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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement s (IDS) submitted on Sep. 18, 2023, and Feb. 22 and Dec. 9, 2024 have been considered by the examiner. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 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. Claims 1-8 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 “insulating sheet” recited in claim 1 renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear what kind (thermally? e lectrically?) of insulating sheet is being claimed. For purposes of examination, this recitation is interpreted as referring to an electrically insulating sheet since it appears to be the invention’s intent. This issue applies similarly to claim 5, wherein an insulating layer is claimed. Claims 1 and 5 recite an insulating sheet and an insulating layer, respectively. However, it is unclear what a difference between these two is, since the terms “sheet” and “layer” have a substantially identical plain meaning. The instant disclosure does not appear to identify the said difference. Claim 6 recites a thickness comparison between the at least one structurally enhancing portion and the frame in a second direction. However, the frame has a varied thickness in the second direction (as shown in Fig. 7). It is unclear which thickness of the frame in the second direction is used to compare with that of the at least one structurally enhancing portion. The claim is indefinite. For purposes of examination, a thickness of any portion of a frame in a second direction will be used for the thickness comparison. 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 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Seo et al. (US 20190267682 A1, hereafter Seo ) . Regarding claim 1 , Seo teaches a battery module (e.g., 10), comprising (See, at least, Figs.): at least one battery unit (e.g., 100); a carrying structure (e.g., 200); and at least one insulating sheet (e.g., a sheet formed of all protrusions 720, which is made of electrically insulating silicon rubber, [0061]), wherein the carrying structure includes a frame (indicated by the dotted lines , see the annotated figure below ) and at least one structurally enhancing portion (indicated by the solid lines) connected to each other, and the frame mounts the at least one battery unit (See, e.g., Fig. 6), wherein the at least one insulating sheet is installed in the carrying structure to cover the at least one battery unit (See Figs. 6-7: the insulating sheet formed of all protrusions 720 is in 200 and covers 100), and wherein the at least one structurally enhancing portion extends outward of the battery module past an outer surface of the at least one insulating sheet in a first direction (See the annotated figure below). Regarding claim 2 , Seo teaches the battery module according to claim 1, wherein the at least one structurally enhancing portion extends onto the outer surface of the at least one insulating sheet in a second direction (See the annotated figure below). Regarding claim 3 , Seo teaches the battery module according to claim 1, wherein the frame includes at least one battery unit is supported by one side of the at least one support, and the at least one structurally enhancing portion extends to another side of the at least one support (See the annotated figure below). Regarding claim 6 , Seo teaches the battery module according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the at least one structurally enhancing portion is greater than that of the frame in a second direction (See the annotated figure below). Claim Objections Claim s 4-5 and 7-8 are 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. Co rrespondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4809 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00 . 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 Barbara Gilliam can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1330 . 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. /ZHONGQING WEI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727