DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 2. 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. 3. Claims 4 and 5 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. 4. Claim 4 recites the limitation " the arrangement direction of the battery modules " in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as " an arrangement direction of the plurality of battery modules ". 5. Claim 5 is rejected as depending from claim 4. 6. Claims 7 and 8-15 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. 7. Claim 7 recites the limitation " the side edges of the mounting brackets " in lines 1-2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as " side edges of mounting brackets ". 8. Claims 8-1 5 are rejected as depending from claim 7. 9. Claim 8 recites the limitation " the supporting edge is disposed on the side edge of the mounting portion " in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as " a supporting edge is disposed on a side edge of the mounting portion ". 10. Claim 9 recites the limitation " the supporting edge" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as " a supporting edge". 11. Claim 10 recites the limitation " the mounting portions, the mounting bracket is provided with hollow portions, and the hollow portions are located between the adjacent mounting portions " in lines 2 -4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as " the plurality of mounting portions, the mounting bracket is provided with hollow portions, and the hollow portions are located between the adjacent plurality of mounting portions ". 12. Claim 11 recites the limitation " the adjacent mounting portions " in line 3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as " the adjacent plurality of mounting portions " . 13. Claim 12 recites the limitation " the hollow portion comprises two edge portions extending in the length direction of the mounting bracket parallel to each other, and the reinforcing portion " in lines 2-4 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as " a hollow portion comprises two edge portions extending in the length direction of the mounting bracket parallel to each other, and a reinforcing portion " . 14. Claim 13 recites the limitation " the reinforcement portion comprises a rib portion extending in the length direction of the mounting bracket, and in the length direction of the mounting bracket, the hollow portion and the mounting portions " in lines 2-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as " a reinforcement portion comprises a rib portion extending in the length direction of the mounting bracket, and in the length direction of the mounting bracket, a hollow portion and the plurality of mounting portions " . 15. Claim 14 recites the limitation " the mounting portions " in lines 2 and 5-6 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as " the plurality of mounting portions". 16. Claim 15 recites the limitation " the side edge " in line 3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as " a side edge". Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 17. 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. 18. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 19. Claim(s) 1 , 3-5, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2024/0079704) . Regarding claim 1 , Lee discloses a fixing device for battery modules (abstract) , wherein a battery module (M, Fig. 2) is fixed to a bottom plate (lower housing body 211 of lower housing 210, Figs. 2, 3, & 7) having a first cavity by the fixing device (see airtight plate assembly 212 in attachment groove 211a, Figs. 3, 4 & 7, [0049] , [0051] ) , and the bottom plate is provided with a first mounting hole penetrating through the cavity wall of the first cavity (Fig. 7) ; the fixing device comprises: a mounting bracket extending in the length direction of the first cavity to be arranged in the first cavity (gasket 212A, Figs. 4, & 7-9 , [0039], [0050]-[0051] ) , the length of the mounting bracket being approximately equal to that of the first cavity (Fig. 7) ; a restraining member mounted on the mounting bracket (weld nut 40, Figs. 4, 8 & 9, [0039], [0050]-[051]) ; and a fixing member penetrating through the first mounting hole to be fixed to the restraining member so as to fix the battery module to the bottom plate (fastening bolt 300, Figs. 2, & 8-10, [0039]) . Regarding claim 3 , Lee discloses the mounting bracket is a monomer component (gasket 212a is an integrated component with a length approximately equal to the length of the first cavity, Figs. 3, 4, & 7-9) . Regarding claim 4 , Lee discloses the battery modules are plural (unit modules 111, Fig. 5, [0042]) , the plurality of battery modules are arranged in more than one row (Fig. 5) , and the length direction of the first cavity is parallel to an arrangement direction of the plurality of battery modules in more than one row (X axis, Fig. 5) . Regarding claim 5 , Lee discloses the plurality of battery modules are arranged in such a way that the long sides are parallel to each other and the short sides are on the same line (Fig. 5) , and the length direction of the first cavity is parallel to the short side of the battery module (Figs. 5 & 7) . Regarding claim 16 , Lee discloses the first cavity is provided with an opening at least at one end in the length direction, and the mounting bracket is detachably inserted, from the opening, in the first cavity (Fig. 7) . Regarding claim 18 , Lee discloses the restraining member is a nut (400, Figs. 4, 8 & 9) , and the fixing member is a bolt (300, Figs. 8 & 9) . Regarding claim 19 , Lee discloses a battery pack (1, Fig. 1, [0035]) , comprising battery modules (unit modules 111, Fig. 5) and a shell accommodating the battery modules (housing 200, Fig. 1, [0035]) , wherein the shell comprises a bottom plate having first cavities (lower housing body 211 with airtight plate assemblies 212, Fig. 3) , and the battery module is fixed to the bottom plate by means of the fixing device according to claim 1 (Fig. 9) . Regarding claim 20 , Lee discloses a vehicle having the battery pack according to claim 19 ([0055]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 20. 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: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . 21. 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. 22. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2024/0079704) as applied to claim 1 above. Regarding claim 2 , Lee does not explicitly disclose the mounting bracket comprises a plurality of first brackets arranged in a row in the length direction of the first cavity, with adjacent first brackets abutting against each other, and the sum of the lengths of the plurality of first brackets is approximately equal to the length of the first cavity . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the mounting bracket comprises a plurality of first brackets arranged in a row in the length direction of the first cavity, with adjacent first brackets abutting against each other, and the sum of the lengths of the plurality of first brackets is approximately equal to the length of the first cavity , since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (V-C). 2 3 . Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2024/0079704) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tang et al. (US 2019/0296296). Regarding claim 6 , Lee discloses the mounting bracket (gasket 212a, Fig. 9) but does not explicitly disclose the mounting bracket is of a hollow structure . Tang teaches batteries cells for battery packs in electrical vehicles ([0003]) . Tang teaches t he cross section of the inner portion 135 (e.g., hollow portion) of the gasket 125 can be square or cylindrical in geometry ([0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fixing device of Lee with the mounting bracket is of a hollow structure as taught by Tang as applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143. 2 4 . Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2024/0079704) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Schilling (US 20 0 9/026 370 6). Regarding claim 17 , Lee does not explicitly disclose the material of the restraining member is steel. Schilling teaches a pressurized underground enclosure includes a battery venting system having a battery within a battery box in a sealed enclosure (abstract). Schilling teaches stainless steel WFZ weld nuts from the Ohio Nut and Bolt Company can be employed to attach the pneumatic seal 58 to the cover 22 (Fig. 5, [0037]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the fixing device of Lee with the material of the restraining member is steel as taught by Schilling, since it has been held to be within the general skill or a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07. Allowable Subject Matter 25. Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. And the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 11 2 set forth in this office action on claim 7 is overcome. In particular, the allowable limitation is side edges of mounting brackets in the length direction are provided with supporting edges, and the supporting edges extend toward the first mounting hole or away from the first mounting hole. In the instant invention, with reference to FIG. 10 to FIG. 13 , the mounting bracket 7 a is provided with mounting portions 72 a and 72 b, the restraining member 8 is mounted on the mounting portions 72 a and 72 b, and the supporting edge 73 a is disposed on adjacent side edges of the mounting portions 72 a and 72 b on the mounting bracket 7 a ([0085] US 2024/0047808). Lee does not disclose, teach or render obvious side edges of mounting brackets in the length direction are provided with supporting edges, and the supporting edges extend toward the first mounting hole or away from the first mounting hole. 26 . Claims 8-15 are objected to as being dependent upon allowable claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the allowable claim and any intervening claims. And the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 11 2 set forth in this office action on claim s 8- 1 5 is overcome. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT VICTORIA HOM LYNCH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0489 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST M-F . 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. /VICTORIA H LYNCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724 /MIRIAM STAGG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724