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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on October 16, 2023 and December 13, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. 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. 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. 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kako (US Pub. No. 2016/0351967) in view of Forbert (US Pub. No. 2016/0036042) . Regarding claim s 1 -4 , Kako teaches a nonaqueous energy storage device (title; paragraph [0077]) comprising a positive electrode containing a positive active material which can be polyanionic, and can specifically be LiFePO 4 (paragraphs [0047]-[0049]), a negative electrode containing non-graphitizable carbon, where the non-graphitizable carbon has an average particle size more preferably from 2-4.5 μm (paragraphs [0055]-[0062], overlapping the claimed range of claim 3 , with specific embodiments having an average particle size of 2.1 μm (see figures 3-7, examples 1, 16, 31, 46 and 61) , falling within the range of claim 3 . Kako does not specifically disclose the specific surface area of the LiFePO 4 . Forbert teaches providing lithium transition metal phosphates with a BET surface area of 16-40 m 2 /g (paragraphs [0014]-[0015]), being completely encompassed by the claimed range of claim 2 of 14.0 m 2 /g or more, with a specific embodiment being LiFePO 4 having a BET surface area of 19 m 2 /g (paragraphs [0108]-[0117]) , falling within the claimed range of claim 2 . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use LiFePO 4 with a BET surface area as taught by Forbert in the positive active material of Kako in order to improve the energy density of the battery (see Forbert at paragraph [0014]). Using the specific embodiment of Forbert of 19 m 2 /g results in a range of ratio A/B of 4.2 (19/4.5) to 9.5 (19/2), such a range being completely encompassed by the ranges of claim 1 (4 or more) and claim 4 (10 or less). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1612 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30 . 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 Katelyn Smith can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5545 . 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. /P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 March 17, 2026 /KATELYN W SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749