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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 03/03/26 is acknowledged. Accordingly, non-elected Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from consideration. Claim Objections Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “includes an first inlet check valve” should be written as “includes a first inlet check valve.” 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 8 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. The term “ near ” (in the phrase “positioned near opposite ends or sides”) in C laim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ near ” is 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. In other words, Claim 8 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what distance(s) is/are considered “near” opposite ends or sides of the enclosure tray (as opposed to “not near” opposite ends or sides of the enclosure tray). For purposes of examination, any distance which is “nearer” to the claimed opposite ends or sides as compared to another distance will be interpreted as being “near” the claimed opposite ends or sides. Claim 9 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. The term “ near ” (in the phrase “positioned near a common end or side”) in C laim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ near ” is 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. In other words, Claim 9 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what distance(s) is/are considered “near” a common end or side of the enclosure tray (as opposed to “not near” a common end or side of the enclosure tray). For purposes of examination, any distance which is “nearer” to the claimed common end or side as compared to another distance will be interpreted as being “near” the claimed common end or side. 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhan et al. (CN 104051684, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes) . Regarding Claim 1, Zhan teaches a power battery device used in a vehicle (“traction battery pack”) (Abstract, [0002], [0016]). As illustrated in Figure 1, Zhan teaches that the device comprises a battery box (1) (“enclosure assembly”) which includes an “enclosure cover” (i.e. the top /roof of the battery box) and an “enclosure tray” (i.e. the conical/sloping/concave shaped bottom of the battery box) which cooperate to establish an interior, and a plurality of power battery modules (2) (collectively interpreted as a “battery array”) positioned within the interior ([0010], [0030]-[0031], [0039]). As illustrated in Figures 1-2, the device further comprises a “water drainage system” including a drainage pipe (7) (“first drainage tube”) that is mounted to or formed as part of the enclosure tray, wherein the drainage pipe is configured to drain water (“fluid”) from the interior to a location outside of the device (e.g. a location outside of the device via a water drain valve in a buffer tank (11)) ([0009], [0015], [0017]-[0019], [0030]-[0031]). Regarding Claim 2, Zhan teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described. As previously described (See Claim 1), the drainage pipe is configured to drain water from the interior (“the fluid includes water”). Regarding Claim 3, Zhan teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described As illustrated in Figures 1-2, the drainage pipe is configured to interface with the interior via a drainage device (6) (“drain”) provided within a floor of the enclosure tray ([0030]-[0031]). Regarding Claim 4, Zhan teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 3, as previously described. As illustrated in Figure 1, the drain includes a hole (“at least one hole”) formed through the floor ([0030]-[0031]). Regarding Claim 5, Zhan teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described. As illustrated in Figures 1-2, the drainage pipe includes an opening (i.e. the inlet of the drainage pipe) that aligns with the hole to allow the water to drain into the drainage pipe. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 6 , 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan et al. (CN 104051684, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes), and further in view of Dolmatch et al. (US 2018/0000999). Regarding Claim 6, Zhan teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described. Zhan does not explicitly teach that the drainage pipe includes a first inlet check valve, a first outlet check valve, and a first tubular body extending between said valves. However, it is first noted that as illustrated in Figure 2, Zhan does teach the presence of a first inlet solenoid valve (8) and a second outlet solenoid valve (10) ([0030]). Furthermore, Dolmatch teaches a fluid drainage system (Title, Abstract). As illustrated in Figures 1A-1B, Dolmatch teaches that the system comprises a tubular member (101) extending between an inlet one-way valve (102) and an outlet one-way valve (103), wherein the system operates so as to drain fluid into a collection reservoir (100) ([0093]). Dolmatch teaches that the one-way valves make it possible for fluid to be able to flow in an intended, forward direction (i.e. an inlet-to-outlet direction ) , but not be able to flow in an unintended, backward direction (i.e. an outlet-to-inlet direction ) ([0093]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to the drainage pipe of Zhan, further include an inlet one-way valve (“first inlet check valve”) , as taught by Dolmatch, proximate to the inlet of the drainage pipe and an outlet one-way valve (“first outlet check valve”), as also taught by Dolmatch, proximate to an outlet of the drainage pipe, given that such one-way valves would help further ensure that the water is only able to flow in the intended forward direction (i.e. in the direction towards the buffer tank) and not able to flow in the unintended backward direction (i.e. in the direction away from the buffer tank). Furthermore, the segment or portion of the drainage pipe which extends between the one-way valves is interpreted as a “first tubular body” insofar as the drainage pipe itself is a tubular body, and the instant limitations of Claim 6 do not preclude such an interpretation (i.e. Claim 6 does not state that the first tubular body cannot simply be a particular portion or segment of the first drainage tube itself). Alternatively, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would replace the first and second solenoid valves of Zhan with, respectively, an inlet one-way valve (“first inlet check valve”) and an outlet one-way valve (“first outlet check valve”), as taught by Dolmatch, given that such one-way valves would ensure that the water is only able to flow in the intended forward direction (i.e. in the direction towards the buffer tank) and not able to flow in the unintended backward direction (i.e. in the direction away from the buffer tank). Furthermore, the segment or portion of the drainage pipe which extends between the one-way valves is interpreted as a “first tubular body” insofar as the drainage pipe itself is a tubular body, and the instant limitations of Claim 6 do not preclude such an interpretation (i.e. Claim 6 does not state that the first tubular body cannot simply be a particular portion or segment of the first drainage tube itself). Regarding Claim 10, Zhan, as modified by Dolmatch, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 6, as previously described. Zhan, as modified by Dolmatch does not explicitly teach that the first outlet check valve is a flapper valve. However, and as illustrated in Figure 7, Dolmatch teaches a further embodiment of the system which also includes an inlet one-way valve (407) and an outlet one-way valve (408) ([0104]). Dolmatch teaches that, at least, the outlet one-way valve is a check valve such as a flapper valve because such a valve is designed to at least substantially allow fluid flow in one direction and at least substantially prevent fluid flow in the opposite direction ([0108]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would use a flapper valve (“flapper valve”), as taught by Dolmatch, as at least the first outlet check valve of Zhan, as modified by Dolmatch, given that such a valve is specifically designed to at least substantially allow fluid flow in one direction and at least substantially prevent fluid flow in the opposite direction. Regarding Claim 11, Zhan, as modified by Dolmatch, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 6, as previously described. Zhan, as modified by Dolmatch does not explicitly teach that the first outlet check valve is a spring valve. However, and as illustrated in Figure 7, Dolmatch teaches a further embodiment of the system which also includes an inlet one-way valve (407) and an outlet one-way valve (408) ([0104]). Dolmatch teaches that, at least, the outlet one-way valve is a check valve such as a ball and spring valve because such a valve is designed to at least substantially allow fluid flow in one direction and at least substantially prevent fluid flow in the opposite direction ([0108]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would use a ball and spring valve (“spring valve” given that the valve operates, at least in part, via a spring), as taught by Dolmatch, as at least the first outlet check valve of Zhan, as modified by Dolmatch, given that such a valve is specifically designed to at least substantially allow fluid flow in one direction and at least substantially prevent fluid flow in the opposite direction. Regarding Claim 12, Zhan, as modified by Dolmatch, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 6, as previously described. Zhan, as modified by Dolmatch does not explicitly teach that the first outlet check valve is a spring-ball valve. However, and as illustrated in Figure 7, Dolmatch teaches a further embodiment of the system which also includes an inlet one-way valve (407) and an outlet one-way valve (408) ([0104]). Dolmatch teaches that, at least, the outlet one-way valve is a check valve such as a ball and spring valve because such a valve is designed to at least substantially allow fluid flow in one direction and at least substantially prevent fluid flow in the opposite direction ([0108]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would use a ball and spring valve (“spring-ball valve”), as taught by Dolmatch, as at least the first outlet check valve of Zhan, as modified by Dolmatch, given that such a valve is specifically designed to at least substantially allow fluid flow in one direction and at least substantially prevent fluid flow in the opposite direction. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan et al. (CN 104051684, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes), and further in view of Dolmatch et al. (US 2018/0000999) and Seki et al. (JP 2020004568, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes) . Regarding Claim 13, Zhan, as modified by Dolmatch, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described. Zhan, as modified by Dolmatch, does not explicitly teach that the drainage pipe is configured to expel the water to the location outside of the device in response to a force associated with a velocity change. However, Seki teaches a battery pack within an electric vehicle (Abstract, [0001]). Seki teaches that the battery pack is configured to drain water therefrom in response to forces associated with different vehicle driving conditions such as forward or backward motion, leftward or rightward motion, acceleration, and deceleration ([0033]-[0039]). Seki teaches that draining water in response to such forces improves active safety characteristics and overall safety characteristics ([0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would configure the drainage pipe of Zhan, as modified by Dolmatch, to expel the water to the location outside of the device in response to vehicle driving conditions such as forward or backward motion, leftward or rightward motion, acceleration, and deceleration (“in response to a force associated with a velocity change”) , as taught by Seki, given that such a capability would improve active and overall safety characteristics, as well as enhance the durability of the power battery device under driving conditions typically experienced by a vehicle. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 7 is 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 (Claims 8-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 7 further limits the traction battery pack of Claim 6 by further requiring a second drainage tube mounted to or formed within the enclosure tray and including a second inlet check valve, a second outlet check valve, and a second tubular body extending between the second inlet check valve and the second outlet check valve. Zhan, as modified by Dolmatch, neither teaches nor suggests the limitations of Claim 7. Zhan, at best, teaches a single drainage pipe mounted to or formed within the enclosure tray. Furthermore, while Dolmatch does teaches a single inlet check valve and a single outlet check valve (See the rejection of Claim 6), Dolmatch only suggests one of each of said valves as opposed to a second inlet check valve and a second outlet check valve. Seki does not cure the deficiencies of Zhan or Dolmatch. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7595 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7AM-3PM 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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. /MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728