DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Status of Claims 2. Claims 1-10 are pending in the current application. Examiner Note 3. It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification are to the published application US 2024/0014513 A1, unless stated otherwise. Further, it is noted that italicized text in parenthes e s recited in any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 indicates the element of the claimed invention to which the preceding prior art element corresponds . Additionally , any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 4 . 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. 5 . Claim 6 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. 6 . Claim 6 recites the limitation “ the wide faces .” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 depends from claim 1 , where claim 6 recites “ the wide surfaces ” , and neither introduce “the wide faces.” Therefore, it is unclear if “wide faces” constitutes a typo and is in reference to “the wide surfaces”, or if “the wide faces” is an element which is separate/distinct from “the wide surfaces” . For the purposes of examination, claim 6 is interpreted as instead reciting “ the wide faces surfaces .” 7 . Appropriate action is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or 103 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12 . 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. 13 . Claim s 1- 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)( 1 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 10 3 as obvious over Ramasubramanian et al. ( US 20200335754 A1 ; “ Ramasubramanian ”). 14 . Regarding claim 1 , Ramasubramanian discloses a battery ( a battery cell ) [ element 70, 0016, 0046, 0115, FIG. 10 ] , of which is capable of charging and discharging to provide electrical conductance [0133, 0135, 0142], comprising a battery enclosure [element 72, 0115, 0122 FIG. 10] and a gluing lid [element 72A, 0115, FIG. 10] , wherein the battery enclosure and gluing lid together read on the claimed shell assembly . The battery enclosure contains electrode structures ( an electrode assembly ) [ element 20, 0076, 0120] in an electrode stack [element 74, 0115, FIG. 10] , thereby reading on having an accommodating cavity , and the electrode assembly accommodated in the accommodating cavity . The electrode structures comprise a population of negative electrodes [element 21, 0076] and a population of positive electrodes [element 22, 0076] . 15. Furthermore, an e lectrically insulating separator layer [element 43 , 0083, FIG. 10] surrounds and electrically isolates each member of the negative electrode population from each member of the positive electrode population [ 0047, 0067, 0083]. The electrically insulating separator layer comprises a microporous separator material ( elastic member ) [ 0014, 0083] , of which ha s a porosity /void fraction of 35-55% [0068 , 0071 ] , and further includes both a particulate material and a binder [0068 -007 2 ], wherein the binder may be, inter alia polypropylene and/or a rubber [0069]. The microporous separator material is permeated with a nonaqueous electrolyte [0073 , 0083 ] , thereby allowing for carrier ion exchange between members of the electrode population and members of the counter electrode population during a charging and/ or discharging operation [0067 , 0087 ] , said alternatively, allows for electrolyte ingress for ionic conductivity and functioning of the battery [0071], thereby reading on the limitation of the elastic member configured to deform when the electrode assembly expands so as to releas e the electrolyte solution . 1 6 . Given that the elastic member defined by claim 1 does not define or imply any requisite degree of elasticity such that any degree of elasticity reads thereon (MPEP 2111), and given that the microporous separator material of Ramasubramanian is identical to the claimed and disclosed elastic member in terms of the composition , of which may include polypropylene and/or rubber [Applicant’s specification, 0080 -0082 ] and the porosity range , 30-70% [Applicant’s specification, 0077 ], it stands to reason that the microporous separator material would have necessarily exhibited at least some degree of elasticity . See MPEP 2112(IV), (V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145 and 2145(I). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 1 7 . Regarding claim 2 , in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, the microporous separator material ha s a porosity /void fraction ( porosity ) of 35-55% [0068] , of which is within the claimed range, 30-70% . 1 8 . Regarding claim 3 , in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, the electrode structures [element 20, 0076, 0120 , FIG. 10 ] are arranged in the electrode stack [element 74, 0115, FIG. 10] , and reads on the electrode assemblies set to a plurality. Ramasubramanian further discloses that t he population of negative electrodes and the population of positive electrodes are interdigitated and arranged in an alternating series ( in sequence ) [0076 -0079 , FIG. 10 ] . Furthermore, t he microporous separator material is positioned between adjacent pairs of negative and positive electrode structures [0083-0084] , thereby reading on the limitation of between at least two adjacent ones of the electrode assemblies . 1 9 . Regarding claim 4 , in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, the rejection of claim 3 above is incorporated herein by reference. Ramasubramanian further discloses that the electrode structure comprises four members of the population of negative electrodes and four members of the population of positive electrodes, [ 0076 -0078 , 0123, FIG.2, FIG. 3 , FIG. 10 ] , wherein the microporous separator material is positioned between adjacent pairs of negative and positive electrode structures [0083-0084], thereby reading on the elastic member being distributed with the same number of electrode assemblies on both sides . 20 . Regarding claim 5 , the rejection of claim 3 above , incorporated herein by reference (not repeated), reads on the battery cell defined by claim 5. 21. Regarding claim 6 , in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Ramasubramanian further discloses that each member of the electrode population has a bottom, a top, a length ( wide surfaces ) , a width, a height, and a longitudinal axis extending from the bottom to the top of each such member and in a direction that is transverse to the first direction [0014-0016, 0049 , 0054 ], wherein the microporous separator material layer [element 43] is along the longitudinal axes [0065] as well as along ( attached to ) the length [FIGs 10-12] , and between opposing lateral surfaces as seen in FIG. 15 [0127] , thereby reading on the elastic member being attached to the wide surfaces (see claim interpretation above (¶6)) . 22. Furthermore, the negative and/or positive electrode population members may have sides that are polygonal or curved ( arc-shaped ) [0153-0154 , 0157, FIGs . 4 -6 and 25A-E]. 2 3 . Regarding claim 7 , in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Ramasubramanian discloses that the battery [element 7 0 , 0115, 0122 FIG. 10] includes a battery enclosure ( a case ) [element 72, 0115, 0122 FIG. 10 ] and a gluing lid ( cover assembly ) [element 72A, 0115, FIG. 10] , of which together read on the claimed shell assembly . Furthermore, the battery enclosure has an opening [FIG. 10] , and the microporous separator material layer [element 43, FIG. 10] is in the region surrounding the front and the back surfaces /faces of electrode members ( provided b etween the case and the electrode assembly ) [0126 -0128 , 0196, 0202 FIGs. 10 and 14] . Additionally , the gluing lid may be folded over and sealed ( the cover assembly covering the opening to seal the case ) [0119] to enclose the electrode stack /electrode structures [0119 , FIG. 10 ] , thereby reading on forming the accommodating cavity . 2 4 . Regarding claim 8 , in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Ramasubramanian further discloses that the microporous separator material may be bound ( bonded ) to the electrode structure by techniques such as sintering, binding, and curing [ 0071- 0072 , 0196, 0202 ] . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 2 5 . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this section can be found above. 2 6 . Claim s 9 -10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramasubramanian . 2 7 . Regarding claim 9 , Ramasubramanian teaches the battery cell of claim 1 as set forth above. 2 8 . Ramasubramanian is silent regarding a battery comprising a plurality of battery cells. 2 9 . However, Ramasubramanian discloses that supplemental negative electrode current collectors may be incorporated into the negative electrode population members and/or the positive electrode population members to provide additional electrical conductance [0142] . Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to hav e modified the battery of Ramasubramanian to have a battery that comprises a plurality of batteries as set forth above, in order to provide additional electrical conductance and improv e rate performance of the battery [ 0142, 0152]. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). 30 . Regarding claim 10 , the rejection of claim 9 above , incorporated herein by reference (not repeated) , reads on the electrical apparatus defined by claim 10 . Pertinent Prior Art 31 . The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested. 32 . Hwang et al., KR 20170040930 A ; is directed towards reliev ing pressure generated during charging/discharging and simultaneously efficiently allow ing the electrolyte to flow into the electrode body and teaches this through use of an elastic member , of which may be , inter alia an elastic rubber , connected to an electrolyte pad, where upon force, is able to supply electrolyte to the electrode assembly [ English machine translation, 0019 , 0035 , 0039-0042 ] . Feng et al., CN 105140451 A ; teaches a porous substrate comprising polypropylene and rubber, with a porosity of 40-75% [ English machine translation, 0008, 0012, 0016] . Conclusion 3 3 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JENNA X. COLTON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2210 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM . 3 4 . 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. 3 5 . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Aaron Austin can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8935 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 3 6 . 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. /JENNA X. COLTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 1782 /AARON AUSTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1782