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 Objections Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains a typographical error. The term “sell” in line 2 of the claim should be changed to --cell-- . Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim s 5, 7, 9, 10, and 12 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 claims are rejected for the following reasons. The term “ low ” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ low ” 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. The term “ tightly ” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ tightly ” 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. Claim 9 recites the limitation "at said one end" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 recites the limitation "at said one end" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “ low temperature ” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ low temperature ” 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Clai m 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishikawa et al. (US 2021/0320365) . Regarding claim 18, the claim is written a s a product by process claim format. Thus, the examiner notes that e ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. A lthough , the reference Nishikawa et al. does not disclose or suggest the claimed method of producing an encapsulated battery cell , the reference Nishikawa et al. nevertheless teaches an encapsulated battery cell (30) which appears to be substantially identical to the instantly claimed encapsulated battery cell (see para s . [0032]; [0034]; [0050]; [0069] ; Figs. 1- 2 ) . The reference Nishikawa et al. teaches a battery cell (20) encapsulated within a battery holder ( 10 ) , the combination of which, the reference Nishikawa et al. refers to as “ a holder-fitted battery 30 ” (i.e., an encapsulated battery cell) (see paras. [0034]-[0035] Fig. 2) . The reference Nishikawa et al. teaches that t he battery holder (10) compris es a tubular body having a through-space ( i.e., a battery-housing portion 10a) for housing the battery cell ( 20 ) such that when the battery holder is fitted to the battery cell , t he battery holder (10) substantially conforms to and is in contact with the outer peripheral surface of the battery cell (20) (see paras. [0013]; [0050] ; Figs. 1 and 2) . The reference Nishikawa et al. further teaches that t h e tubular body includes a fibrous substrate ( 11 ) and a resin composition ( 12 ) containing an inorganic filler (see para. [0030]). The reference Nishikawa et al. further teaches that the fibrous substrate (11) component of the tubular body mainly contributes to an increase in the strength of the tubular body, and the resin composition ( 12 ) mainly contributes to, due to the inorganic filler, the flame retardancy or heat dissipation of the tubular body (see para. [0050]). The reference Nishikawa et al. further teaches that the fibrous substrate (11) can be formed of braided fiber rovings (see paras. [0017] ; [0068]- [0069]) , and that the fibrous substrate (11) may be embedded within the resin composition (12) (see para. [007 1 ]). Thus, the instantly claimed encapsulated battery cell appears to be substantially identical to the encapsulated battery cell structure (30) taught by Nishikawa et al. . Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 1-4, 6 , 8, 11, and 1 4 -17 are allow ed . Claims 5, 7, 9, 10, and 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 1-4, 6-8, 11, and 1 4 -17, the claims are allow ed because the prior art of record does not disclose or fairy suggest the process steps of: a) braiding a battery cell with a fibre roving to create a braid around the battery cell; b) impregnating the braid with a resin material; and c) curing the resin material , as set for in claim 1, to produce an encapsulated battery cell. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Lessanework T Seifu whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3153 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-T 9:00 am - 6:30 pm; F 9:00 am - 1:00 pm . 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. /LESSANEWORK SEIFU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774