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. DETAILED ACTION Drawings Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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, 6-8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 1020210066528. Choi et al (US 20220166080) is taken as an English equivalent of KR ‘528. Regarding claim 1, Choi et al. teach a battery module comprising a battery cell stack (120) comprising a plurality of battery cells, a housing (400, 300; Fig. 3) surrounding the stack, a busbar (170) connected to an electrode lead (111, 112) protruding from the battery cell, and a first heat transfer member (180) formed between the busbar and the stack, wherein the heat transfer member is in contact with the housing (300) (Figs. 8 and 9). Regarding claim 2, a first heat transfer pad (adhesive 190) is formed between the busbar and the first heat transfer member and in contact with the busbar (Fig. 9, [0057]). Regarding claim 3, the first heat transfer member comprises a first bent part (180b) (Fig. 9). Regarding claim 6, the busbar (170) is in surface contact with the first heat transfer pad (190) and the first heat transfer pad is in surface contact with the first heat transfer member (180) (Fig. 9). Regarding claim 7, the housing comprises a frame (300) cover a lower surface and both side surfaces of the stack (Fig. 3), and an upper plate (400) covering an upper surface of the stack, wherein the first bent part is bent so as to be adjacent to a bottom part of the frame (Fig. 9). Regarding claim 8, a first end of the first heat transfer member comes into contact with an inner lower end of the frame (Fig. 9). Regarding claim 13, a battery pack comprises the battery module (abstract). Thus, the instant claims are anticipated. 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 . Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. The reference is applied to claims 1-3, 6-8 and 13 for the reasons stated above. However, the reference does not expressly teach that the first bent part of the first heat transfer member is bent to be adjacent to the upper plate (400) as recited in claim 4, or that a first end of the first heat transfer member is in contact with an inside surface of the upper plate (claim 5). However, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the contacting of the first heat transfer member with the upper plate (400) rather than the bottom part of the frame (300) represents a mere rearrangement of the existing parts Choi et al. that would have been obvious absent some indication that the arrangement was significant or produced an unexpected result. See MPEP 2144.04. In this case, an artisan could have easily produced a vertical “mirror image” of the front of the battery of Choi, therefore locating the terminals at the bottom and the heat transfer members at the top. Accordingly, claim 4 would be rendered obvious. Claim 5 is also rendered obvious as the contact of the heat transfer member with the inside surface of the upper plate would be present. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1-8 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12237485. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The ‘485 patent claims recite all the elements of present claim 1 except for the limitation that the first heat transfer member is formed between the busbar and the battery cell stack. However, it is submitted that this is an obvious location for the heat transfer member based on a limited number of options for the location encompassed by the patent claim language. Claims 1 and 9 of the patent recite that the heat transfer member does contact the housing (the bottom part of the housing), therefore, it is apparent that the heat transfer member should extend in some way back toward the cell stack and housing, and thus it would have been obvious to place it between the bus bar and the cell stack. Claim 5 of the patent recites the adhesive, which is the pad of present claim 2. Claim 9 of the patent recites a transverse second part of the heat transfer member, which is the bent part of present claim 3. The “module frame surrounding the battery cell stack” of claim 1 of the patent meets the “cover” and “frame” of present claims 7 and 8. Claim 9 of the patent recites the contact of the heat transfer member and the bottom of the frame, which meets present claims 7 and 8. Claim 15 of the patent recites the battery pack of present claim 13. Present claims 4 and 5 are obvious over the patent claims for the reasons stated in the rejection above. Thus, the instant claims define an obvious variant of the ‘485 patent claims. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 9-12 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 9 recites, among other limitations, that the module further comprises a pair of end plates, and a second heat transfer pad between an inside surface of the end plate and the busbar. While Choi et al., the closest prior art, teaches end plates (150), the reference does not teach nor does it provide any suggested that a second heat transfer pad is located between an inside surface of the end plate and the bus bar. The embodiment of Figs. 9 and 10, as explained in the rejection above, meets the limitations of claim 1 but there is no suggestion of a heat transfer pad between busbar 170 and end plate 150. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan Crepeau whose telephone number is (571) 272-1299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher, can be reached at (571) 270-3879 . The phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272-1700. Documents may be faxed to the central fax server at (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /Jonathan Crepeau/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 DATE \@ "MMMM d, yyyy" \* MERGEFORMAT March 19, 2026