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 § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim (s) 1 , 4, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike et al (US 2008/0196957) in view of Fees et al (US 10,389,047). Regarding claim 1, Koike teaches a battery cooling structure for cooling a battery used in a vehicle (0003). The battery box includes a battery cover and a plurality of battery modules housed within the cover (0031). As shown in figure s 7 and 10, there is a lower cover 30 and an upper cover 31 which are considered to be the housing and cover , respectively . The upper cover 31 is shown to cover the opening of the lower cover 30 and the lower cover 30 is shown have an internal space for the battery modules 23 (figure 7). Figure 10 shows the upper cover 31 to have an air introducing port 41 which is considered to be the instantly claimed intake hole. As shown in figure 6, intake duct 19 is shown to be outside of the housing at an end part and communicating with the air introducing port 41. This is considered to be a teaching of the first duct. As shown in figures 7 and 10, the upper 31 and lower 30 covers form an internal duct on the other side of the air introducing port 41. This internal direction is considered to constitute the second duct as it directs the air flow within the cell after the air is received from the intake duct 19 through the port 41. This is considered to constitute the second duct. The air introducing port 41 is taught to deliver cooling air via the intake duct 19 (0083). Koike does not explicitly teach the intake duct 19, interpreted as the instantly claimed first duct, to be configured to be displaced relative to the internal direction of port 41, interpreted as the instantly claimed second duct, when an impact is applied to the intake duct 19 due to a collision. As shown in figure 6, the intake duct 19 is shown to be external to the battery box 18. The end piece of 19 is shown to be inserted into the air introducing port. Koike does not teach a means of fixedly adhering the intake duct 19 to the battery box 18. Koike teaches this structure is protective of the battery box upon a collision (0013). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to displace the intake duct of 19 from the battery box 18 including the second duct which is internal to the battery box, in order to protect the battery box 18 from damage. Koike does not explicitly teach the battery module being provided with a high-voltage component that couples the battery cells. Fees teaches battery modules, which each contain battery cells, in the battery housing mounted in a vehicle. The battery modules are connected via busbars which provide the power to a battery junction box in order to distribute to the motor or other electrical components (col 3, lines 20-37). Busbars are considered to be the instantly claimed high-voltage component. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to utilize the busbars of Fees with the battery modules of Koike in order to provide a means to deliver power to be distributed to power the vehicle and/or vehicular systems, as taught by Fees. Regarding claim 4, as shown in figure 6 of Koike, the intake duct 19 is shown to be outside of the housing at an end part and communicating with the air introducing port 41. The end piece of 19 is shown to be inserted into the air introducing port. This end piece which is to be inserted is considered to be the instantly claimed attaching part. Regarding claim 7, Koike teaches in figure 6, the intake duct 19 is shown to be outside of the housing at an end part and communicating with the air introducing port 41. The end piece of 19 is shown to be inserted into the air introducing port. This end piece which is to be inserted is considered to be the instantly claimed attaching part. Koike does not explicitly teach the attaching part to be a clip, as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to utilize a clip as the means of attaching instead of the insertion as taught by Koike, as a clip is a known means of joining and would have been well within the purview of an ordinarily skilled artisan to try without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 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 closest prior art is considered to be Koike et al (US 2008/0196957) in view of Fees et al (US 10,389,047), as discussed above. Neither teaches nor renders obvious the second communicating part being provided with a shield part that overhangs at least on a side of the high-voltage component, as in instant claim 2. Claims 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 all ultimately depend from claim 2. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SARAH A SLIFKA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5838 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm EST . 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 Curtis Mayes can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1234 . 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. /SARAH A. SLIFKA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759 March 25, 2026