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. This is the initial office action for US Patent Application No. 18/203281 by Young Chan Yoon. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been fully considered. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Drawings Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claims 1, 3, 5 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1, 3, 5 and 14 recite the limitation “wherein the vapor chamber”. However, claims 1 and 3 recite the limitation “a plurality of vapor chambers”. It appears the singular form of the vapor chamber should be amended to recite a plurality of vapor chambers in order to properly indicate that multiple vapor chambers are present. Appropriate correction is required. 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 s 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-7 of copending Application No. 18/379302 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending and copending applications recite analogous battery module configurations . Regarding the pending application claims, the copending application recites a battery module (analogous to claims 1 and 3 of the pending application) comprising a plurality of battery cells ; a plurality of vapor chambers each installed between adjacent battery cells among the plurality of battery cells and configured to absorb heat generated from the plurality of battery cells; a heat transfer interface material coupled to one side of the plurality of vapor chambers, in contact with the plurality of vapor chambers and configured to receive heat from the vapor chambers; and a cooling channel coupled to one side of the heat transfer interface material configured to receive heat from the heat transfer interface material and transfer heat to an outside of the battery module, wherein the vapor chamber has a chamber in which a fluid is able to circulate and move, the chamber is filled with a working fluid, and the working fluid is vaporized by receiving heat from the battery cell that circulates in the chamber while being liquefied by transferring heat to the heat transfer interface material. The copending application claims differ from the pending application claims because the pending application claims recite (Claims 1 and 3) the vapor chamber having an extension part parallel to the plurality of battery cells and a condensation part has a bent end in one direction perpendicular to the extension part and the condensation part with the bent end being inserted into the heat transfer interface material. Despite this difference, the pending and copending application claims are considered to be obvious variations with respect to each other because both applications claim battery module configurations with vapor chambers that function to absorb and dissipate heat from multiple battery cells to a heat transfer interface material based on a fluid that circulates within the vapor chambers. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 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. Claims 1 and 2 are 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation "…transfer heat to the outside" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the outside” in the claim. Claim 2 is concurrently rejected because claim 2 depends from rejected claim 1. Allowable Subject Matter The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 1-20 contain allowable subject matter because the prior art does not teach or suggest Applicant’s claimed battery module configurations. Bourke et al. (US 2021/0074969 A1), herein referred to as Bourke, is considered to be the closest prior art to Applicant’s claimed invention. Bourke discloses a thermal control module for controlling the temperature of batteries in a battery pack. As seen in Figures 4a and 4b of Bourke, the thermal control module comprises a thermal plate 130 including a plurality of thermal plate openings 320 . Each thermal plate opening 320 may be aligned and in fluid communication with an engagement module flow channel 145 . This alignment feature provides fluidic communication between a portion of interior 129 formed by thermal plate 130 and a portion of interior 129 formed by battery engagement component 140 . Bourke however does not teach or suggest Applicant’s claimed battery module configuration that includes vapor chambers that include an extension part parallel to the plurality of battery cells, and a condensation part with at least one end bent in one direction perpendicular to the extension part, and the condensation part is inserted into the heat transfer interface material. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kritzer et al. (US 2023/0238632 A1) disclose an energy storage system comprising an emergency cooling channel. Shieh et al. (US 2022/0021049 A1) disclose a cooling structure for a vehicle battery. Harris et al. (US 2018/0183118 A1) disclose a battery cell with an integrated vapor chamber. Harris et al. (US 2018/0145382 A1) disclose a battery thermal management system comprising a vapor chamber. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT STEWART A FRASER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5126 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 7am-4pm, EST . 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 Miriam Stagg can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5256 . 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. /STEWART A FRASER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724