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. Examiner’s Comments The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the references as applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Claim Objections Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: second fastening “ mmeber ” should be rewritten as “member”. Appropriate correction is required. 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 5 is 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 5 recites the insulating heat dissipation member is “ H - shaped ”. The term “H-shape” renders the claim indefinite as it lacks the metes and bounds that would encompasses this particular shape. This is because “H-shape” encompasses varying fonts and style. Additionally, a cursive H-shape would result in a completely different shape from a printed lettering and a capital H has a completely different structure to that of a lower-case h . 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. Claims 1- 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yun et al. ( WO2021/029549). The Examiner notes that US 12,176,578 is the English language equivalent of WO2021/029549 and all citations will refer to US 12,176,578. Regarding claim 1, Yun discloses a battery pack comprising a battery module including a plurality of battery cells (210), a case (220) in which the battery module is received, and a busbar unit (100) connected to the battery module, wherein the busbar unit is configured to make electrical connections and to dissipate heat ( Fig. 3-5, col. 5, lines 4- 13). Regarding claim 2, Yun disclose a first and second busbar (100), and a insulating heat dissipation member (300, 510) as claimed. Yun discloses that the first bus bar member is connected to an object to the battery module (all Figs) and while Yun fails to explicitly disclose a second busbar member to connect the battery module to a charging member, Yun discloses that the battery pack includes devices for controlling charging and discharging of each battery module (col. 7, lines 24-30). Thereby, Yun implicitly discloses that the second busbar member to connect the battery module to a charging member. Further, given that Yun discloses that the heat dissipation member is a heatsink, Yun thereby discloses that the heat dissipation member is configured to insulate electricity and to transfer heat. Regarding claim 3, Yun discloses a relay member (400, 410) coupled to the busbar unit, a fastening member fastening the busbar unit to the relay member, wherein the first and second busbar member are disposed on the relay member, and wherein the insulating heat dissipation member is disposed above the first and second busbar member (Fig. 3-7) . Regarding claim 12, Yun discloses a vehicle as claimed (col. 7, lines 31-34). Claims 1 -3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakano (JP 2014-079093). Regarding claim 1, Nakano discloses a battery pack comprising a battery module including a plurality of battery cells, a case, in which the battery module is received [0045], All Figs), and a busbar unit (40) connected to the battery module, wherein the busbar unit is configured to make electrical connections and to dissipate heat (all Figs, Abstract). Regarding claim 2, Nakano a first and second busbar (40), and an insulating heat dissipation member (41) as claimed. Nakano discloses that the first bus bar member is connected to an object to the battery module (all Figs) and while Nakano fails to explicitly disclose a second busbar member to connect the battery module to a charging member, Nakano discloses that the battery pack includes devices for controlling charging and discharging of each battery module (claim 9). Thereby, Nakano implicitly discloses that the second busbar member to connect the battery module to a charging member. Further, given that Nakano discloses that the heat dissipation member, Nakano thereby discloses that the heat dissipation member is configured to insulate electricity and to transfer heat. Regarding claim 3, Nakano discloses a relay member (2, 26) coupled to the busbar unit, a fastening member fastening the busbar unit to the relay member, wherein the first and second busbar member are disposed on the relay member, and wherein the insulating heat dissipation member is disposed “above” the first and second busbar member (all Figs). Regarding claim 12, Nakano discloses a vehicle (Fig. 5-6). 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. Claim s 4 -5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al. (WO2021/029549) in view of ( Matejek et al. (US 8,288,031) or CN (109367405 ) ) . The Examiner notes that US 12,176,578 is the English language equivalent of WO2021/029549 and all citations will refer to US 12,176,578. Regarding claim 4, although Yun discloses a first and second busbar member being coupled to a relay member as set forth above , Yun fails to explicitly disclose plurality of relay members including the specific attachment with the plurality of the fastening members as presently claimed. Matejek discloses a plurality of relay members, busbar members, and fastening members with the arrangement as claimed (All Figs, Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yun’s battery pack to include multiple relay members with the arrangement as claimed, since Matejek discloses that this arrangement is known to obtain a selectively coupling battery pack (Abstract). Alternatively, CN ‘405 discloses a plurality of relay members, busbar members, and fastening members with the arrangement as claimed (All Figs, Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yun’s battery pack to include multiple relay members with the arrangement as claimed, since CN ‘405 discloses that this arrangement is known to obtain a battery relay control box that allows multiple functions (connections of the relay control box and the battery) (Abstract). Regarding claim 5, Yun in view of ( Matejek or CN ‘405) discloses that the insulating heat dissipation member is H-shaped. Further, it is noted that it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23. Claim 6-1 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al. (WO2021/029549) in view of CN 205863339. The Examiner notes that US 12,176,578 is the English language equivalent of WO2021/029549 and all citations will refer to US 12,176,578. Regarding claim 6, Yun discloses the insulating heat dissipation member, or heatsink, as set forth above, however, Yun is silent on the material. CN ‘339 discloses a battery comprising heat dissipation capability comprising a heatsink, wherein the heatsink can be of variety of materials including ceramic. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yun’s insulating heat dissipation member to be of ceramic material, since CN ‘339 discloses that this is a known material for good heat dispersion performance. Regarding claims 7-11, Yun discloses a bolt as a fastener (all Figures), however, fails to explicitly disclose additional structures or addons accessories as presently claimed for the attachment of the busbar unit to the relay member. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have additional structures such as rubber ring, bushing member, a body with the structure as claimed, and a buffer space as claimed. The motivation would have been obvious to explore different types of attachments and addons in the course of routine engineering optimization /experimentation to successfully secure the attachments between the busbar unit and the relay member. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention would have arrived at the claimed invention by routine experimentation alone, without exercising undue experimentation. Additionally, the law is replete with cases in which the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range, variable or other dimensional limitation within the claims, patentability cannot be found. It furthermore has been held in such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range(s); see In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Moreover, the instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions; see Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue known option within his or her technical grasp. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to optimize different types of attachments since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed additional fastener attachment is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the fastener attachment to include a rubber ring, bushing member, a body with the structure as claimed, and a buffer space as claimed dependent on the degree of secured attachment. Claim s 4 -5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (JP 2014-079093) in view of ( Matejek et al. (US 8,288,031) or CN (109367405) ) . Regarding claim 4, although Nakano discloses a first and second busbar member being coupled to a relay member as set forth above, Nakano fails to explicitly disclose plurality of relay members including the specific attachment with the plurality of the fastening members as presently claimed. Matejek discloses a plurality of relay members, busbar members, and fastening members with the arrangement as claimed (All Figs, Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nakano ’s battery pack to include multiple relay members with the arrangement as claimed, since Matejek discloses that this arrangement is known to obtain a selectively coupling battery pack (Abstract). Alternatively, CN ‘405 discloses a plurality of relay members, busbar members, and fastening members with the arrangement as claimed (All Figs, Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nakano ’s battery pack to include multiple relay members with the arrangement as claimed, since CN ‘405 discloses that this arrangement is known to obtain a battery relay control box that allows multiple functions (connections of the relay control box and the battery) (Abstract). Regarding claim 5, Nakano in view of ( Matejek or CN ‘405) discloses that the insulating heat dissipation member is H-shaped. Further, it is noted that it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23. Claim 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (JP 2014-079093) in view of CN 205863339. Regarding claim 6, Nakano discloses the insulating heat dissipation member, or heatsink, as set forth above, however, Nakano is silent on the material. CN ‘339 discloses a battery comprising heat dissipation capability comprising a heatsink, wherein the heatsink can be of variety of materials including ceramic. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakano ’s insulating heat dissipation member to be of ceramic material, since CN ‘339 discloses that this is a known material for good heat dispersion performance. Regarding claims 7-11, Nakano discloses a bolt as a fastener (all Figures), however, fails to explicitly disclose additional structures or addons accessories as presently claimed for the attachment of the busbar unit to the relay member. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have additional structures such as rubber ring, bushing member, a body with the structure as claimed, and a buffer space as claimed. The motivation would have been obvious to explore different types of attachments and addons in the course of routine engineering optimization /experimentation to successfully secure the attachments between the busbar unit and the relay member. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention would have arrived at the claimed invention by routine experimentation alone, without exercising undue experimentation. Additionally, the law is replete with cases in which the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range, variable or other dimensional limitation within the claims, patentability cannot be found. It furthermore has been held in such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range(s); see In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Moreover, the instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions; see Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue known option within his or her technical grasp. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to optimize different types of attachments since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed additional fastener attachment is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the fastener attachment to include a rubber ring, bushing member, a body with the structure as claimed, and a buffer space as claimed dependent on the degree of secured attachment. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LINDA N CHAU whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5835 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9AM-5PM 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 Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1291 . 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. Linda Chau /L.N.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1785 /Holly Rickman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785