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 Invention I (Claims 1-11) in the reply filed on March 5 th , 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 12-15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 5 th , 2025. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 and 6 of copending Application No. 18/452,013 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the follow: Claim 1 of the instant application claims a vehicle comprising: a battery pack including a housing and a plurality of battery cells positioned in the housing, the housing including at least one discharge vent configured to discharge gases generated by the battery cells from the housing; and a manifold attached to the housing and configured for receipt of the gases generated by the battery cells from the at least one vent; wherein the manifold includes a plurality of cooling vents that are configured to permit ambient air to enter the manifold to intermix with the gases generated by the battery cells. Claim 1 of the reference application claims a hybrid vehicle comprising: a battery pack including a plurality of batteries , the battery pack including a housing having a plurality of vents attached thereto for expelling battery exhaust gases; a manifold attached to the housing and configured for receipt of the battery exhaust gases expelled from the plurality of vents . Claim 6 of the reference application that depends from claim 1 claims the manifold includes a plurality of cooling vents that are configured to permit ambient air to enter the manifold to intermix with the battery exhaust gases. Therefore, both the instant application and the reference application claim a vehicle comprising: a battery pack including a housing and a plurality of battery cells positioned in the housing, the housing including at least one discharge vent configured to discharge gases generated by the battery cells from the housing; and a manifold attached to the housing and configured for receipt of the gases generated by the battery cells from the at least one vent; wherein the manifold includes a plurality of cooling vents that are configured to permit ambient air to enter the manifold to intermix with the gases generated by the battery cells. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 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. Claims 1-11 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. The term “ ambient ” in claim s 1 -2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ ambient ” 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. Therefore, the examiner will interpret claim 1 as --configured to permit air to enter the manifold to intermix with the gases generated by the battery cells-- , and claim 2 as -- the aperture configured to permit the air to enter the manifold -- and -- the manifold to intermix with the air --. Claims 2-11 are rejected as they depend from claim 1. Claim 10 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. Regarding claim 10 , “the cooling vents are formed in the primary panel randomly” is recited in Lines 1-2, however it is unclear as to what formed in the primary panel randomly refers, thereby failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Furthermore, the instant specification does not provide additional guidance as to how said pattern is formed randomly . Furthermore, The term “random” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “random” 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. Therefore, the examiner will interpret the claim as -- the cooling vents are formed in the primary panel--. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 , and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)( 2 ) as being anticipated by Coppola et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2024/0413476 A1 with earlier filing date of June 8 th , 2023 ), hereinafter Coppola. Regarding claim 1 , Coppola discloses a vehicle comprising: a battery pack including a housing and a plurality of battery cells positioned in the housing ( Abstract, [0005] , [0021], [0033], Figs. 1-2 ), the housing including at least one discharge vent (i.e., at least pack vent ref. 28 provided in the housing ref. 12 via an outlet port ref. 32 as disclosed in [0034] and shown in at least Fig. 2 , also see Abstract, [0005], [0021], [0033], Figs. 1-2 ) . Since Coppola discloses the housing including the at least one discharge vent as discussed above, and further discloses in [0035] as shown in Fig. 7 the vent from the battery cell ref. 20x communicates through a channel ref. 34x, through opening ref. 38x in rib 36x and to channel ref. 34x+9 and along a manifold path ref. 39 to the outlet port ref. 32 as indicated by the direction of the arrows , this at least provides said discharge vent is configured to discharge gases generated by the battery cells from the housing , lacking any further distinction thereof (also see [0035]-[0038], Figs. 3-8 ) . Coppola further discloses in [0035] as shown in Fig. 7 the vent from the battery cell ref. 20x communicates through a channel ref. 34x, through opening ref. 38x in rib 36x and to channel ref. 34x+9 and along a manifold path ref. 39 to the outlet port ref. 32 as indicated by the direction of the arrows, which at least provides a manifold attached to the housing and configured for receipt of the gases generated by the battery cells from the at least one vent , such that said manifold is at least attached to the housing so that as disclosed in [0034] the channel array ref. 26 connects the vent ref. 24 of each of the battery cells ref. 20 to a pack vent ref. 28 provided in the housing ref. 12 via an outlet port ref. 32, etc., and lacking any further distinction thereof (also see [0005]-[0006], [0008], [0021], [0026], Fig. 3, [0027], Fig. 4, [0037]). Coppola further discloses in [ 0034 ] the channel array ref. 26 includes a plurality of channels ref. 34 separated by a series of ribs ref. 36 that include openings ref. 38 for communicating vent ref. 24 of each battery cell , etc., which at least provides the manifold includes a plurality of vents , etc., lacking any further structural distinction thereof , (also see [0038] with regards to apertures ref. 72, also see [0033]-[0038], Figs. 2-8) . Since Coppola discloses the manifold with plurality of vents as discussed above, and further discloses in [ 0035 ] the channels ref. 34 and the openings ref. 38 can be provided with numerous alternative arrangements for communicating gasses from the battery cells ref. 20 to the outlet port ref. 32, whereby the system easily enables a longer gas travel path to enable the gas temperature to be reduced prior to the gas exiting the battery pack ref. 10, etc. , this at least provides said vents are cooling vents so as to enable the gas temperature to be reduced, etc. , and lacking any further structural distinction thereof . Furthermore, s ince Coppola discloses the manifold with plurality of vents as discussed above, which as an identical and/or substantially identical product to that claimed, properties and/or functions such as cooling are presumed inherent (MPEP 2112.01, I. ) , and lacking any further structural distinction thereof. Since Coppola discloses the plurality of vents in said manifold as discussed above, and further discloses in [0035] the channels ref. 34 and the openings ref. 38 can be provided with numerous alternative arrangements for communicating gasses from the battery cells ref. 20 to the outlet port ref. 32, whereby the system easily enables a longer gas travel path to enable the gas temperature to be reduced prior to the gas exiting the battery pack ref. 10, etc., this at least provides said vents are configured to permit air to enter the manifold to intermix with the gases generated by the battery cells , such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that the battery pack at least possesses air above the cells , such that said environment within the pack and /or outside the battery cell at least allows said air so as to allow venting of said battery cells, etc., lacking any further structural distinction thereof. Furthermore, since Coppola discloses the manifold with plurality of vents as discussed above, which as an identical and/or substantially identical product to that claimed, properties and/or functions such as configured to permit air to enter the manifold to intermix with the gases generated by the battery cells are presumed inherent (MPEP 2112.01, I.) , and lacking any further structural distinction thereof. Regarding claim 5 , Coppola discloses t he vehicle as discussed above in claim 1 . Coppola further discloses in [0034] the channel array ref. 26 includes a plurality of channels ref. 34 separated by a series of ribs ref. 36 that include openings ref. 38 for communicating the vent ref. 24 of each battery cell ref. 20 with the outlet port ref. 32 of the channel array ref. 26, etc. , which at least provides the manifold includes a deflector (i.e., at least ribs, etc.) in communication with the at least one discharge vent (i.e., at least outlet as discussed above in claim 1 , etc. ), and a conduit in communication with the deflector (i.e., at least channels, etc. ), and lacking any further distinction thereof ( also see Figs. 2-8). Regarding claim 6 , Coppola discloses the vehicle as discussed above in claim 5 . Coppola further discloses the deflector, conduit and cooling vents as discussed above in claim 1 and 5. Furthermore, since Coppola discloses in [0034] the channel array ref. 26 includes a plurality of channels ref. 34 separated by a series of ribs ref. 36 that include openings ref. 38 for communicating vent ref. 24 of each battery cell, etc., this at least provides e ach of the deflector and the conduit include the cooling vents , lacking any further distinction thereof (also see Figs. 2-8) . Regarding claim 7 , Coppola discloses t he vehicle as discussed above in claim 5 . Coppola further discloses the deflector includes a primary panel having an outer surface that faces away from battery pack (i.e., at least as shown in Annotated Fig. 1 ), an opposite inner surface that faces battery pack ( i.e., at least as shown in Annotated Fig. 1 ), a side surface that travels about a perimeter of the primary panel and connects the primary panel to an outwardly extending flange that is configured to mate with an exterior surface of the housing (i.e., at least as shown in Annotated Fig. 3 ) , lacking any further distinction thereof (also see [0021], [0037], Fig. 4) . Annotated Figure 1 (Coppola) Annotated Figure 3 (Coppola) Regarding claim 8 , Coppola discloses the vehicle as discussed above in claim 7 . Coppola further discloses the cooling vents, primary panel and side surface as discussed above in at least claims 1, 5, and 7. Coppola further discloses the cooling vents are formed in each of the primary panel and side surface (i.e., at least as shown in Annotated Fig. 3 above in claim 7 ) , such that said vents are at least formed in the primary panel and side surface so as to provide a cell vent manifold ref. 42 to pack vent manifold ref. 44 connection made by a connector ref. 46, etc., as disclosed in [0037], and lacking any further distinction thereof (also see ) . Regarding claim 9 , Coppola discloses t he vehicle as discussed above in claim 7 . Coppola further discloses the cooling vents, and primary panel as discussed above in at least claims 1, 5, and 7. Coppola further discloses t he cooling vents formed in the primary panel are positioned in a pattern (i.e., at least as shown in Annotated Fig. 2 ) , lacking any further distinction thereof (also see [0035], Fig. 3, and 5-7) . Annotated Figure 2 (Coppola) Regarding claim 10 , Coppola discloses t he vehicle as discussed above in claim 7 . Coppola further discloses the cooling vents, and primary panel as discussed above in at least claims 1, 5, and 7. Coppola further discloses the cooling vents are formed in the primary panel (i.e., at least as shown in Annotated Fig. 2 above in claim 9), lacking any further distinction thereof (also see [0035], Fig. 3, and 5-7) . Regarding claim 11 , Coppola discloses t he vehicle as discussed above in claim 5 . Coppola further discloses the deflector as discussed above in at least claims 1, 5. Since Coppola discloses in [0036] the channel array ref. 26 is shown being made up interlocking channel panels ref. 40 that interlock with adjacent channel panels ref. 40 and communicate with each battery cell to the outlet ports ref. 32, and Coppola further discloses in [0037] the cell vent manifold ref. 42 includes a cup-shaped body ref. 48 sealingly connected to the channel panel ref. 40 above the outlet port ref. 32 , (also see Fig s . 3 -4 ) , this at least provides the deflector includes a plurality of flow directing features (i.e., at least cup-shaped body(s)) that are configured to create a turbulent flow within the manifold ( as evidenced by the instant specification in [0039] by “cup-shaped depression” ) . Furthermore, since Coppola discloses said deflector and plurality of flow directing features (i.e., at least cup-shaped body(s)) as discussed above, properties and/or functions such as configured to create a turbulent flow within the manifold are presumed inherent ( MPEP 2112.01, I. ), lacking any further structural distinction thereof. 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. Claim s 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coppola as applied to claim 1 ab ove , and further in view of Feltham et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2022/0416359 A1 ), hereinafter Feltham . Regarding claim 2 , Coppola discloses the vehicle as discussed above in claim 1. Coppola further discloses the cooling vents as discussed above in claim 1. Coppola further discloses the cooling vents each include an aperture (i.e., at least as disclosed in [0035] the channels ref. 34 and the openings ref. 38 can be provided with numerous alternative arrangements for communicating gasses from the battery cells ref. 20 to the outlet port ref. 32 ) , and lacking any further distinction thereof (also see Figs. 2-8). Furthermore, since Coppola discloses the plurality of vents in said manifold as discussed above, and further discloses in [0035] the channels ref. 34 and the openings ref. 38 can be provided with numerous alternative arrangements for communicating gasses from the battery cells ref. 20 to the outlet port ref. 32, whereby the system easily enables a longer gas travel path to enable the gas temperature to be reduced prior to the gas exiting the battery pack ref. 10, etc., this at least provides the aperture configured to permit the air to enter the manifold, lacking any further distinction thereof. Furthermore, since Coppola discloses the cooling vents that each include an aperture as discussed above, which is an identical and/or substantially identical product as that discloses, properties and/or functions such as configured to permit the air to enter the manifold are presumed inherent ( MPEP 2112.01, I.), lacking any further distinction thereof. However, Coppola is silent as to a fluid deflecting tab. Furthermore, Coppola is silent as to the fluid deflecting tab configured to deflect the gases generated by the battery cells in the manifold to intermix with the air. Feltham teaches a directional venting cover for a battery system (Title). Feltham further teaches a fluid deflecting tab (i.e., at least as shown in Fig. 10, also see Figs. 3-4, 6-9 ), (also see [0014]-[0015], [0041]-[0042], [0049]). Feltham further teaches in [0029] it may be desired to route venting air and/or gas to vent ports ref. 110 and ref. 111 in enclosure ref. 120 to prevent undesired temperature rises in components of battery system ref. 100 due to heat transfer from the venting gas and/or air, and as such, gases emitted from one or more battery modules refs. 101-108 may be directed to a vent and/or a ventilation path to direct the gases in a predetermined direction, etc., which at least provides said fluid deflecting tab configured to deflect the gases generated by the battery cells , etc. Furthermore, since Feltham discloses the fluid deflecting tab (s) as discussed above, which is an identical and/or substantially identical product as that discloses, properties and/or functions such as configured to deflect the gases generated by the battery cells are presumed inherent ( MPEP 2112.01, I.), lacking any further distinction thereof. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified with the teachings of Coppola with teachings of Feltham, whereby the cooling vents including the aperture as disclosed by Coppola further includes the fluid deflecting tabs as taught by Feltham so as to prevent undesired temperature rises in components of battery system due to heat transfer from the venting gas and/or air, and as such, gases emitted from one or more battery modules may be directed to a vent and/or a ventilation path to direct the gases in a predetermined direction. Furthermore, since the combined teachings of Coppola and Feltham discloses manifold and the fluid deflecting tab (s) as discussed above, which is an identical and/or substantially identical product as that discloses, properties and/or functions such as configured to deflect the gases generated by the battery cells in the manifold to intermix with the air are presumed inherent ( MPEP 2112.01, I.), lacking any further distinction thereof. Regarding claim 3 , Coppola discloses t he vehicle as discussed above in claim 2 , Coppola further discloses the manifold include a primary panel and a side surface (i.e., at least as shown in Annotated Fig. 3 above in claim 7). However, Coppola is silent as to the fluid deflecting tabs are angled relative to the primary panel and the side surface in a range of 15 to 45 degrees. The combined teachings of Coppola and Feltham disclose the fluid deflecting tabs as discussed above in claim 2. Feltham further teaches in [0003] the plurality of openings and/or features may direct the gas in a second predetermined direction, such as normal, perpendicular to, and/or angled from the first direction, etc. , such that said deflecting tabs (e.g., flat louvres at an angle as illustrated in panel ref. 1053, [0049]), this at least provides tab(s) are angled. Therefore, since Feltham teaches the plurality of openings and/or features may direct the gas in a second predetermined direct ion, such as normal, perpendicular to, and/or angled from the first direction, etc. , this at least provides a range of angles that encompass (i.e., perpendicular to normal) that encompasses the claimed range of the fluid deflecting tabs are angled relative to the primary panel and the side surface in a range of 15 to 45 degrees , thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified with the teachings of Coppola with teachings of Feltham , whereby the manifold includ ing a primary panel and a side surface , cooling vents including the aperture , etc., as disclosed by Coppola further includes the fluid deflecting tabs are angled relative to the primary panel and the side surface as taught by Feltham so as to prevent undesired temperature rises in components of battery system due to heat transfer from the venting gas and/or air, and as such, gases emitted from one or more battery modules may be directed to a vent and/or a ventilation path to direct the gases in a predetermined direction. Furthermore, the skilled artisan would appreciate the teachings of Feltham such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform routine experimentation to optimize the angle (of the tab) so as to direct the gas in a second predetermined direction, such as normal, perpendicular to, and/or angled from the first direction, etc. , and thereby preventing undesired temperature rises in components of battery system due to heat transfer from the venting gas and/or air, and as such, gases emitted from one or more battery modules may be directed to a vent and/or a ventilation path to direct the gases in a predetermined direction. , etc. (See MPEP 2144.05(11.), 2144.05 7) ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 288, 285 (CCPA 1955)) (also see [0353]-[0362]). Regarding claim 4 , Coppola discloses t he vehicle as discussed above in claim 2 . However, Coppola is silent as to the fluid deflecting tabs are planar members. The combined teachings of Coppola and Feltham disclose the fluid deflecting tabs as discussed above in claim 2. Feltham further teaches fluid deflecting tabs are planar members (e.g., flat louvres at an angle as illustrated in panel ref. 1053, [0049])), lacking any further distinction thereof. Feltham further teaches in [0029] it may be desired to route venting air and/or gas to vent ports ref. 110 and ref. 111 in enclosure ref. 120 to prevent undesired temperature rises in components of battery system ref. 100 due to heat transfer from the venting gas and/or air, and as such, gases emitted from one or more battery modules refs. 101-108 may be directed to a vent and/or a ventilation path to direct the gases in a predetermined direction, etc. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified with the teachings of Coppola with teachings of Feltham , whereby the cooling vents including the aperture as disclosed by Coppola further includes the fluid deflecting tabs are planar members as taught by Feltham so as to prevent undesired temperature rises in components of battery system due to heat transfer from the venting gas and/or air, and as such, gases emitted from one or more battery modules may be directed to a vent and/or a ventilation path to direct the gases in a predetermined direction. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Leffert et al. (U.S. PGPub 2022/0102692 A1) discloses a rechargeable energy storage system high flow thermal vent management system (Title), whereby as disclosed in [0022] t he thermal vent management system ref. 20 uses the Venturi effect driven by the hot exhaust gasses from the nozzle to mix the gasses with ambient air within the chamber ref. 28 to reduce the temperature of the gasses. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JOSHUA PATRICK MCCLURE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2742 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm . 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1330 . 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. /JOSHUA P MCCLURE/ Examiner, Art Unit 172 7 /BARBARA L GILLIAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727