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 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) 1–3 is/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. Claim 1 recites “a plurality of bus bars fixed to a plurality of battery cells” in lines 2 and 3. The intended numerical relation between the number of bus bars and number of cells is unclear (i.e., if the “plurality of bus bars” must be collectively fixed to the “plurality of battery cells” or if each bus bar must be respectively fixed to each cell). Figs. 1, 2, and 4 indicate that each bus bar 10 is respectively connected to each cell 120. Thus, for this Office Action, based on the claim’s broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, claim 1 will be interpreted to require a “plurality of bus bars” respectively fixed to “a plurality of battery cells”, as appears intended by figs. 1, 2, and 4. Claim 1 further recites “ a plurality of branch parts … to be connected to the bus bars, the branch parts include a coupling branch part connected to the two bus bars ” in line s 10–13 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the two bus bars” because the claim previously recites “a plurality of bus bars” (line 2), which could include more than two bus bars, making it unclear which two bus bars “the two bus bars” references. The bottom of p. 10 describes , via fig. 4, a coupling branch part connected to two bus bars . Such is exemplary, however (see “Each of the branch parts 31 according to the present embodiment …” at bottom of p. 10), meaning the structure is not limited to such. Therefore, under the claim’s broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, for this Office Action claim 1 will be interpreted to require , as the “plurality of bus bars”, at least two bus bars, as well as a “coupling branch part” connected to at least two of the plurality of bus bars, as appears intended from p. 10. Moreover, the intended scope of “the branch parts include a coupling branch part” is unclear because fig. 4 (and p. 10) depicts each branch part 31 as including a coupling branch part . Again, however, as such is an embodiment and, thus, non-limiting, for this Office Action claim 1 will be interpreted to require “a plurality of branch parts” collectively including at least one “coupling branch part”, as appears broadly suggested by the specification. Claim 1 further recites “the first bus bar and the second bus bar are able to be fixed to the battery cell” (lines 26–28 ; see also claim 2 , line 3 ). There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the battery cell” because the claim previously recites “a plurality of battery cells” (lines 2 and 3), making it unclear which cell “the battery cell” references. Such also makes the first and second bus bars’ fixing relation to “the battery cell” unclear given that fig. 4 depicts first and second bus bars 23/24 respectively connected to cells 120 . P. 14 describes, via fig. 5, first and second bus bars 23/24 fixed to battery cell 120. Such is exemplary, however (by showing an embodiment, per p. 4), meaning the structure is not limited to such. Thus, under the claim’s broadest reasonable interpretation —and consistent with the respective connection of bus bars above— for this Office Action claim 1 will be interpreted to require that the “first bus bar ” and the “ second bus bar” are able to be respectively fixed to at least one battery cell of the “plurality of battery cells”, as appears intended from p. 14. Claim 2 recites “the first bus bar and the second bus bar are fixed to the battery cell while causing the first extending part to be curved in an S-shape and causing the second extending part to be curved toward the opposite side of the battery cell side” (lines 2–6). Alongside the antecedent issue surrounding “the battery cell”, as discussed above, t here is insufficient antecedent basis for “the opposite side of the battery cell side”. As the specification envisages hexahedral extending parts and battery cells (see, e.g., refs. 36 and 120, respectively, figs. 4–8), it is unclear which “side” of the six is the “battery cell side”—and, thus, which other “side” would be “the opposite side”. Figs. 4–8 depict second extending part 36 curved “upward” and away from cell 120 along the conventional z-axis, though such is exemplary (by being embodiments, as discussed above), and, thus, the structure is not limited to such. Thus, under the claim’s broadest reasonable interpretation, for this Office Action claim 2 will be interpreted to require a second extending part to be curved toward any “side” opposing a side of the battery cell, as appears intended from figs. 4–8. Claim 3 fails to correct claim 1’s deficiencies and is rejected likewise. Appropriate correction is required. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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. Claim(s) 2 and 3 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), 2 nd 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter : The present invention relates to , inter alia , a bus bar module comprising a plurality of bus bars and a plate-shaped circuit body, wherein the circuit body includes a trunk line part and branch parts, where the branch parts include a coupling branch part connected to two bus bars, the coupling branch part including first and second fixed parts and first and second extending parts, where the second extending part has a length with which the first bus bar and the second bus bar are able to be fixed to the [respective] battery cell while bending the second extending part to be deformed. Takahashi et al. (WO 2020105402 A1; citation to English equivalent US 20220013867 A1) (Takahashi) is considered the closest prior art to claim 1. A s best understood in light of the above 112(b) issues, Takahashi discloses a bus bar module (connection module, Abstract and figs.) comprising a plurality of bus bars (10, fig. 2) [respectively] fixed to a plurality of battery cells of a battery module including the battery cells (cells 150 making up module, fig. 2 and ¶ 0027); and a plate-shaped circuit body having flexibility (flexible printed circuit (FPC) 20, fig. 2) and including a plurality of connection conductors corresponding to the bus bars (wirings connected to bus bars, ¶ 0076), wherein (per annot . fig. 6 below) the circuit body includes a trunk line part extending along a first direction in which the battery cells are arranged (TLP), and a plurality of branch parts branched from the trunk line part to be connected to the bus bars (wiring portions 25 (labeled BP), in being discrete parts extending from the TLP, reasonably constitute “branch parts”), the branch parts include a coupling branch part connected to the two bus bars (CBP circled), the two bus bars include a first bus bar and a second bus bar adjacent to each other in the first direction (per fig.), the coupling branch part includes a first fixed part fixed to the first bus bar (16/126 (labeled 1FP) connecting deformable portion 41/1EP to FPC 20), a second fixed part fixed to the second bus bar (2FP), and a first extending part (1EP), the first extending part extend ing along the first direction between the trunk line part and the first fixed part (in “y-dir.”, as depicted) . However, Takahashi fails to disclose or suggest the second extending part as part of the circuit body . To the contrary , the only part of Takahashi’s figure that could reasonably constitute a “second extending part” would be the U-shaped fastener above ( labeled 2EP ) by extending between the first fixed part (1FP) and the second fixed part (2FP) to bridge the bus bars. However, as clearly seen, the U-shaped fastener, even though bent and, thus, deformed, is part of the bus bar holder/frame (in white) , not the circuit body (in gray). Further, there appears to be no reason , desire, or even ability for the skilled artisan to arbitrarily integrate this member with the circuit body due to the two materials’ fundamentally different structures (i.e., flexible, polymeric circuit body versus rigid, metal fastener) and functions (holder/frame’s stabilizing bus bars versus FPC’s connecting bus bars to rest of module via the conductors/wirings). Moreover, even considering another portion of the S-shaped connector branching off the circuit body’s trunk (i.e., a portion distinct from 1EP) fails to achieve the second extending part because this member is not fixed to any thing besides the first bus bar (at first fixed part 1FP), meaning any part of this connector considered the “second extending part” could not reasonably “extend between” the first and second fixed parts. Further, one could not reasonably consider a pair of opposing branches across the trunk line part to broadly constitute the “coupling branch part” given that the first and second bus bars must be adjacent in the trunk line part’s extension direction/ “ first direction”. Yasuda et al. (US 20200396830 A1) (Yasuda) is prior art also relevant to claim 1. As seen in fig. 3 below, Yasuda discloses a similar bus bar module with a flexible circuit body including a trunk and branches , where portions of the branch parts are bent/deformed (e.g., 22 and 23) . However, Yasuda fails to reasonably suggest a coupling branch part including all recited fixed and extending parts. Rather, as seen above, each of Yasuda’s branch parts is connected to separate bus bars so that there would appear to be desire or even capability to achieve at least the “second fixed part” and “second extending part” and, thus, a “coupling branch part”. Again, an opposing pair of branch es , with their associated bus bars, would also fail to read on such coupling branch part given the bus bars’ required adjacency. In contrast, as seen below, Applicant forms the “coupling branch part” 32 by coupling, via a strip of the circuit body , first fixed part 35 on the first bus bar 23 to second fixed part 37 on the second bus bar 24 by second extending part 36 (fig. 4, reproduced below) , which is bent so that fewer branch parts are required in the module, improving a degree of freedom in the circuit body’s design (e.g., p. 2). The prior art of record could not have predicted such improvement from this configuration . Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion The cited art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20200020917 A1: substantially similar to Yasuda. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-4600 . The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST 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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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. /J.S.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 1751 /JONATHAN G LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 3/30/2026