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. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In [0025], line 6, "first floor module support frame 182" should read "first floor module support frame 180" In [0027], lines 1 and 3 , "holding plate 188" should read "second floor holding pad 188" Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim ( s ) 4 and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: The following instances lack proper introduction using an article (e.g., “a” or “an”): Claim 4, line 2 recites the limitation " thermal glue " Claim 11, line 15 recites the limitation " first double-sided tape " Claim 11, line 18 recites the limitation " second double-sided tape " Claim 12, line 2 recites the limitation " t hermal glue " Each of the limitations above should be introduced with an appropriate article (e.g. “a thermal glue,” “a first double-sided tape ,” etc.), so that when these elements are referred to in later claims it is clear that the reference is to the respective portions of claims 4 and 11-12 . 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 s 7, 9- 1 0 , 15 and 17- 18 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. Regarding claim 7 , claim 7 recites the limitation “the second floor module ” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim . Since the previous claims (claim 1) recite “a second floor module support frame , ” it is unclear whether these refer to the same component. Appropriate correction may include amending “the second module” to “the second module support frame,” if that is what is intended. For the purposes of examination, the limitation “ the second floor module ” is interpreted as being “the second floor module support frame” recited in instant claim 1 , pending further clarification from applicant. Regarding claims 9 and 1 0 , claim 9 recites the holding pad of the battery pack assembly is formed of “expanded polypropylene,” while claim 1 0 recites that the holding pad is formed of “EPP90.” The specification discloses that the holding pad can be formed of vibration resistant material “ such as, but not limited to, expanded polypropylene such as EPP90 .” However, the specification does not define “EPP,” “EPP90,” or otherwise explain how “EPP90” differs from expanded polypropylene. Further, because claim 10 introduces “EPP90” as a specific material, but the specification presents it only as a non-limiting example without providing any indication of what properties, characteristics, or limitations are associated with this material, it is unclear what is meant by “EPP90” and how it limits the scope of the claim relative to the broader term “expanded polypropylene” in claim 9. Accordingly, the meaning and scope of claims 9 and 10 would not be reasonably clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art. For the purposes of examination, the limitation “EPP90” is interpreted as expanded polypropylene having properties consistent with commonly known EPP materials, pending further clarification from applicant. Regarding claim 15 , claim 15 recites the limitation “the second floor module” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since the previous claims (claim 11) recite “a second floor module support frame,” it is unclear whether these refer to the same component. Appropriate correction may include amending “the second module” to “the second module support frame,” if that is what is intended. For the purposes of examination, the limitation “ the second floor module ” is interpreted as being “the second floor module support frame” recited in instant claim 11, pending further clarification from applicant. Regarding claim s 17 and 18 , claim 17 recites the holding pad of the battery pack assembly is formed of “ expanded polypropylene ,” while claim 1 8 recites that the holding pad is formed of “ EPP90 .” The specification d iscloses that the holding pad can be formed of vibration resistant material “ such as, but not limited to, expanded polypropylene such as EPP90 . ” However, the specification does not define “EPP,” “EPP90,” or otherwise explain how “EPP90” differs from expanded polypropylene. Further, because claim 18 introduces “EPP90” as a specific material , but the specification presents it only as a non-limiting example without providing any indication of what properties, characteristics, or limitations are associated with this material , it is unclear what is meant by “EPP90” and how it limits the scope of the claim relative to the broader term “expanded polypropylene” in claim 17. Accordingly, the meaning and scope of claims 17 and 18 would not be reasonably clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art . For the purposes of examination, the limitation “EPP90” is interpreted as expanded polypropylene having properties consistent with commonly known EPP materials, pending further clarification from applicant. 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. Claim s 1-8, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1) as being anticipated b y Perlo (WO2021070018A1) . Regarding claim 1, Perlo teaches : A battery pack assembly for an electrified vehicle ( Perlo , abstract; claims) , the battery pack assembly ( Perlo , Fig. 1 ; battery pack 5 ) , comprising: a main body assembly comprising a structural frame support assembly ( Perlo , platform 4; Fig. 1) , the structural frame support assembly comprising: a first floor module support frame ( Perlo , lower tray 4A including longitudinal edges 400 and end edges 401; specification, pg. 9, lines 4-16; Fig. 1 and 11) that supports a lower battery housing ( Perlo , lower tray 4A and upper cover 4B; Fig. 1, 15-16; specification, pg. 4 lines 33-35 ) ; a first floor cooling plate ( Perlo , Fig. 13; specification, pg. 15, lines 7-11) supported by the first floor module support frame; a second floor module support frame ( Perlo , aluminum sheets AL arranged under a second layer of battery cells 7 ; Fig. 28B) that supports an upper battery housing ( Perlo , Fig. 15-16; lower tray 4A contain ing second layer of battery modules 6 with upper cover 4B) ; a second floor cooling plate supported by the second floor module support frame ( Perlo , Fig. 15; specification, pg. 9, lines 28-35) ; a holding pad ( Perlo , elastic leaves L and pad sheets 5A are interchangeable; specification, pg. 5 lines 28-35) disposed between the second floor module support frame and the second floor cooling plate ( Perlo , Fig. 14, pad sheets 5A; Fig. 28A, elastic leaf L located in between aluminum sheet AL and cooling plate F under a second layer of battery cells 7) , the holding pad having (i) first structural glue disposed thereon between the holding pad and the second floor cooling plate ( Perlo , specification, pg. 9, lines 28-35 and pg. 15, lines 7-11) ; and (ii) second structural glue disposed thereon between the holding pad and the second floor module support frame, the first and second structural glue inhibiting relative movement between the second floor cooling plate, holding pad and second floor module support frame ( Perlo , specification, pg. 9, lines 28-35, pg. 15, lines 7-11) . Regarding claim 2, Perlo teaches all features of claim 1, and further teaches the battery pack assembly wherein the first structural glue comprises double-sided glue ( Perlo , specification, pg. 15 lines 33-35 through pg. 16 lines 1-4) . Regarding claim 3, Perlo teaches all features of claim 1, and further teaches the battery pack assembly wherein the second structural glue comprises double-sided glue ( Perlo , specification, pg. 15 lines 33-35 through pg. 16 lines 1-4) . Regarding claim 4, Perlo teaches all features of claim 3 , and further teaches t he battery pack assembly further comprising: thermal glue disposed between the second floor cooling plate and the structural support frame assembly ( Perlo , specification, pg. 9, lines 28-35, pg. 15, lines 7-11) . Regarding claim 5 , Perlo teaches all features of claim 1 , and further teaches t he battery pack assembly wherein the structural frame support assembly further comprises a front beam, a rear beam, a first side beam and a second side beam ( Perlo , lower tray 4A includes longitudinal edges 400 and end edges 401; Fig. 11; specification, pg. 9, lines 4-16) . Regarding claim 6 , Perlo teaches all features of claim 1 , and further teaches t he battery pack assembly further comprising a plurality of first floor cooling plates that occupy a first layer in the main body assembly ( Perlo , Fig. 13-15; specification, pg. 9, lines 23-35) . Regarding claim 7 , Perlo teaches all features of claim 1 , and further teaches t he battery pack assembly wherein the second floor module is arranged generally parallel and offset relative to the first floor module support frame ( Perlo , Fig. 15) . Regarding claim 8 , Perlo teaches all features of claim 1 , and further teaches t he battery pack assembly wherein the holding pad is formed of a vibration resistant material ( Perlo , specification, pg. 9, lines 17-22) . Regarding claim 11 , Perlo teaches: A battery pack assembly for an electrified vehicle ( Perlo , abstract; claims) , the battery pack assembly ( Perlo , Fig. 1; battery pack 5), comprising: a main body assembly comprising a structural frame support assembly ( Perlo , platform 4; Fig. 1) , the structural frame support assembly comprising: a first floor module support frame ( Perlo , lower tray 4A including longitudinal edges 400 and end edges 401; specification, pg. 9, lines 4-16; Fig. 1 and 11) that supports a lower battery housing ( Perlo , lower tray 4A and upper cover 4B; Fig. 1, 15-16; specification, pg. 4 lines 33-35 ) ; a first floor cooling plate ( Perlo , Fig. 13; specification, pg. 15, lines 7-11) supported by the first floor module support frame; a second floor module support frame ( Perlo , aluminum sheets AL arranged under a second layer of battery cells 7; Fig. 28B) that supports an upper battery housing ( Perlo , Fig. 15-16; lower tray 4A contain ing second layer of battery modules 6 with upper cover 4B ) ; a second floor cooling plate supported by the second floor module support frame ( Perlo , Fig. 15; specification, pg. 9, lines 28-35) ; and a holding pad ( Perlo , elastic leaves L and pad sheets 5A are interchangeable ; specification, pg. 5 lines 28-35 ) disposed between the second floor module support frame and the second floor cooling plate ( Perlo , Fig. 14 , pad sheets 5A ; Fig. 28A , elastic leaf L located in between aluminum sheet AL and cooling plate F under a second layer of battery cells 7 ) , first double-sided tape disposed between the holding pad and the second floor cooling plate, the first double-sided tape inhibiting relative movement between the holding pad and the second floor cooling plate ( Perlo , specification, pg. 9, lines 28-35; pg. 15, lines 7-11; pg.15 lines 33-35 to pg.16 lines 1-4) ; and second double-sided tape disposed between the holding pad and the second floor module support frame, the second double-sided tape inhibiting relative movement between the holding pad and the second floor module support frame ( Perlo , specification, pg. 9, lines 28-35; pg. 15, lines 7-11; pg.15 lines 33-35 to pg.16 lines 1-4) . Regarding claim 12 , Perlo teaches all features of claim 1 1 and further teaches the battery pack assembly further comprising: thermal glue disposed between the second floor cooling plate and the structural support frame assembly ( Perlo , specification, pg. 9, lines 28-35, pg. 15, lines 7-11) . Regarding claim 1 3 , Perlo teaches all features of claim 1 1 and further teaches the battery pack assembly wherein the structural frame support assembly further comprises a front beam, a rear beam, a first side beam and a second side beam ( Perlo , lower tray 4A includes longitudinal edges 400 and end edges 401; Fig. 11; specification, pg. 9, lines 4-16) . Regarding claim 1 4 , Perlo teaches all features of claim 1 1 and further teaches the battery pack assembly further comprising a plurality of first floor cooling plates that occupy a first layer in the main body assembly ( Perlo , Fig. 13-15; specification, pg. 9, lines 23-35) . Regarding claim 1 5 , Perlo teaches all features of claim 1 1 and further teaches the battery pack assembly wherein the second floor module is arranged generally parallel and offset relative to the first floor module support frame ( Perlo , Fig. 15) . Regarding claim 1 6 , Perlo teaches all features of claim 1 2 and further teaches the battery pack assembly wherein the holding pad is formed of a vibration resistant material ( Perlo , specification, pg. 9, lines 17-22) . 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perlo as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Bae (WO2023096176A1, US2024304921A1 used for purposes of translation ). Regarding claim 9 , Perlo teaches a battery pack assembly with all features of claim 8 as described above , and further teaches that the holding pad is formed of a n elastically deformable material that suppresses vibrations to protect the battery components ( Perlo , specification, pg. 9 lines 17-23) . However, Perlo does not expressly disclose that the holding pad is formed of expanded polypropylene. Bae teaches a holding pad (Bae, Fig. 3 ; buffer member 400, compression pads 215 and 235) to buffer impacts (i.e. suppress vibrations) from external shock affecting the vehicle components , such as the battery module , during operation ; Bae further teaches that the material of the holding pad is formed of expanded polypropylene ( Bae, specification, [0091]-[0093]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the vibration resistant holding pad layer (elastic leaves L/pad sheets 5A) of Perlo from expanded polypropylene as taught by Bae (hereby referenced as “modified Perlo ”) . Since Perlo requires a material for the holding pad capable of suppressing vibration s, and Bae teaches that expanded polypropylene is suitable for buffering impacts caused by external shock (Bae, specification, [0091]-[0093]) , the modification would have involve d substituting one known material for another to perform the same function of mitigating mechanical forces (e.g. shock and vibration) to protect the battery components in a predictable manner. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perlo and Bae as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Del Rosso ( Del Rosso, Stefano. et al. On the Compressive Response of Polymeric Cellular Materials . Materials ( 2020 ) , 13, 457 ). Regarding claim 10 , modified Perlo teaches a battery pack assembly with all features of claim 9 as described above , including that the holding pad is formed of expanded polypropylene. However, modified Perlo does not expressly disclose that the expanded polypropylene is specifically EPP90. Del Rosso teaches that polymeric foams, including expanded polypropylene, are conventionally used in energy absorption applications, and further teaches that the mechanical properties of such materials depend on factors, including density ( Del Rosso , abstract; introduction, paragraph 1). Del Rosso additionally discloses and compares multiple densities of expanded polypropylene (EPP), including EPP30, EPP60, and EPP90 ( Del Rosso , Table 1) , and characterizes their mechanical response under compression, thereby demonstrating that different densities provide different levels of energy absorption and mechanical performance ( Del Rosso , Fig. 4a; Fig. 7a). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Perlo (as previously modified in view of Bae) to form the vibration resistant holding pad layer from EPP90 as taught by Del Rosso . Since Del Rosso teaches that expanded polypropylene materials of varying densities exhibit known differences in mechanical properties relevant to energy absorption, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected an appropriate density, such as EPP90, based on the desired mechanical performance. The modification would have involved selecting a known density of a known material to achieve a desired level of energy absorption and mitigation of mechanical forces (e.g. shock and vibration) to protect the battery components in a predictable manner. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perlo as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Bae (WO2023096176A1, US2024304921A1 used for purposes of translation ). Regarding claim 1 7 , Perlo teaches a battery pack assembly with all features of claim 16 as described above , and further teaches that the holding pad is formed of an elastically deformable material that suppresses vibrations to protect the battery components ( Perlo , specification, pg. 9 lines 17-23) . However, Perlo does not expressly disclose that the holding pad is formed of expanded polypropylene. Bae teaches a holding pad (Bae, Fig. 3; buffer member 400, compression pads 215 and 235) to buffer impacts (i.e. suppress vibrations) from external shock affecting the vehicle components, such as the battery module, during operation; Bae further teaches that the material of the holding pad is formed of expanded polypropylene (Bae, specification, [0091]-[0093]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the vibration resistant holding pad layer (elastic leaves L/pad sheets 5A) of Perlo from expanded polypropylene as taught by Bae (hereby referenced as “modified Perlo ”). Since Perlo requires a material for the holding pad capable of suppressing vibrations, and Bae teaches that expanded polypropylene is suitable for buffering impacts caused by external shock (Bae, specification, [0091]-[0093]) , the modification would have involved substituting one known material for another to perform the same function of mitigating mechanical forces (e.g. shock and vibration) to protect the battery components in a predictable manner. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perlo and Bae as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Del Rosso (Del Rosso, Stefano. et al. On the Compressive Response of Polymeric Cellular Materials . Materials ( 2020 ) , 13, 457 ). Regarding claim 18 , modified Perlo teaches a battery pack assembly with all features of claim 17 as described above , including that the holding pad is formed of expanded polypropylene. However, modified Perlo does not expressly disclose that the expanded polypropylene is specifically EPP90. Del Rosso teaches that polymeric foams, including expanded polypropylene, are conventionally used in energy absorption applications, and further teaches that the mechanical properties of such materials depend on factors including density ( Del Rosso , abstract; introduction, paragraph 1). Del Rosso additionally discloses and compares multiple densities of expanded polypropylene (EPP), including EPP30, EPP60, and EPP90 ( Del Rosso , Table 1) , and characterizes their mechanical response under compression, thereby demonstrating that different densities provide different levels of energy absorption and mechanical performance ( Del Rosso , Fig. 4a; Fig. 7a) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Perlo (as previously modified in view of Bae above ) to form the vibration resistant holding pad layer from EPP90 as taught by Del Rosso . Since Del Rosso teaches that expanded polypropylene materials of varying densities exhibit known differences in mechanical properties relevant to energy absorption, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected an appropriate density, such as EPP90, based on the desired mechanical performance. The modification would have involved selecting a known density of a known material to achieve a desired level of energy absorption and mitigation of mechanical forces (e.g. shock and vibration) to protect the battery components in a predictable manner. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ALEXIS R OSTWALT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8650 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 7:30am-5pm . 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 Marla McConnell can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712707692 . 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. /A.R.O./ Examiner, Art Unit 1789 /MARLA D MCCONNELL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789