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. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it references “storage part 3” (two times), whereas the remainder of the Specification, as well as the claims, instead refer to reference numeral 3 as the “accommodation part . ” This is considered to be in error, and it is assumed that the abstract is intended to refer to “accommodation part 3,” which would be consistent with the rest of the Specification. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). 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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hara et al ( JP 2017196959 A ; of record in IDS filed August 11, 2023) . Regarding claim 1 , Hara teaches a vehicle battery, which is considered to constitute the claimed battery unit having a plurality of battery modules 17-26 (Fig. 1), constituting the claimed batteries. The batteries comprise a plurality of battery cells 52 (Figs. 2 and 3). Skeleton members 29 and 30 and floor panel 56 constitute the plurality of frames and a storage part which stores the plurality of battery modules. Second elastic body 74 , which constitutes the claimed elastic member, suppresses vibration from the floor panel (Figures and par. 18). 74 acts to fix the battery modules in place, although other fixing members can also be seen in the figures. Regarding claim 2 , the second elastic body 74 is considered to expand and contract in the height direction of the vehicle, as depicted. However, it should be noted that the claimed invention is considered to be limited to the actual battery unit. While the battery unit is claimed as being capable of its intended use of being fixed within an accommodation part, which is fixed within the frames of a vehicle, said vehicle and frames are not considered to be structural limitations of claimed battery unit itself. That said, the direction of forces that the claimed elastic member would be suppressing ultimately depends upon the orientation of the accommodation part, regardless of a vehicle, and regardless, would also depend upon the relative position of the vehicle itself with respect to gravity (the center of Earth). In other words, if the battery unit of Hara were to be used as intended (by Hara and/or the instant claims), it would be expected to perform the same suppressive function by expanding and contracting in a substantially identical manner. Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 3-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach or suggest that the battery unit further has a fixing member, the elastic member, and the elastic member body as claimed in instant claim 3 nor does the prior art teach or suggest a fixing part according to instant claim 5 . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT COLIN W SLIFKA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5830 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM-5:30 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 Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5713 . 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. /Colin W. Slifka/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732