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 Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a receiver for receiving the posts” in claim 1 , “a locking member for engaging with the received posts to lock the battery assembly together using a tongue-in-hole arrangement ” in claim 1 , “a receiver for receiving the posts” in claim 15, “ a locking member for engaging with the received posts to lock the battery assembly together using a tongue-in-hole arrangement ” in claim 15, “a receiver” for “receiving the posts” in claim 16 and “a locking member […] using a tongue-in-hole arrangement for engaging the locking member with the posts” in claim 16 . Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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. Claims 1-19 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. In regard to claim 1, the limitation of “posts extending from the batteries” is unclear as the plain meaning of the limitation would mean that the posts are attached and extend from the batteries, while the specification makes clear that the posts “extend from the base plate” ([00011]) and Figure s 1 and 4 clearly depict that the posts extend from the base plate at a greater distance than which the batteries extend as Figure 4 is another view of the base of Figure 1 . Therefore, for the purpose of examination, the limitation of “posts extending from the batteries” has been interpreted to mean --posts extending from a base plate along a length of the batteries--. It is noted that claim 8 recites the structure of “a base plate” and claim 11 recites that “the posts extend from the base plate.” In regard to claim 1, the meaning of the phrase “to lock the battery assembly together” is unclear as it is unclear what structures of the battery assembly are being locked together. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as reciting --to lock the base plate, the batteries and the receiver together--. In regard to claim 15, the limitation of “posts extending from the batteries” is unclear as batteries are not positively recited in the claim. Thus, it is unclear how the posts could “extend” from the batteries as recited. Additionally, the plain meaning of the limitation would mean that the posts are attached and extend from the batteries, while the specification makes clear that the posts “extend from the base plate” ([00011]) and Figures 1 and 4 clearly depict that the posts extend from the base plate at a greater distance than which the batteries extend as Figure 4 is another view of the base of Figure 1. Therefore, for the purpose of examination, the limitation of “posts extending from the batteries” has been interpreted to mean --posts extending from a base plate along a length of the batteries--. In regard to claim 15, the meaning of the phrase “to lock the battery assembly together” is unclear as it is unclear what structures of the battery assembly are being locked together and further unclear as the “battery assembly” has not been positively recited . For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as reciting --to lock the base plate, the batteries and the receiver together--. In regard to claim 16, the limitation of “posts extending from the batteries” is unclear as the plain meaning of the limitation would mean that the posts are attached and extend from the batteries, while the specification makes clear that the posts “extend from the base plate” ([00011]) and Figures 1 and 4 clearly depict that the posts extend from the base plate at a greater distance than which the batteries extend as Figure 4 is another view of the base of Figure 1. Therefore, for the purpose of examination, the limitation of “posts extending from the batteries” has been interpreted to mean --posts extending from a base plate along a length of the batteries--. It is noted that claim 19 recites “a base plate from which the posts extend.” In regard to claim 16, the meaning of the phrase “to lock the battery assembly together” is unclear as it is unclear what structures of the battery assembly are being locked together. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as reciting --to lock the base plate, batteries and the receiver together--. The claims 2-14 and 17-19 are rejected based upon their dependency on a claim rejected above. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. It is unclear how the posts can both “extend from the base plate” as recited in claims 11 and 19 while also “extending from the batteries” as required in claims 1 and 16 . Therefore, as currently written, claims 11 and 19 fail to include all the limitations of claims 1 and 16, respectively, as the claims claim an alternative or materially different arrangement than recited in the respective parent claim. It is noted that the above interpretations provided by the Examiner would correct the rejection under §112(d), and this rejection is provided to show the totality of the deficiencies of the claims in regard to §112 in total. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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 ( 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 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 -12 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hahs , Jr. et al. (US 4,806,440 ; hereinafter “ Hahs ”) . In regard to claim 1, Hahs discloses a battery assembly (lantern battery pack) comprising batteries (cells 12,14,16 and 18); posts (the longitudinal structures which end in snap latches 22 and 24 and which are joined together by a pair of braces 25) extending from a base plate (upper plate 30) along a length of the batteries ; a receiver (plate 56) for receiving the posts; and a locking member (retainer members 62,6 4 and indentations 66,68 ) for engaging with the received posts to lock the battery assembly together using a tongue-in-hole arrangement (cooperation of the retainer members 62,64 and indentations 66,68 ) for engaging the locking member with the posts. See col. 3, line 45 through col. 4, line 7; col. 5, lines 46-51; col. 6, lines 17-34 and Figures 1, 2 and 4. In regard to claim 2, Hahs discloses wherein the locking member defines apertures ( indentations 66 , 68 ) through which respective posts pass (the retainer members 62,64 are integral with the posts as defined in claim 1) . See Figures 1 and 4. In regard to claim 3, Hahs discloses wherein the locking member (retainer members 62,64 and indentations 66 and 68) can be slid along the receiver (plate 56) to engage the tongue-in-hole arrangement (cooperation of the retainer members 62,64 and indentations 66,68 ) for locking as the retainer members 62,64 are slid past the plate 56 to be snapped into the indentations 66,68 . See Figures 1 and 4. In regard to claim 4, Hahs discloses wherein the locking member defines tongues (the tongue-like structure of the plate 56 formed between the apertures 26,28 and the indentations 66,68 which engages the snap latches as depicted in Figure 4) which engage within holes in the posts (the gap between the retainer members 62, 64 and the longitudinal structure of the post as defined in claim 1 above) . In regard to claim 5, Hahs discloses wherein the receiver (plate 56) defines apertures (apertures 26,28) through which respective posts are received. See Figures 1 and 4. In regard to claim 6 , Hahs discloses wherein the receiver (plate 56) includes an insulator plate as Hahs teaches wherein all parts except the terminals and bridges are preferably made of plastic which is well understood to mean that the parts are electrically insulative . See col. 4, lines 36-44. In regard to claim 7, Hahs discloses wherein the receiver (plate 56) includes a current collector (electrical bridges 50 and 52) for engaging with the batteries. See Figure 1 and col. 5, lines 12-33. In regard to claim 8 , Hahs discloses a base plate (upper plate 30) . See Figure 1. In regard to claim 9, Hahs discloses wherein the base plate includes an insulator plate as Hahs teaches wherein all parts except the terminals and bridges are preferably made of plastic which is well understood to mean that the parts are electrically insul ative . See col. 4, lines 36-44. In regard to claim 10, Hahs discloses wherein the base plate (upper plate 30) includes a current collector (bridge 48 or spring terminals 44,46) for engaging with the batteries. See Figure 1 or col. 5, lines 13-33. In regard to claim 11, Hahs discloses wherein the posts (the longitudinal structures which end in snap latches 22 and 24 and which are joined together by a pair of braces 25) extend from the base plate (upper plate 30) . See Figure 1. In regard to claim 12, Hahs discloses wherein the posts (the longitudinal structures which end in snap latches 22 and 24 and which are joined together by a pair of braces 25) are welded (i.e. unitary with or joined to) to the base plate (upper plate 30) . It is noted that the process of making (being “welded”) does not further limit the patentability of the recited apparatus limitation. See MPEP §2113. In regard to claim 15 , Hahs discloses a retainer (lantern battery pack) for retaining batteries (cells 12,14,16 and 18) in a battery assembly (the combination of the lantern battery pack and the cells) , the retainer comprising posts (the longitudinal structures which end in snap latches 22 and 24 and which are joined together by a pair of braces 25) extending from a base plate (upper plate 30) along a length of the batteries; a receiver (plate 56) for receiving the posts; and a locking member (retainer members 62,64 and indentations 66,68) for engaging with the received posts to lock the battery assembly together using a tongue-in-hole arrangement (cooperation of the retainer members 62,64 and indentations 66,68) for engaging the locking member with the posts. See col. 3, line 45 through col. 4, line 7; col. 5, lines 46-51; col. 6, lines 17-34 and Figures 1, 2 and 4. In regard to claim 16 , Hahs discloses a method for assembling a battery assembly (lantern battery pack) , the battery assembly including batteries (cells 12,14,16 and 18) and posts (the longitudinal structures which end in snap latches 22 and 24 and which are joined together by a pair of braces 25) extending from a base plate (upper plate 30) along a length of the batteries , the method comprising receiving the posts with a receiver (plate 56) ; and engaging a locking member (retainer members 62,64 and indentations 66,68) with the retained posts to lock the battery assembly together using a tongue-in-hole arrangement (cooperation of the retainer members 62,64 and indentations 66,68) for engaging the locking member with the posts. See col. 3, line 45 through col. 4, line 7; col. 5, lines 46-51; col. 6, lines 17-34 and Figures 1, 2 and 4. In regard to claim 17, Hahs discloses wherein engaging a locking member (retainer members 62,64 and indentations 66 and 68) includes sliding the locking member along the receiver (plate 56) as the retainer members 62,64 are slid past the plate 56 to be snapped into the indentations 66,68. See Figures 1 and 4. In regard to claim 18, Hahs discloses wherein engaging a locking member includes inserting one or more tongues (the tongue-like structure of the plate 56 formed between the apertures 26,28 and the indentations 66,68 which engages the snap latches as depicted in Figure 4) in holes (indentations 66,68) . See Figure 4. In regard to claim 19 , Hahs discloses wherein the batteries (cells 12,14,16 and 18) are located on a base plate (upper plate 30) from which the posts (the longitudinal structures which end in snap latches 22 and 24 and which are joined together by a pair of braces 25) extend. See Figure 1. 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 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahs in view of Sjogren (US 4,125,681) . In regard to claims 13 and 14, Hahs is silent in regard to a casing for encasing the assembly. It is noted that Hahs discloses a lantern battery substitute. See Abstract and title. Sjogren discloses a rechargeable lantern battery enclosure comprising a container (side closure 10 and bottom closure 12) and a lid (top closure 14) for fitting to the container to encase the cells 16,18,20 therein. Sjogren discloses that the enclosure is structured to resist impact loads. See Figure 1; col. 2, lines 33-42 and col. 4, lines 2-4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lantern battery substitute of Hahs in further include a casing as taught by Sjogren for the purpose of containing the cells in a housing to provide structural stability to the lantern battery replacement. 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 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10-13 and 17-18 of copending Application No. 18/463424 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, due to the inclusion of limitations which are interpreted under §112(f) , the scope of the reference claims are encapsulated by the scope of the claims of the instant application . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5041 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9:00-5:30 . 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 Claire Wang can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-1051 . 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. /TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774