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. Claim 1-12 are pending and considered in the present Office action. 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. Claim s 2-11 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 2 recites "the second direction" and “the thickness direction” , claim 9 recites “the thickness direction, claim 10 recites “the two blocking portions” , and claim 11 recites “the surface of the first battery” . There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim s . Examiner assumes “a second direction” , “a thickness direction” , “the blocking portions” , and “a surface of the first battery” . Claim 4 recites “the thickness direction” and “the surface of the first position limit portion facing the first battery” which lacks antecedent basis; examiner assume “a thickness direction” and “a surface of the first position-limit portion facing the first battery cell”. Claim 2 and 5 recite “the second direction, hence lack antecedent basis; examiner assumes “a second direction”. Further, claim 11 refers to a single “blocking portion” even though multiple blocking portions were previously recited, which is confusing; examiner assumes “a blocking portion of the blocking portions”. Claims 3, and 6-8 depend from the rejected claims, thus they are also rejected for the same reasons. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 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. (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. Claim(s) 1-3, and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Onuki ( US 2011 / 0269001 ), hereinafter Onuki Regarding Claim 1 , Onuki suggests a battery (see e.g., Figs. 1-3), comprising: a first battery cell (e.g., 14); a first holder (e.g., 18 of 2 at one end of cells 14, 14 at terminals 16/17) and a second holder (e.g., 30 of 3 at the one end of cells 14, 14 at terminals 16/17, see e.g., Fig. 6) provided at both ends of the first battery cell along a first direction (labelled in annotated Fig. 6 ), wherein the first holder (18 of 2) is recessed along the first direction away from the second holder (30 of 3) to form a first position-limit portion (i.e., arc abutting portion 32 , Fig. 6 , [0031] ), the second holder is recessed along the first direction away from the first holder to form a second position-limit portion (e.g., arc abutting portion 32 , Fig. 6 ), and the first position-limit portion and the second position-limit portion are oppositely provided (see Fig. 6) , the first holder and the second holder are buckled along the first direction (e.g., coupling portion 23 via 33/35), so that the first position-limit portion and the second position-limit portion cooperate to form a position-limit space for accommodating the first battery cell (e.g., 14) . Regarding Claim s 2-3 , Onuki suggests an end portion of the first holder along a second direction is provided with a first connecting portion (33) , an end portion of the second holder along the second direction is provided with a second connecting portion (35) , the first connecting portion and the second connecting portion are buckled to each other, wherein the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction, and the second direction is perpendicular to a thickness direction of the first holder ; the first connecting portion is provided with a groove (e.g., hole 33 [0033, 0037]) , the second connecting portion is provided with a protrusion (e.g., protrusion 35, [0037]) , and the protrusion is snap fitted in the groove, so that the first holder and the second holder are buckled to each other. Regarding Claim s 9-1 0 , Onuki suggests the battery comprises at least two first holders and at least two second holders, and along a thickness direction (see “thick” in annotated figure) of the first holders, the at least two first holders are arranged along the thickness direction, and buckled to the corresponding second holders to form a plurality of the position-limit spaces , see e.g., Figs. 1-3, 6-8; the first battery cell comprises two end faces oppositely provided along the thickness direction, and both of the first holders are provided with blocking portions ( e.g., 29, [0032]) which abut s against the two end faces respectively to restrict the displacement of the first battery cell along the thickness direction . Regarding Claim 1 1 , Onuki suggests a blocking portion of the blocking portions is formed where the first position limit portion protrudes towards a surface of the first battery cell, see Figs. Regarding Claim 1 2 , Onuki suggests an electrical apparatus comprising the battery, wherein the battery is used for providing electric energy, e.g., electric vehicle, [0024, 0065]. 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. 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. Claim (s) 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onuki (cited above) in view of Ringk (US 2020/0136098), hereinafter Ringk . Regarding Claim 4 , Onuki suggests the first holder ( e.g., 18 of 2) further comprises a first surface in a thickness direction ( see e.g., Fig. 6 ) , a surface of the first position-limit portion facing the first battery cell is provided with a glue overflow port (e.g., 20, [0031, 0036 , 0051 ] , see Fig. 6 ) Onuki does not suggest the first surface is provided with a glue injection port, and the glue injection port is communicated with the glue overflow port, so that the glue flowing into the glue injection port enters the position-limit space through the glue overflow port. However, Ringk suggests a holder ( 2 ) comprising a surface provided with a glue injection port ( see e.g., 18, 20, 18a ), and a surface ( 8, 10 ) of a position-limit portion facing the battery cell is provided with a glue overflow port (e.g., 14), wherein the glue injection port ( 18, 20 ) is communicated with the glue overflow port (14, see e.g., Figs. 3-4 ), so that the glue flowing into the glue injection port enters the position-limit space through the glue overflow port ; by way of the injection port and glue overflow port, the cells 22 can easily be sealed and/or glued/fixed to the holder 2, see e.g., [0036, 0038]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to position the glue injection port at the first surface , thereby allowing the glue injection port to communicate with the glue overflow port, so that the glue flowing into the glue injection port enters the position-limit space through the glue overflow port , to ensure the cells are fixed/glued easily to the holder, as suggested by Ringk (see also MPEP 2144.04, VI., C.) . Regarding Claim 5 , Onuki suggests the first holder is provided with at least two first position-limit portions, the at least two first position-limit portions are arranged along a second direction, the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction, and the second direction is also perpendicular to the thickness direction of the first holder , see e.g., Figs . Regarding Claim 6 , Onuki does not suggest the glue overflow ports on the at least two first position-limit portions are communicated with the same glue injection port. However, Ringk suggests a single glue injection port (e.g., 18a) communicates with several glue overflow port s (18, 20) , thereby allowing rapid filling of the adhesive (16) with a simplified design, see e.g., [0035]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the glue overflow port s of the two first position limit portions communicate with the same glue injection port with the expectation of a simple design allowing rapid filling of adhesive. Regarding Claim 7 , Onuki suggests the battery further comprises a second battery cell, the first holder is further provided with a third position-limit portion located on the surface of the first holder away from the second holder, the third position-limit portion is formed by recessing the first holder towards the second holder, and the third position-limit portion is used to form a position-limit space for the second battery cell , see e.g., Fig. 6 . Regarding Claim 8 , Onuki suggests the surface of the first position-limit portion facing the first battery cell is provided with a glue overflow port (20) , the surface of the third position- limit portion facing the second battery cell is provided with a glue overflow port (20). Onuki does not suggest the two glue overflow ports on the first position-limit portion and the third position-limit portion are communicated with a same glue injection port. However, Ringk suggests a single glue injection port (e.g., 18a) communicates with several glue overflow ports (18, 20), thereby allowing rapid filling of the adhesive (16) with a simplified design, see e.g., [0035]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the glue overflow ports communicate with the same glue injection port with the expectation of a simple design allowing rapid filling of adhesive. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yoshihara et al. (US 2009/0104516). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9835 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th 7am - 6 pm . 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 Ula Ruddock can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712721481 . 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. /ANNA KOROVINA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1729 /ULA C RUDDOCK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729