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. 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. Claim Objections Claim s 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites a plurality of limitations without the required separation by line indentation . See 37 C.F.R. 1.75(i); M.P.E.P. § 608.01(m). For example , lines 1-5 of claim 1 recite the separate limitations of individual battery components, the positive electrode active material density, and the positive electrode material. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 1 03 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. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 1 03 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita et al. (US 2021/0005933 A1), hereinafter “ Kinoshita , ” in view of Wan et al. (CN 111755753 A), hereinafter “ Wan . ” Regarding claim 1, Kinoshita discloses a lithium ion phosphate battery comprising : a positive electrode (¶ [0474]); a negative electrode (¶ [0474]); and a non-aqueous electrolyte (¶ [0469] & [0474]); wherein : the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode material layer with a compacted density of 2.3 g/cc to 2.8 g/cc, in this case the positive electrode active material has a tap density of 1.0 g/cm 3 to 3.5 g/cm 3 (¶ [0491]); and the positive electrode material layer comprises LiFePO 4 as an active material (¶ [0479] & [0482]); the nonaqueous electrolyte comprises: a solvent (¶ [0019]) ; an electrolyte salt (¶ [0193] & [0196]-[0205]) ; and vinylene carbonate (¶ [0313] & [0316]-[0319]). With regards to the claimed compacted density, Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Kinoshita does not disclose the compound represented by Structural formula 1. However, Wan teaches compounds according to Structural formula 1 , in this case formulas I-V, that may be provided in lieu of ethylene carbonate (DTD) in order to reduce the cost of electrolyte (Abstract, p. 3). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting any one of formulas I-V taught by Wan for the ethylene carbonate disclosed by Kinoshita would have yielded the predictable result of providing a functional electrolyte at reduced cost (Wan p. 3) . See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted the formulas taught by Wan for ethylene carbonate in order to yield the predictable result of reducing the cost of the electrolyte . Regarding claim 2, Kinoshita further discloses that the amount of the vinylene carbonate is 0.01 mass% to 5 mass% of the total mass of the non-aqueous electrolyte, in this case the unsaturated cyclic carbonate is preferably vinylene carbonate (¶ [0319]) provided at 0.001 mass% to 5 mass% (¶ [0323]). Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Regarding claim 3, the battery resulting from the combination of Kinoshita and Wan would yield the same X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy results because the references teach all of the positively-recited structural limitations of the claimed battery. Regarding claim 4, the battery resulting from the combination of Kinoshita and Wan would yield the same charging and discharging voltage range because the references teach all of the positively-recited structural limitations of the claimed battery. Regarding claims 5-10, Kinoshita does not disclose the compounds corresponding to Structural formula 1. However, Wan teaches Structural formula 1 as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above. Wan further teaches compounds meeting all of the limitations set forth in claims 5-10. Specifically, Wan’s compounds correspond to the claimed compounds as listed in the table below: Wan Instant Application Formula I Compound 2 Formula II Compound 4 Formula III Compound 11 Formula IV Compound 3 Formula V Compound 1 One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting any one of formulas I-V taught by Wan for the ethylene carbonate disclosed by Kinoshita would have yielded the predictable result of providing a functional electrolyte at reduced cost (Wan p. 3). See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted the formulas taught by Wan for ethylene carbonate in order to yield the predictable result of reducing the cost of the electrolyte. Regarding claim 11, Kinoshita further discloses that the amount of the vinylene carbonate is 0.1 mass% to 2 mass% of the total mass of the non-aqueous electrolyte, in this case the unsaturated cyclic carbonate is preferably vinylene carbonate (¶ [0319]) that is more preferably provided at 0.1 mass% to 3 mass% (¶ [0323]). Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Regarding claim 12, Kinoshita further discloses that the non-aqueous electrolyte further comprises a supplemental additive , in this case a different aid such as 1,3-propane sultone and ethylene sulfate (¶ [0397]). Regarding claim 13, Kinoshita further discloses that the supplemental additive is provided at less than 10 mass% of the non-aqueous electrolyte, in this case the different aid is provided at 0.01 mass % to less than 5 mass% (¶0399]). Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Regarding claim 14, Kinoshita further discloses that the supplemental additive is provided at l0.1 mass% to 5 mass% of the non-aqueous electrolyte, in this case the different aid is provided at 0.01 mass % to less than 5 mass% (¶0399]). Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Regarding claim 15, Kinoshita further discloses that the supplemental additive, is selected from 1,3-propane sultone, ethylene sulfate, and others (¶ [0397]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7641 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9 am to 5 pm . 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 Ula Ruddock can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1481 . 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. /SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729