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/Restriction Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121: I. Claims 1-11, drawn to a battery, classified in H01M 2200/20. II. Claim 12, drawn to a battery manufacturing method, classified in H01M 50/358 . The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because: Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the apparatus can be made by a materially different process involving the actual creation of the cells, housing, collecting member, and exhaust pipe before putting them together. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: T he inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries) . Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention . The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. During a telephone conversation with Janet Cord on 3/20/26 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-11. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 12 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i). The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined. In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 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 -11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Marchio (US 2012/0129024 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Marchio discloses an apparatus comprising: a plurality of battery cells 22 (paragraph 48) , wherein the battery cells comprise an explosion-proof valve 56 (paragraph 49) ; a fume collecting component 40 (paragraph 47) , disposed on a side of the battery cells on which the explosion-proof valve is disposed (see Figure 1) , wherein the fume collecting component 40 comprises a fume collecting chamber 72 (paragraph 53) , and the fume collecting chamber 72 is in fluid communication with a pressure relief port of the explosion-proof valve 56 (paragraph 54) ; and an exhaust pipe 90 , fluidly communicating with the fume collecting chamber and configured to guide a gas in the fume collecting chamber to a preset position (paragraph 55) . Regarding claim 2 , Marchio discloses a harness plate, the harness plate 206 is mounted on the plurality of battery cells (paragraph 78) , the fume collecting component 220 is connected to the harness plate (see Figure 10) , and the harness plate comprises a first through-hole that implements fluid communication between the pressure relief port of the explosion-proof valve and the fume collecting chamber (paragraph 75) . Regarding claim 3 , Marchio discloses a connection wire configured to be electrically connected to the battery cells, and the connection wire is fixed to a side of the fume collecting component, the side being away from the battery cells (paragraph 77) . Regarding claim 4 , Marchio discloses that a groove is created on the side of the fume collecting component, the side being away from the battery cells; and the connection wire is fixed in the groove (paragraph 79). Regarding claim 5 , Marchio discloses a sealing element disposed between the pressure relief port of the explosion-proof valve and the fume collecting chamber (paragraph 68) . Regarding claim 6 , Marchio discloses a first sealing element disposed between the harness plate and the fume collecting component, and the first sealing element comprises a second through-hole that communicates the first through-hole to the fume collecting chamber (paragraph 75) . Regarding claim 7 , Marchio discloses that the sealing element comprises a second sealing element disposed between the harness plate and the battery cells, and the second sealing element comprises a third through-hole that exposes the explosion-proof valve (paragraph 75) . Regarding claim 8 , Marchio discloses that the plurality of battery cells are arranged side by side along a first direction, and the fume collecting chamber extends along the first direction to cover the explosion-proof valve of the plurality of battery cells (see Figure 1) . Regarding claim 9 , Marchio discloses that the exhaust pipe is connected to a side of the fume collecting chamber, the side being perpendicular to the first direction; and the exhaust pipe comprises a part parallel to the first direction (see Figure 6) . Regarding claim 1 0 , Marchio discloses a housing, a first feeding pipe, and a second feeding pipe; the fume collecting component and the plurality of battery cells are disposed in the housing; both the first feeding pipe and the second feeding pipe communicate with an inner space of the housing; the first feeding pipe is configured to feed a cooling gas into the inner space of the housing; the second feeding pipe is configured to expel a gas out of the inner space of the housing; and the exhaust pipe is fluidly isolated from the first feeding pipe and the second feeding pipe (paragraph 95) . Regarding claim 1 1 , Marchio discloses that the battery is configured to supply electrical energy to the electrical device (paragraph 4) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT IMRAN AKRAM whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3241 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9a-5p . 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 Basia Ridley can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1453 . 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. /IMRAN AKRAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725