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 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. Claims 1-4, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" by Geshi et al. (JP 2012119138, provided by Applicant in the 01/07/25 IDS and using the provided machine translation for citation purposes). Regarding Claim 1, Geshi teaches a battery module (“power supply device”). As illustrated in Figures 1-2, Geshi teachers that the battery module comprises a plurality of battery cells (1) (“plurality of battery cells”) including battery cases (3) (“exterior cans”) and “discharge valves” (i.e. sealing cap assembly including discharge port (7a)), wherein each of the plurality of battery cells includes a corresponding one of said battery cases and a corresponding one of said discharge valves, wherein said corresponding one of said battery cases has a tubular shape extending in one direction, wherein said corresponding one of said discharge valves is provided at an end surface of said tubular shape of said corresponding one of said battery cases, wherein said corresponding one of said discharge valves is configured to discharge high-temperature gas (“gas”) in response to an increase of an internal pressure of said corresponding one of said battery cases ([0016]-[0018]). As illustrated in Figure 2 (and the annotated Figure 2 below), the battery module comprises a plurality of “battery blocks” holding the plurality of battery cells, wherein each battery block holds two or more battery cells out of the plurality of battery cells such that the battery cases are parallel to one another and end surfaces of the battery cases of said two or more battery cells are flush with a plane. As illustrated in Figures 2-4 (and the annotated Figure 2 below), the battery module comprises a moveable member (31) (“shield plate”) disposed in an exhaust duct (29) (“insulation space”) between adjacent battery blocks out of the plurality of battery blocks, wherein a “ block surface ” of one of the adjacent battery blocks at which end surfaces of the battery cases of the two or more battery cells faces, across the exhaust duct, a “block surface” of another of the adjacent battery blocks at which end surfaces of the battery cases of the two or more battery cells ([0021], [0033]) . As illustrated in Figures 2 -4 (and the annotated Figures 3- 4 below, wherein it is noted that said annotated Figure s 3- 4 indicate first and second interpretations), the battery module comprises a “supporter” which supports (i.e. physically supports the moveable member as it is variable positioned in the battery module) the moveable member, wherein the supporter is provided, at least in part, on an inner side of outer peripheral parts of the block surfaces of the plurality of battery blocks facing each other , wherein the moveable member supported by the supporter includes an outer peripheral part that is a “free end” (also illustrated in Figure 2 as the rightmost end of moveable member (31) displaceable with respect to the supporter, wherein it is noted that the free end of the moveable member necessarily moves as moveable member is displaced during venting of the high-temperature gas ([0021]-[0022], [0024]-[0025], [0033]-[0037]) . Regarding Claim 2, Geshi teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described. As illustrated in Figure 4 (and the annotated Figure 4 below), the supporter, in context of the first interpretation (See Claim 1), includes a “first supporter” provided, at least indirectly (it is noted that the instant Claim does not require that “provided on” means directly provided on), a first block surface which is the block surface of one of the adjacent battery blocks facing each other, and a “second supporter” provided, at least indirectly (it is noted that the instant Claim does not require that “provided on” means directly provided on), on a second block surface which is the block surface of the another of the adjacent battery blocks at a position corresponding to the first supporter, wherein the first and second supporters are connected to one another through at least a portion of the moveable member. Regarding Claim 3, Geshi teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described. As illustrated in Figure 4 (and the annotated Figure 4 below), the moveable member, in context of the second interpretation (See Claim 1), includes a “shield plate opening” at a position corresponding to the supporter, wherein the supporter is inserted into the shield plate opening. Regarding Claim 4 , Geshi teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described. As illustrated in the annotated Figures 3-4 (See Claim 1) , the supporter, in context of either the first or second interpretation , is one o f a plurality of supporters (i.e. supporters are present on both the top and bottom of the moveable member, and the supporters are present in a plurality of locations along the length of the moveable member) provided on end surfaces of the plurality of battery blocks (it is noted that the instant Claim does not require that “provided on” means directly provided on). Regarding Claim 8, Geshi teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described. Furthermore, Geshi teaches that the moveable member is made of iron, stainless steel, or aluminum (“the shield plate is made of a metal plate”) ([0049]). 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 . 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. Claims 7 i s rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geshi et al. (JP 2012119138, provided by Applicant in the 01/07/25 IDS and using the provided machine translation for citation purposes) , and further in view of Nishino et al . (US 2009/0208820). Regarding Claim 7, Geshi teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described. Geshi does not explicitly teach that the moveable member is made of one of the instantly claimed materials. However, Nishino teaches a battery (Abstract, [0005]). As illustrated in Figure 1, Nishino teaches that the battery comprises a plate (2) interposed between adjacently positioned structures (e.g. sealing member (1) and electrode group (3) in the battery ([0018]). Nishino teaches that the plate is formed out of a material such as glass fiber reinforced resin which provides for both heat resistance and electrical insulation ([0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the moveable member of Geshi out of glass fiber reinforced resin (“flexible material” including “glass fibers” and “impregnated with resin”), as taught by Nishino, given that such a material of construction would help provide, or otherwise enhance, heat resistance and electrical insulation characteristics of the moveable member. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 5 is 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: Claim 5 further limits the power supply device of Claim 1 by requiring that the supporter is provided at a middle part of each end surface of the battery block, and the shield plate is movable in a rotation direction about the supporter. Neither Geshi nor Nishino teach or suggest the limitations of Claim 5. Although Geshi discloses “supporters” in context of Claim 1, under no circumstances or interpretation are any of said supporters provided at a middle part of each end surface of the battery block, and none of said supporters are moveable in a rotation direction about the supporter. Furthermore, Nishino does not cure the deficiencies of Geshi . Claim 6 is 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: Claim 6 further limits the power supply device of Claim 1 by requiring a plurality of auxiliary support parts provided between the block surfaces of the adjacent battery blocks facing each other, the plurality of auxiliary support parts being configured to melt with heat. Neither Geshi nor Nishino teach or suggest the limitations of Claim 6. Geshi neither teaches nor suggests a plurality of auxiliary support parts provided in the instantly claimed manner, let alone a plurality of such auxiliary support parts which are specifically configured to melt with heat. Furthermore, Nishino does not cure the deficiencies of Geshi . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7595 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7AM-3PM EST M-F . 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, Matthew Martin FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT can be reached at 5712707871. 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. /MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728