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 Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “ protection apparatus ” in Claim 9 ; and “ cutting apparatus ” in C lai m 16 . The instant specification indicates the “ protection apparatus ” is formed of “the contacting cover 6 with an optional predetermined breaking point 7, the wall of the outer subhousing 4, and the gas-tight seal 8 of the outer subhousing 4,” see [0033]. This structure is sufficient to perform the function of protection, therefore, the recitation of “ protection apparatus ” in Claim 9 is interpreted as the structure of “the contacting cover 6 with an optional predetermined breaking point 7, the wall of the outer subhousing 4, and the gas-tight seal 8 of the outer subhousing 4.” The instant specification refers to the “ cutting apparatus ” in paragraphs 24 and 40. No sufficient structure capable of performing the function of cutting is provided. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claim s 11 and 16 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. The terms “no material weakness” and “ material weakness” in Claim 11 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “no material weakness” and “ material weakness” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Every material has some degree of material weakness to heat, stress, chemical reaction, external force, radiation, etc. , therefore, the metes and bounds of the claimed “no material weakness” and “ material weakness” is unclear . For the purposes of examination any material meets either of the claimed terms “no material weakness” and “material weakness”. Regarding Claim 16 , the Claim limitation “ cutting apparatus ” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The instant specification refers to the cutting apparatus in paragraphs 24 and 40. No sufficient structure capable of performing the function of cutting is provided. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. 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. (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) 9-11 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Tuomola (US-20180159110-A1) . Regarding Claim 9 , Tuomola discloses: A battery cell for an electrical energy storage device with a plurality of battery cells for installation in an electrified motor vehicle, wherein the battery cell comprises ( “a motor vehicle with a battery arrangement comprising a battery unit with at least one battery cell,” see [0001] ) : a cell core (lithium-ion cell, see [00 03 ]) ; and a hybrid cell housing which is configured as a combination of an inner subhousing with an outer subhousing (see annotated Fig. 5 below) ; and a protection apparatus configured to, in the event of a fault, eject the cell core with the inner subhousing from the outer subhousing (the batteries 3 /cells with the indicated inner subhousing are ejected from the indicated outer subhousing in the event of thermal runaway, see [0032]-[0034] and annotated Fig. 5 below) . Regarding Claim 10 , Tuomola teaches: wherein the outer subhousing is open in an ejection direction and has a seal in an opposite direction ( T he indicated seal is in a direction opposite to the ejection direction in reference to the floor 2 , see annotated Fig. 5 below . ) , wherein the inner subhousing with the cell core is arranged in the outer subhousing in such a way that a gas-tight cavity exists between the inner subhousing and the seal and in which, by introducing gas, pressure can be built up which can be used to eject the inner subhousing in the ejection direction (“High pressure gas may be pumped into the tank 1 itself, so that the pressure causes the floor to detach” see [0036] and annotated Fig. 5 below. It is the Examiner’s position that because Tuomola teaches addition of high pressure gas increases the pressure within the tank such that the pressure causes the floor to detach the tank is sufficiently a gas-tight cavity . ) . Regarding Claim 11 , as in given in the 112b rejection above, the requisite degree of having no material weakness an material weakness is unclear. Tuomola teaches the inclusion of batteries units 200 disposed in the tank, see [0031]. Fig. 2 shows four contact points (i.e., contacting cover ) on the battery units 200 . It is the Examiners position that any material for the contact points meet the claim limitation of both having no material weakness and material weakness. The orientation of the battery units are taught as being random , therefore , at least some of a first contact points are orientated in the ejection direction and second contact points orientated in the opposite direction, thereby, disclosing the following limitations: wherein the inner subhousing has a first contacting cover with no material weakness in an ejection direction, and a second contacting cover with material weakness in an opposite direction. Regarding Claim 13 , Tuomola discloses: a sliding material located between the inner subhousing and the outer subhousing (One of ordinary skill in that art would readily acknowledge that the high pressure gas that is pumped into the tank 1 slides between the inner and outer subhousing, see [0036]) . Regarding Claim 14 , Tuomola discloses: wherein the sliding material is configured as expanding and/or adhesive material and is configured to flow out after ejection ( as the high pressure gas causes the floor to detach during ejection the gas i s able to expand and flow out of the indicated outer subhousing, see [ 0036 ] ) . Regarding Claim 15 , Tuomola discloses: comprising a bead or a groove on the inner subhousing configured to lock the inner subhousing to the outer subhousing in both a retaining and electrically contacting fashion, wherein the bead or groove comprises terminals (electric connection pads (i.e., a bead) that electrically and physically connects the batteries to the tank via the negative/ positive terminals, see [0012] and [0033] ) . Regarding Claim 16 , Tuomola discloses: wherein the inner subhousing comprises a cutting apparatus in an ejection direction ( T he battery cells with inner subhousing s cuts through the surrounding gasses during ejection in the ejection direction , see Fig. 4. The instant specification does not give any indication as to what is cut by the claimed cutting apparatus what structure is capable of performing the cutting of the cutting apparatus. ) . 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: 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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuomola (US-20180159110-A1) as applied to Claim 9 above and in further view of den Hertog (US - 20190337587 - A1) and Hoffmann et al. (US-20080196553-A1). Regarding Claim 12 , Tuomola discloses the ejection mechanism can be done via a spring-loaded opening of the floor, see [0034]. However, Tuomola is silent to the mechanism of the spring-loading. To solve the same problem of providing a spring-loaded opening mechanism for a battery (see [0038]), den Hertog teaches the spring-loaded opening and closing mechanism in which the spring is compressed when closed and, therefore, decompressed when closed is a successful and convention spring-loaded mechanism system, see [0038]. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have had a reasonable expectation of success in providing the spring-loaded mechanism of Tuomola in which a spring is compressed when open and decompressed when closed as taught by den Hertog. Tuomola is also silent toward the spring being electrically conductive. To solve the same problem of providing a spring-loaded opening for a power supply unit (see [0042]), Hoffma n n teaches that having the spring be formed of metal (i.e. an electrically conductive material) is a successful and convention material for the spring of a spring-loaded element, see [0042]. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have had a reasonable expectation of success in providing a metal spring for the spring-loaded mechanism of modified Tuomola as taught by Hoffm a n n. Tuomola teaches that when the floor is open by the spring-loaded mechanism acts to electrically disconnect the batteries (see [0033]-[0034]) ,thereby, teaching a contact bypass . It is the Examiner’s position that the modification of Tuomola above teaches the following limitations: an electrically conductive spring apparatus that is pretensioned in a gas-tight cavity in such a way that, after ejection, the electrically conductive spring apparatus serves in an untensioned state as a contact bypass, Tuomola further teaches: wherein the gas-tight cavity exists between the inner subhousing and a seal(“High pressure gas may be pumped into the tank 1 itself, so that the pressure causes the floor to detach” see [0036] and annotated Fig. 5 below. It is the Examiner’s position that because Tuomola teaches addition of high pressure gas increases the pressure within the tank such that the pressure causes the floor to detach the tank is sufficiently a gas-tight cavity. See also Fig. 5 above.) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Kayla E Clary whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2854 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 (PT) . 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 Allison Bourke can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 303-297-4684 . 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. /K.E.C./ Kayla E. Clary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 /SADIE WHITE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721