges. Regarding claim 1, “with a particle diameter” is being interpreted to refer to the diameter of primary particles, where the core is a secondary particle . Regarding claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12, the examiner is interpreting “the total 100%” to mean “a total weight of the negative active material”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim s 1-3, 5-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20210143439-A1 , KIM . Regarding claim 1, KIM teaches: A negative active material ([0035]) for a rechargeable lithium battery ([0035]) , the negative active material comprising a core ([0048], “secondary particles”) comprising silicon particles ([0047-48], “primary particles”) with a particle diameter of about 2 μm to about 15 μm ([0048]) ; and an amorphous carbon coating layer ([0052]) on a surface of the core [0044] . Further r egarding claim 1, as best as the examiner understands the claim with respect to the 112b rejection above, KIM teaches a primary particle with a particle diameter of about 2 μm to about 15 μm ([0048]) . KIM does not explicitly disclose a primary particle with a particle diameter of 0.8 μm to 2 μm . However, KIM teaches a particle diameter with a lower bound 2 μm corresponding to the upper bound of the claimed range. KIM further teaches that w hen the average particle diameter of the negative active material is within the above range, lithium ions may be easily distributed inside of the negative active material and the electrical resistance and rate-capability may be improved ([0048]) . Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). 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 overlapping portion of the claimed primary particle diameter range in order to improve the electrical resistance and rate-capability of the negative electrode active material. Regarding claim 2, KIM teaches an amount of the amorphous carbon coating layer may mixed in a range of 20 wt % to 80 wt % with respect to the total weight of the negative active material ([0053]). KIM does not explicitly teach a wt % range of 20 wt % or less. However, KIM teaches the range explained above, which has a lower bound that corresponds to the upper bound of the claimed range. KIM further teaches that when the amorphous carbon is present in that concentration, a higher capacity relative to the crystalline carbon negative active material may be realized ([0052]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). 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 overlapping portion of the amorphous carbon wt % range in order to achieve a higher capacity relative to the crystalline carbon negative active material . R egarding claim 3, KIM teaches an amount of the amorphous carbon coating layer may mixed in a range of 20 wt % to 80 wt % with respect to the total weight of the negative active material ([0053]). KIM does not explicitly teach a wt % range of between 5 wt % and 20 wt %. However, KIM teaches the range explained above, which has a lower bound that corresponds to the upper bound of the claimed range. KIM further teaches that when the amorphous carbon is present in that concentration, a higher capacity relative to the crystalline carbon negative active material may be realized ([0052]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). 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 overlapping portion of the amorphous carbon wt % range in order to achieve a higher capacity relative to the crystalline carbon negative active material . Regarding claim 5, KIM teaches the amorphous carbon is soft carbon, hard carbon, mesophase pitch carbide, sintered cokes, or a combination thereof ([0045]). Regarding claim 6, KIM teaches an amount of the silicon particles is between 20 wt % to 80 wt % based on a total weight of the negative active material layer ([0053]). KIM does not explicitly teach a range of 80 wt % or more based on the total 100 weight of the negative active material layer. However, KIM teaches the range explained above, which has a n upper bound that corresponds to the lowe r bound of the claimed range. KIM further teaches that when silicon particles are present in that concentration, a higher capacity relative to the crystalline carbon negative active material may be realized ([0052]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). 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 overlapping portion of the silicon particle wt % range in order to achieve a higher capacity relative to the crystalline carbon negative active material . Regarding claim 7, KIM teaches an amount of the silicon particles is between 20 wt % to 80 wt % based on a total weight of the negative active material layer ([0053]). KIM does not explicitly teach a range of 80 wt % to 95 wt % based on the total weight of the negative active material layer. However, KIM teaches the range explained above, which has a n upper bound that corresponds to the lower bound of the claimed range. KIM further teaches that when silicon particles are present in that concentration, a higher capacity relative to the crystalline carbon negative active material may be realized ([0052]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). 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 overlapping portion of the silicon particle wt % range in order to achieve a higher capacity relative to the crystalline carbon negative active material . Regarding claim 8, KIM teaches a rechargeable lithium battery (100) , comprising: a negative electrode (20) comprising the negative active material ( [0067] ) ; a positive electrode (10) comprising a positive active material ([0079]) ; and a non-aqueous electrolyte (30, see [0108]) . Regarding claim 9, KIM teaches an amount of the silicon particles is between 20 wt % to 80 wt % based on a total weight of the negative active material layer ([0053]). KIM does not explicitly teach a range of 80 wt % or more based on the total 100 weight of the negative active material layer. However, KIM teaches the range explained above, which has an upper bound that corresponds to the lower bound of the claimed range. KIM further teaches that when silicon particles are present in that concentration, a higher capacity relative to the crystalline carbon negative active material may be realized ([0052]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). 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 overlapping portion of the silicon particle wt % range in order to achieve a higher capacity relative to the crystalline carbon negative active material . Regarding claim 10, KIM teaches an amount of the silicon particles is between 20 wt % to 80 wt % based on a total weight of the negative active material layer ([0053]). KIM does not explicitly teach a range of 80 wt % to 95 wt % based on the total weight of the negative active material layer. However, KIM teaches the range explained above, which has an upper bound that corresponds to the lower bound of the claimed range. KIM further teaches that when silicon particles are present in that concentration, a higher capacity relative to the crystalline carbon negative active material may be realized ([0052]). Regarding claim 11, KIM teaches an amount of the amorphous carbon coating layer may mixed in a range of 20 wt % to 80 wt % with respect to the total weight of the negative active material ([0053]). KIM does not explicitly teach a wt % range of 20 wt % or less. However, KIM teaches the range explained above, which has a lower bound that corresponds to the upper bound of the claimed range. KIM further teaches that when the amorphous carbon is present in that concentration, a higher capacity relative to the crystalline carbon negative active material may be realized ([0052]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). 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 overlapping portion of the amorphous carbon wt % range in order to achieve a higher capacity relative to the crystalline carbon negative active material . Regarding claim 12, KIM teaches an amount of the amorphous carbon coating layer may mixed in a range of 20 wt % to 80 wt % with respect to the total weight of the negative active material ([0053]). KIM does not explicitly teach a wt % range of between 5 wt % and 20 wt %. However, KIM teaches the range explained above, which has a lower bound that corresponds to the upper bound of the claimed range. KIM further teaches that when the amorphous carbon is present in that concentration, a higher capacity relative to the crystalline carbon negative active material may be realized ([0052]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). 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 overlapping portion of the amorphous carbon wt % range in order to achieve a higher capacity relative to the crystalline carbon negative active material . Regarding claim 14, KIM teaches the amorphous carbon is soft carbon, hard carbon, mesophase pitch carbide, sintered cokes, or a combination thereof ([0045]). Claim s 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20210143439-A1, KIM, in view of US-20240379943-A1 , WANG. Regarding claim 4, KIM teaches the secondary particle with a particle diameter of about 2 μm to about 15 μm ([0048]). KIM does not teach the particle diameter of the silicon particles is between 0.8 μm and 1.5 μm , nor do the ranges of KIM overlap. However, WANG teaches a negative active material comprising a non-carbon negative electrode material with a D v 50 diameter in the range of 0.5 and 20 μm ( [0028] ) . WANG teaches the non-carbon negative electrode material is silicon ([0024]) WANG further teaches that controlling the diameter to fall within an appropriate range the negative electrode active material is more dispersive and less prone to agglomerate ([0029]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to replace the silicon primary particles in the negative active material of KIM with the non-carbon negative electrode active material of WANG to achieve the benefit of a more dispersive negative electrode active material. After having done so, Modified KIM would still not explicitly teach a particle diameter of 0.8 μm and 1.5 μm . However, the range of WANG encompasses the claimed range . WANG teaches the benefit of the particle diameter falling in this range is a more dispersive negative electrode active material. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). 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 overlapping portion of the particle diameter range in order to achieve the benefit of a more dispersive negative electrode active material. Regarding claim 13, KIM teaches a battery as explained in the rejection of claim 8. KIM teaches a secondary particle with a particle diameter of about 2 μm to about 15 μm ([0048]). KIM does not teach the particle diameter of the silicon particles is between 0.8 μm and 1.5 μm , nor do the ranges of KIM overlap. However, WANG teaches a secondary battery comprising (5) negative active material comprising a non-carbon negative electrode material with a D v 50 diameter in the range of 0.5 and 20 μm ( [0028] ). WANG teaches the non-carbon negative electrode material is silicon ([0024]) WANG further teaches that controlling the diameter to fall within an appropriate range the negative electrode active material is more dispersive and less prone to agglomerate ([0029]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to replace the silicon primary particles in the negative active material in the battery of KIM with the silicon negative electrode active material of WANG to achieve the benefit of a more dispersive negative electrode active material. After having done so, Modified KIM would still not explicitly teach a particle diameter of 0.8 μm and 1.5 μm . However, the range of WANG encompasses the claimed range . WANG teaches the benefit of the particle diameter falling in this range is a more dispersive negative electrode active material. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). 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 overlapping portion of the particle diameter range in order to achieve the benefit of a more dispersive negative electrode active material. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17156457 ( Reference ). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other , see the mapping and analysis in the table below . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Full Claim 1 of Reference: (Currently Amended) A negative active material for a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising: a silicon primary particle core consisting of silicon and having a particle size of micrometers; a particle layer comprising agglomerated silicon oxide primary particles having a particle size of 10 nm or less on a surface of the core, the particle layer comprising pores; and a carbon-based material filled in the pores of the particle layer, wherein the silicon primary particle core has a particle size in a range of about 1 pm to about 20 pm, [[and]] wherein the carbon-based material consists of amorphous carbon, [[and]] wherein the particle layer has a thickness in a range of about 60 nm to about 500 nm, andwherein an amount of oxygen in the negative active material is about 5 wt % to about 20 wt % based on the total, 100 wt %, of the neqative active material. Instant Reference A negative active material for a rechargeable lithium battery, A negative active material for a rechargeable lithium battery, the negative active material comprising a core comprising: a silicon primary particle core comprising silicon particles with a particle diameter of about 0.8 μm to about 2 μm ; and consisting of silicon and having a particle size of micrometers; a particle layer comprising agglomerated silicon oxide primary particles having a particle size of 10 nm or less on a surface of the core, the particle layer comprising pores; and a carbon-based material filled in the pores of the particle layer, wherein the silicon primary particle core has a particle size in a range of about 1 μm to about 20 μm . an amorphous carbon coating layer on a surface of the core. [[and]] wherein the carbon-based material consists of amorphous carbon , [[and]] wherein the particle layer has a thickness in a range of about 60 nm to about 500nm, andwherein an amount of oxygen in the negative active material is about 5 wt % to about 20 wt % based on the total, 100 wt %, of the neqative active material. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6917 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. . 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 Allison Bourke can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (303) 297-4684 . 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. /LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1721 /ALLISON BOURKE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721