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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 4 and 19 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 4, the wording makes it sounds like the sidewall is sticking out of the surface of the cushion member. It should state that the sidewalls protrude farther than the cushion member towards the end side. Claim 19 recites the limitation "the overlapping positions" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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 (s) 1-3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ootani (U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0308874) . Regarding claim s 1 and 2 , Ootani discloses a lithium secondary battery cell comprising: an electrode assembly 1 housed in a battery can constituted of an encapsulating case 11 including a bottom surface 11a and side surfaces 11b to 11e to have a box shape, and a lid member 12 (Paragraph 0044 and Figs. 9 and 12 ). Ootani also discloses that the battery can is made of metal and that the four side surfaces rise from the bottom surface. Fig. 12 shows that the side surfaces protrude further than an upper surface of the electrode assembly. As to claim 3, Ootani teaches that anti-displacement members 6A, 7A made of polyethylene foam are formed on the upper surface of the electrode assembly (Paragraphs 0065-0066 and 0109). As to claim s 5 and 6 , Ootani states that the battery can metal can be aluminum (Paragraph 0055), which is known to be pliable. Therefore, it can have spring-like properties and be displaceable away from the electrode assembly. Regarding claim 7, Ootani shows in Fig. 1 that the top of the side surfaces can have a bent portion that is bent away from the electrode assembly to be parallel with the lid member. Ootani fails to specifically teach that the distance between the inner surfaces of the side surfaces across from one another is larger at an upper side near the lid member than a lower side near the bottom surface. Ootani shows in Figs. 1 and 3 that the side surfaces are slightly inclined so that the distance between the side surfaces at an upper portion is larger than at a lower portion near the bottom surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the distance between the inner surfaces of the side surfaces across from one another is larger at an upper side near the lid member than a lower side near the bottom surface in Ootani because Ootani shows in the Figures that this is a common shape of a case for a laminated battery stack. Claim (s) 4, 8-14 and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ootani (U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0308874) in view of Oshita (WO Publication 2006-009062) . The teachings of Ootani have been discussed in paragraph 5 above. As to claim 13, Ootani shows in Fig. 3 that the top cell comprises a lid member on the upper portion. Regarding claims 14 and 17, Ootani teaches that a stack of cells can be formed in a battery pack casing CA with bottom, upper and side plates (Paragraph 0073 and Fig. 3). As to claim 18, Ootani discloses that anti-displacement members and pressing members 8A, 9A, 6B, 7B, 8B, 9B can be formed between the stack of cells and the battery pack casing (Paragraphs 0076, Fig. 3). Regarding claim 19, Ootani teaches that the different parts of the casing can be attached using laser welding (Paragraph 0057). Ootani fails to disclose that the side surfaces protrude higher than the anti-displacement members; that the inner surfaces of the lower part of the side surfaces are in contact with the electrode assembly; that the side surfaces include a bent portion bent from a distal end of a bottom portion of the side surface with a second portion extending from the bent portion toward the lid member, wherein the bent portion and second portion are displaceable away from the electrode assembly; that when multiple cells are stacked, lower, outer portions of the side surfaces of the upper cell overlap with the upper, inner portions of the side surfaces of the lower cell; and that the battery cell can be used in a power tool or electric vehicle. Oshita discloses a storage member 20 having two long side walls 30 facing each other and two short side walls 40 facing each other, the four side walls forming a rectangular frame 60, wherein the frame holds a laminated battery cell 1, and wherein the long side walls include a receiving wall 32 at a top part and an insertion wall 33 at a lower part, the interval between the outer walls of the insertion wall being narrower than the interval between the inner walls of the receiving wall (Paragraphs 0040-0042 and Fig. 2C). Regarding claims 9 and 10, Oshita shows in Fig. 2C that there is a bent portion between the insertion wall and receiving wall and that the bent portion and receiving wall are displaceable away from the laminated cell. As to claim 4, Oshita teaches that holding parts 52 are formed between the battery cells when the storage members are stacked (Paragraphs 0047, 0050) and shows in the Figures that the receiving walls extend higher than the holding parts so that there is room for another storage member to be inserted into the receiving walls. Regarding claims 11 and 12, Oshita shows in Fig. 3B that when storage members are stacked, the insertion wall of one storage member is inserted into the receiving wall of another storage member so that the outer portions of the insertion walls of the upper cell overlap with the inner portions of the receiving walls of the lower cell . As to claim 8, Oshita teaches that the terminals of the battery cells are bent to fit into the storage member walls and held against the walls (Paragraph 0043). Regarding claims 20 and 21, Oshita discloses that the batteries can be used in electronic devices and electric vehicles (Paragraph 0002). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the battery cells of Ootani could be stacked in the manner described in Oshita with the bent side walls receiving another cell because Oshita teaches that this allows for the stack to be more compact and locked together without the need for lids on each individual cell, which aids in expansion prevention. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the battery stack of Ootani could be used in a power tool or vehicle because Oshita teaches that battery packs are commonly used in larger devices and vehicles because they provide more power. Claim(s) 1 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ootani (U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0308874) in view of Oshita (WO Publication 2006-009062) as applied to claim s 4, 8-12, 14 and 17-21 above, and further in view of C horian ( U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0309175 ) . The teachings of Ootani and Oshita have been discussed in paragraphs 5 and 6 above. Ootani and Oshita fail to disclose that the holding member includes exterior plates arranged above and below the plurality of battery units, and a band member connecting the exterior plates. C horia n discloses a battery pack for an electric vehicle, the battery pack comprising: an array 26 comprising a plurality of battery cells 30 and support assemblies 34 stacked, end plates 38 on the top and bottom of the stack, and a band 42 wrapped around the end plates and battery cells (Paragraphs 0037, 0039-0043 and Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the stack of battery cells of Ootani and Oshita could be help together using end plates and a band wrapped around because Chorian teaches that this is a common alternative to a battery pack case for combining a plurality of unit cells in a battery pack that is used in an electric vehicle. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRITTANY L RAYMOND whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6545 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9 am-6 pm . 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 Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-3433 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT BRITTANY L. RAYMOND Primary Examiner Art Unit 1722 /BRITTANY L RAYMOND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722