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. If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. Status of Claims Claims 1-17 are pending in the application and are presently examined. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “low-voltage connection assembly passing through the inner side of the arch-shaped part” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter may be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities. Claim 1 states: “a battery module… comprising a first battery module and a second battery module, a gap provided between the first battery module and the second battery module; a low-voltage connection assembly provided in the gap” Dependent claim 15 repeats this claim limitation: “the battery module comprises a first battery module and a second battery module, a gap is provided between the first battery module and the second battery module, and the low-voltage connection assembly is provided in the gap” This repeated claim limitation should be removed from claim 15. 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. Claims 2, 4, & 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor(s) regard as the invention. Claims 2 & 4 state “the two ends”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims. Claims 2, 4, & 10 state “the extension direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims. Claim 11 states “the front and rear ends”, “the individual battery module”, and “the second high-voltage connection assembly”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in this claim. Claim 15 states “the battery pack further comprises a control means provided in the gap, located between the control means and the second battery module, and located below the control means” It is unclear how the control means can be between the control means and the second battery module, or how the control means can be below the control means . Claim 16 states “the control means support”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 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 claims are in bold font , the prior art is in parentheses. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20210194086A1 ( Ohkuma ). Ohkuma teaches the following claim 1 limitations: A battery pack (Figure A below) comprising: a housing (paragraph 90; figure 8: first case main body 33) comprising a base plate (Figure A) ; a battery module (paragraph 90; figure 8: battery modules 37) configured on the base plate and comprising a first battery module and a second battery module (Figure A) , a gap provided between the first battery module and the second battery module (Figure A) ; a low-voltage connection assembly (paragraph 90; figure 8: low voltage connector 50) provided in the gap (Figure A) … a reinforcement member (paragraph 91; figure 8: main body portion 50a) provided on the base plate and comprising an arch-shaped part provided in the gap and arched upward (Figure A) , the low-voltage connection assembly passing through the inner side of the arch-shaped part (Figure A) Figure A: Annotated Ohkuma Figure 8 Ohkuma fails to state that the low voltage connector 50 is electrically connected to the battery module. The low voltage connector 50 is located in the battery pack, so it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to electrically connect the low voltage connector 50 to the battery module. With regard to claim 2 , modified Ohkuma teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 2 states: a first connection member and a second connection member provided on the base plate, the first connection member and the second connection member extending in the extension direction of the base plate, the two ends of the reinforcement member secured to each of the first connection member and the second connection member Ohkuma doesn’t explicitly describe these connection members. It would have been obvious, however, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to have used bolts or other fasteners [claimed connection members] to secure the main body portion 50a [claimed reinforcement member] to the base plate. It also would have been obvious to place these fasteners at two ends of the reinforcement member. Ohkuma’s battery is for a vehicle (abstract). It would have been obvious to use the fasteners, as noted in the prior paragraph, to avoid relative motion and damage of the components with respect to each other as the vehicle moves. With regard to claim 3 , modified Ohkuma teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 3 states: a control means provided in the gap and electrically connected to the battery module via the low-voltage connection assembly Ohkuma teaches a junction board 39 and a battery control device 40 in a gap next to the gap where the low voltage connector 50 is located. Ohkuma doesn’t describe the electrical connection between these components. Low voltage is used for controls. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use low voltage with a control means for battery control. Therefore, it would have been obvious for Ohkuma’s junction board 39 and/or battery control device 40 to be electrically connected to the battery module via the low voltage connector 50. Although Ohkuma’s junction board 39 and battery control device 40 are in a gap next to the gap where the low voltage connector 50 is located, and not in the same gap, it would have been obvious to place these components in a convenient location, which could be the same gap. With regard to claim 4 , modified Ohkuma teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 2 as described above. Ohkuma also teaches the following claim 4 limitations: the reinforcement member comprises the arch-shaped part and an upright part, the upright part extends downwards from the two ends of the arch-shaped part (Figure B below) Figure B: Annotated Ohkuma Figure 8 Claim 4 also states: the upright part… overlaps the first connection member and/or the second connection member as seen from the extension direction of the first connection member and the second connection member As discussed in the claim 2 rejection above, the connection members are obvious. Also, it would have been obvious for the upright part to encircle the connection members and to overlap the connection member head (e.g. head of a bolt or rivet) for securing the main body portion 50a [a reinforcement member] to the base plate. With regard to claim 5 , modified Ohkuma teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 3 as described above. Ohkuma also teaches the following claim 5 limitation: the arch-shaped part is provided with a plurality of recesses (Figure C below: recesses are between the arch-shaped part and the low-voltage connection assembly) Figure C: Annotated Ohkuma Figure 8 With regard to claim 6 , modified Ohkuma teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 2 as described above. Claim 6 states: the reinforcement member comprises a secure part, and a bolt passes through the secure part and the first connection member or the second connection member in sequence and is secured on the base plate As discussed under claim 2, the claimed connection member can be a bolt [claimed connection member] to secure the main body portion 50a [claimed reinforcement member] to the base plate. Alternatively, the connection member can be a flat washer to extend the effective head diameter of the bolt. Although Ohkuma doesn’t teach a secure part, it would have been obvious to have used a lock washer as the secure part to prevent unwinding and loosening of the bolt due to vehicle vibration. It has been common for decades to use a smooth flat washer and a lock washer together. Thus, the bolt would extend through the lock washer [claimed secure part] and through the flat washer [claimed connection member] to secure to the base plate. With regard to claim 7 , modified Ohkuma teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Ohkuma also teaches the following claim 7 limitation: a first high-voltage connection assembly (paragraph 90; figure 8: high voltage connector 51) , the base plate provided with a receiving section, the first high-voltage connection assembly accommodated in the receiving section (Figure D below) Figure D: Annotated Ohkuma Figure 8 With regard to claim 8 , modified Ohkuma teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 7 as described above. Ohkuma also teaches the following claim 8 limitation: the base plate is provided with a coolant channel (paragraphs 66-72; figures 3, 5, & 7: water jackets 36A, 36B, & 47) With regard to claim 9 , modified Ohkuma teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 7-8 as described above. Ohkuma also teaches the following claim 9 limitation: the reinforcement member is provided over the base plate (Figure A above) With regard to claim 10 , modified Ohkuma teaches the limitations of claim 1 & 7-8 as described above. Ohkuma also teaches the following claim 10 limitations: a part of the coolant channel distant from the centerline of the base plate is upstream along the liquid flow and a part of the coolant channel closer to the centerline of the base plate is downstream along the liquid flow, in which the centerline extends in the extension direction of the base plate (Figure E below) Figure E: Annotated Ohkuma Figure 5 With regard to claim 11 , modified Ohkuma teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 7 as described above. Claim 11 states: the housing is provided with a first connector and a second connector at the front and rear ends, respectively; the battery pack further comprises a power distribution unit provided over the individual battery module and electrically connected to the battery module, electrically connected to the first connector via the first high-voltage connection assembly, and electrically connected to the second connector via the second high-voltage connection assembly Ohkuma doesn’t explicitly teach this exact arrangement of connectors and electrical distribution. One of ordinary skill in the art would have knowledge of electrical connections. Electrical connectors, such as wires and bus bars, are routed in available locations to avoid electrical interference with electronics, to avoid short circuits, and to keep the connector short for cost and material savings. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to arrange connectors and distribution as claimed. With regard to claim 12 , modified Ohkuma teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 7 as described above. Claim 12 states: the first high-voltage connection assembly comprises a high-voltage cable bundle Ohkuma’s high voltage connector 51 [claimed first high-voltage connection assembly] supplies current to an electric motor 11 (paragraph 92), which must be done by wires, cables, or bus bars [claimed high-voltage cable bundle]. Claim 12 also states: the high-voltage cable bundle is disposed in the receiving section Ohkuma’s wires, cables, or bus bars must connect at the high voltage connector 51 in order to transmit electrical current, so presumably they are disposed in the receiving section. Claim 12 also states: the first high-voltage connection assembly comprises… a high-voltage cable bundle support, and …the high-voltage cable bundle support covers the high-voltage cable bundle from above and forms a ceiling of the receiving section Ohkuma doesn’t explicitly teach this claim limitation. An EMT connector, such as for example the one illustrated in Figure F, have been used for decades to support and protect electrical cables as they enter or exit a metal box with electrical components. This EMT connector covers the high-voltage cable bundle from above and forms a ceiling of the receiving section. Figure F: EMT Connector It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use an EMT connector for supporting and protecting the high-voltage cable bundle. With regard to claim 13 , modified Ohkuma teaches the limitations of claims 1, 7, & 12 as described above. Claim 13 states: a cushioning member is provided between the high-voltage cable bundle support and the reinforcement member Ohkuma doesn’t explicitly teach this claim limitation. A “cushioning member”, such as an electrical box gasket, has been used at electrical boxes for decades at the exterior of homes and on sprinkler electrical boxes. These prevent water entry into the box. In a vehicle, this gasket would also prevent motion between the components in order to prevent damage and noise. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use a cushioning member in the claimed location in order to avoid water entry into the housing and to avoid damage or noise due to these components hitting against each other. With regard to claim 14 , modified Ohkuma teaches the limitations of claims 1, 7, & 12 as described above. Claim 14 states: the low-voltage connection assembly comprises a low-voltage cable bundle and a low-voltage cable bundle support, and the low-voltage cable bundle is secured on the high-voltage cable bundle support via the low-voltage cable bundle support Ohkuma doesn’t teach this exact arrangement of connectors and support. One of ordinary skill in the art would have knowledge of electrical connections, and of the need to provide support for electrical components for protection of the components. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to arrange connectors and support as claimed for protection of the components. With regard to claim 15 , modified Ohkuma teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 15 states: the battery module comprises a first battery module and a second battery module, a gap is provided between the first battery module and the second battery module, and the low-voltage connection assembly is provided in the gap This is a repeated claim limitation from claim 1, and is discussed in the Objection and in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 above. Claim 15 also states: the battery pack further comprises a control means provided in the gap This same limitation is in claim 3, and is discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 3 above. Claim 15 also states: a control means… located between the control means and the second battery module, and located below the control means This incomprehensible claim limitation is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). It will not be discussed further under 35 U.S.C. 103 until its meaning is clarified. With regard to claim 16 , modified Ohkuma teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 15 as described above. Claim 16 states: the control means is secured on the base plate via the control means support Ohkuma doesn’t teach a control means support. Ohkuma’s battery is for a vehicle (paragraph 64; figure 1). It would have been obvious to secure the control means to prevent damage to it and surrounding components as the vehicle moves. Claim 16 also states: the control means support comprises a main part and a base part, the main part is configured vertically with respect to the base plate and holds the control means, and the base part is bent from the lower end of the main part and mounted on the base plate This merely describes a common L-shaped bracket (Figure G below). These have been used for decades for securing two components together, particularly where one component (e.g. a shelf) has a face at a right angle to the other component (e.g. a wall). Figure G: L-Shaped Bracket It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to mount / attach the control means to the base plate with an L-shaped bracket because these brackets are readily available and effective at mounting two such components together. With regard to claim 17 , modified Ohkuma teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Ohkuma also teaches the following claim 17 limitation: A vehicle comprising the battery pack according to claim 1. (paragraph 64; figure 1) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm ET . 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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. /R.G.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 1721 /DUSTIN Q DAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721