DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority Acknowledgement has been made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 USC 119 (a-d). The certified copy has been filed on 05/24/2023 . Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed 05/24/2023 , 10/01/2024 and 04/23/2025 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered. Drawings The drawings received 05/24/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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 -3,7,8 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2016/0181674 to Kristofek ( Kristofek ) in view of CN101281073 to Lei (Lei). Regarding claim 1 , Kristofek discloses a battery module (Fig. 2A,2B) comprising: a cell stack having a plurality of battery cells stacked in a first direction (Fig. 2A ) , a pressure sensor d isposed between a first battery cell of the plurality of battery cells and a second battery cell of the plurality of battery cells facing the first battery cell 20, Fig. 1) , and a surface pressure transmission plate disposed between the pressure sensor and the second battery cell, and having a flat surface facing the plurality of pressure sensing nodes (para 52, Fig. 2A,2B) (Flow plates 160 interpreted as pressure transition plates: “ The separations between the flow plates provide spaces into which the battery cells are inserted during assembly. The distances between the flow plates are selected so as to provide a snug fit for the battery cells. This enables the compressive forces provide by the end plates to be effectively distributed throughout the stack of battery cells and all battery cells will be under bias pressure when the battery assembly is fully assembled ”). Additionally, Kristofek teaches that pressure sensor 20 can include, for example, a strain gauge or other type of transducer that generates an electrical signal in response to an applied force , but does not expressly disclose a plurality of pressure sensing nodes protruding toward the second battery cell . Lei discloses calibration device for a pressure sensor array (claim 1), wherein The pressure head testing component is connected to the force sensor (9) through the Z-direction linear stepper motor telescopic head interface (19). The force sensor (9) is connected to the pressure head (12) through the pressure head height adjustment rod (21). The signal line and power line of the force sensor (9) are led out through the force sensor lead outlet (20) and then electrically connected to the control component . In other word, head nine acts as pressure sensor part (node) protruded from member 21. Therefore, measuring the pressure through protruded node is known in the art. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure sensor of Kristofek with the protruded nodes, as taught by Lei, because the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious in order to provide secure positioning of battery cells. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.). Alternatively , Lei teaches calibrated sensor array 17 comprising a plurality of nodes (Fig. 3). . It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure sensor of Kristofek with the array sensor , as taught by Lei, because t he use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious in order to provide corrected pressure date for all area of a battery surface . See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.). Alternatively , Kristofek teaches that pressure sensor 20 can include, for example, a strain gauge or other type of transducer that generates an electrical signal in response to an applied force (para 42). Since the criticality of claimed shape of pressure sensor having protruded nodes- the a position claimed by Applicant is not supported by any showing of criticality of such placement in the instant specification, nor did Applicant stated that such placement serves any specific purpose or performs any specific function other that the function disclosed in Lei, it would have been obvious top those skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a suitable shape of the sensors as an obvious design choice, and as such it does not impact the patentability of claim 1 . Regarding claim 2 , Kristofek discloses wherein the surface p ressure transmission plate has a size corresponding to an area of the first battery cell (Fig. 2B). Regarding claim 3 , Kristofek discloses the flow plates made from Coroplast (para 55). Regarding claim 7 , Kristofek discloses pouch cels (para 30). Regarding claim 8 , modified Kristofek discloses wherein the plurality of pressure sensing nodes are disposed to be spaced apart from each other by a predetermined distance and configured to be distributed corresponding to an area of a first surface of first battery cell (Lei, Fig. 3 above ). Regarding claim 11 , Kristofek discloses a battery pack (Fig.2A,B, Fig. 6.3). Regarding claim 1 2 , Kristofek discloses a vehicle (para 39). Claims 4-6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2016/0181674 to Kristofek (Kristofek) in view of CN101281073 to Lei and further in view of US 20190097189 to Howe. Regarding claims 4 and 5 , Kristofek discloses that v arious materials can be used for various parts of the battery assembly but does not expressly disclose a sensitivity adjusting member plate formed of a compressible material and disposed between the plurality of pressure sensing nodes and the surface pressure transmission plate and wherein the sensitivity adjusting plate is a foam pad. Howe teaches a battery module (para 1, Fig. 6), comprising one or more foam pads (70, para 20, Fig. 6, re claim 5 ) capable to adsorb kinetic shock, i.e. adsorb pressure (para 20). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery module of modified Kristofek with the foam pad of Howe disposed between the plurality of pressure sensing nodes and the surface pressure transmission plate , because such in order to prevent battery cell from, kinetic shock. Regarding claim 6 , modified Kristofek in view of Howe discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 4 and incorporated therein. Regarding the limitation: “ wherein the sensitivity adjusting plate is configured not to be compressed less than a predetermined pressure ” is considered as a functional and imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Since the battery module of modified Kristofek in view of Howe is substantially similar an comprising the same materials as instant claim 6 (as claimed) it is fully capable to perform the claimed functions. As such, the instantly claimed apparatus is unpatentable over the cited prior art. Regarding claim 13 , modified Kristofek in view of Howe discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 4 and incorporated therein . Since claimed sensitivity adjusting plate squeezed between the pressure sensor, comprising plurality protruded nodes and made from foam (Howe, para 70), claimed recesses are inherently present. MPEP 2112 V states that "once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference." Alternatively , modified Kristofek in view of Howe does not expressly disclose the sensitivity adjusting plate in the shape comprising a plurality of recesses . The courts have held that changes in shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In re Dailey , 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the sensitivity adjusting plate in order to obtain corrected pressure data. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2016/0181674 to Kristofek (Kristofek) in view of CN101281073 to Lei and further in view of US 20200136109 to Idikurt (Idikurt). Regarding claim 9 , modified Kristofek discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein , including a connector pin for transmitting a pressure signal generated by the plurality of pressure sensing nodes to an external device (Lei, Fig. 1.2). M odified Kristofek does not expressly disclose wherein the pressure sensor comprises: an insulating film integrally covering the plurality of pressure sensing nodes . Idikurt teaches a battery module (Title), wherein insulating layer (18) (film, Fig. 1) disposed between a side surface battery cell and tolerance compensation layer 20, which passes a pressure from pressure plate 14 and designed to absorb the pressure caused by the changes in volume in the case of cell breathing. (Fig.1 , para 12 ). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery module of modified with the Kristofek with insulation film on pressure sensor (therefore nodes become nessarely covered, in order to avoid short circuit in case of damaging battery cell. Regarding claim 10 , modified Kristofek in view of Howe discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 9 and incorporated, herein, including a body portion a size corresponding to a surface of the first battery cell and inserted b etween the first batter y cell and the second battery cel (Howe, Fig. 1). In addition, as appeared to Examiner as depicted on Fig. 2, a part of the insulated film 18 disposed outside of the electrode assembly. Regarding the limitation: “t he connector pin is provided at an end of the branch portion ” Kristofek teaches connection of pressure sensor but does not expressly disclose a position for connection pin. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to place the connector pin at the end of the branch portion the since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 ( MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)) . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : US 20090123814 , JPO Notice of Reasons for Refusal (06/25/2024) and JPO decision to grant a Patent for JP 2023534407 (11/14/2024). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ALEXANDER USYATINSKY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7703 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT IFP . 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 Jonathan Leong can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-1292 . 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. /Alexander Usyatinsky/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751