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. This is the first action on the merits for application 18/574,040. Responsive to the preliminary amendment filed 12/24/2023, Claims 1-7, 9-12 and 14-22 are currently pending in this application. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT/CN2022/135121 , filed on 11/29/2022 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/23/2024 and 8/19/2025 have been considered by the examiner. Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 4-5, “between the two adjacent battery packs” should be changed to - -between two adjacent battery packs- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 4-5, “the bottom” should be changed to - -a bottom- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 7, “the side surface” should be changed to - -a side surface- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4, “the locking shafts ” should be changed to - - locking shafts - - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4, “the locking bases” should be changed to - -locking bases- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 4-5, “the length direction” should be changed to - -a length direction- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “the thickness direction” should be changed to - -a thickness direction- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 5, “the distance” should be changed to - -a distance- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 8, “the inside” should be changed to - -an inside- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 9-10, “the length of the first” should be changed to - -a length of the first- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 10, “the sum” should be changed to - -a sum- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 10-11, “the horizontal moving distance” should be changed to - -a horizontal moving distance- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 12, “the distance” should be changed to - -a distance- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 12, “the center” should be changed to - -a center- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 13, “the bottom surface” should be changed to - -a bottom surface- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 13, “the distance” should be changed to - -a distance- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 14, “the bottom” should be changed to - -a bottom- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “locking base” should be changed to - -locking bases- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 10, lines 1-2, “at least two locking bases”) . Appropriate correction is required. Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4, “a plurality of the locking tongues” should be changed to - -a plurality of locking tongues- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 6, “the other end” should be changed to - - an other end- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 7, “the vehicle beam” should be changed to - -the vehicle beams- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 1, “vehicle beams”). Appropriate correction is required. Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “the outside” should be changed to - -an outside- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “locking base” should be changed to - -locking bases- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 10, lines 1-2, “at least two locking bases”). Appropriate correction is required. Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 8, “the length” should be changed to - -a length- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “the upper surface of the connecting unit ” should be changed to - -an upper surface of the connecting unit - - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “the upper surface of the battery” should be changed to - -an upper surface of the battery- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 2-3, “the battery pack” should be changed to - -the battery packs- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 2, “ a plurality of battery packs ”). Appropriate correction is required. Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4, “the side surface” should be changed to - -a side surface- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3, “the side surface” should be changed to - -a side surface- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4, “the direction” should be changed to - -a direction- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4, “beams is provided” should be changed to - -beams are provided- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 7, “a plurality of the second locking shafts” should be changed to - -a plurality of second locking shafts- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 7, “a plurality of the second locking bases” should be changed to - -a plurality of second locking bases- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 8, “the length direction” should be changed to - -a length direction- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3, “battery pack” should be changed to - -the battery packs- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 2, “a plurality of battery packs”). Appropriate correction is required. Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3, “between the two adjacent battery cavities” should be changed to - -between two adjacent battery cavities- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 5, “the outer side surface” should be changed to - -an outer side surface- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 8, “the cavity opening” should be changed to - -a cavity opening- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3, “the vehicle beam” should be changed to - -the vehicle beams- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 1, “vehicle beams”). Appropriate correction is required. Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 7, “between the longitudinal brackets” should be changed to - -between longitudinal brackets- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 10, “the side surface” should be changed to - -a side surface- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 11, “the end” should be changed to - -an end- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 5, “between the two side battery packs” should be changed to - -between two side battery packs- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 6, “the transmission shaft” should be changed to - -a transmission shaft- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3, “a locking unit” should be changed to - -the locking unit- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 4, “a locking unit”). Appropriate correction is required. Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3, “a battery unit” should be changed to - -the battery unit- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, lines 1-2, “a battery unit”). Appropriate correction is required. Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4, “a plurality of battery packs” should be changed to - -the plurality of battery packs- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 2, “a plurality of battery packs”). Appropriate correction is required. Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 5, “a connecting unit” should be changed to - -the connecting unit- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 4, “a connecting unit”). 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. Claims 3-7, 9-12, 16, 17 and 19-21 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. Regarding Claim 3, the phrase "preferably" in line 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 4-6 are indefinite due to their dependence from indefinite Claim 3. Regarding Claim 7, the phrase "preferably" in lines 6 and 9 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 9 is indefinite due to its dependence from indefinite Claim 7. Regarding Claim 10, the phrase "preferably" in line 5 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 11 is indefinite due to its dependence from indefinite Claim 10. Regarding Claim 12, the phrase "preferably" in lines 5 and 8 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 12 recites the limitation "the quick-swapping bracket" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since it is unclear whether the limitation “a quick-swapping bracket” in Claim 3, line 6 is positively recited as a result of the phrase “preferably” in Claim 3, line 4. Claim 12 recites the limitation "the horizontal moving distance" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since it is unclear whether the limitation “horizontal moving distance” in Claim 7, lines 10-11 is positively recited as a result of the phrase “preferably” in Claim 7, line 9. Regarding Claim 16, the phrase "preferably" in lines 5 and 8 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 17 recites the limitation "a second locking base" in line 5. It is unclear whether this limitation is a double inclusion as it is unclear whether the limitation “a second locking base” in Claim 16, line 5 is positively recited as a result of the phrase “preferably” in Claim 16, line 5. Regarding Claim 17, the phrase "preferably" in line 7 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Regarding Claim 19, the phrase "preferably" in line 6 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Regarding Claim 20, the phrase "preferably" in line s 5 and 9 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 20 recites the limitation "the quick-swapping bracket" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what this limitation is referring to. Regarding Claim 21, the phrase "preferably" in line 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1-7, 9-12 and 14-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/034,453 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the limitations of Claims 1-7, 9-12 and 14-22 of the instant application are fully contained by Claims 1-20 of Application No. 18/034,453. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-7, 9-12 and 14-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-17 of copending Application No. 18/573,629 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the limitations of Claims 1-7, 9-12 and 14-22 of the instant application are fully contained by Claims 1-17 of Application No. 18/573,629. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-7, 9-12 and 14-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/575,826 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the limitations of Claims 1-7, 9-12 and 14-22 of the instant application are fully contained by Claims 1-18 of Application No. 18/575,826. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 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, 14-18, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by SLOAN et al. (US 11,043,714) . Regarding Claim 1, SLOAN et al. discloses an electric vehicle ( see Figs. 1-6) , wherein, the electric vehicle comprises vehicle beams (160) and a battery unit (174) , and the battery unit comprises a plurality of battery packs (222) arranged side by side along a width direction of the vehicle beams (see Fig. 5) ; a locking unit (260) is arranged on the vehicle beams (see Fig. 6A) , and a connecting unit (250) is arranged between the two adjacent battery packs (generally indicated at 206 and 208 in Fig. 6A) corresponding to the vehicle beams, and the connecting unit is matched with the locking unit to lock and connect the battery unit to the vehicle beams (see Fig. 6C) . Regarding Claim 14, SLOAN et al. discloses the connecting unit (250) is connected to the vehicle beams (160) by means of a connecting bracket (248) , and the connecting bracket is provided with a connecting groove (generally indicated at 246 in Fig. 3) penetrating through along the width direction of the vehicle beams, to contain, lock and fix the connecting unit (see Fig. 3) . Regarding Claim 15, SLOAN et al. discloses the upper surface of the connecting unit is not higher than the upper surface of the battery pack (see Fig. 6A) . Regarding Claim 16 as best understood, SLOAN et al. discloses the locking unit comprises a second locking containing cavity (see recessed portion of 260 in Fig. 6A) for the connecting unit entering so as to lock and fix the battery unit (Fig. 6C) , and the second locking containing cavity is located on one side of the side surface of the vehicle beams (Fig. 6A) ; preferably, the locking unit comprises a second locking base, and the second locking containing cavity is arranged in the second locking base, and the second locking base is connected to the vehicle beams; preferably, the locking unit comprises a second mounting base, and the second locking base is connected to the side surface of the vehicle beams by means of the second mounting base; or, the second locking base is connected to the vehicle beams by means of a second quick-swapping bracket, and the second quick-swapping bracket is connected to the side surface of the vehicle beams. Regarding Claim 17 as best understood, SLOAN et al. discloses the connecting unit comprises a second locking shaft (252) and a second shaft base (generally indicated by 250 in Fig. 6A) , and one end of the second locking shaft is connected to the side surface of the second shaft base and extends from the side surface of the second shaft base along the direction toward the vehicle beams (Fig. 6A) ; and the vehicle beams is provided with a second locking base (generally indicated by 260 in Fig. 6A) , comprising a second locking groove (see recessed portion of 260 in Fig. 6A) , and the second locking groove is used for containing the second locking shaft (Fig. 6C) ; preferably, a plurality of the second locking shafts and a plurality of the second locking bases are all arranged along the length direction of the vehicle beams. Regarding Claim 18, SLOAN et al. discloses the connecting unit comprises at least one of a thread connecting piece (248 in Fig. 4) and a T-shaped hooking piece, and the thread connecting piece is used for connecting the battery unit to the vehicle beams in a thread way (column 5, lines 60-63, “another mounting system 248”; “using a bolt”) , and the T-shaped hooking piece is used for rotationally clamping the battery unit to the vehicle beams. Regarding Claim 21 as best understood, SLOAN et al. discloses the battery unit comprises a side battery pack (generally indicated at 208 in Fig. 5) , and the battery pack is arranged outside the vehicle beams (see Fig. 5) ; preferably, the battery unit further comprises a central battery pack, and the central battery pack is arranged between the two side battery packs and located under the vehicle beams; and/or, the side battery pack is provided with an avoidance opening for avoiding the transmission shaft of the electric vehicle. Regarding Claim 22, SLOAN et al. discloses a quick-swapping assembly (see Figs. 1-6) , wherein, the quick-swapping assembly is applied to the electric vehicle according to Claim 1 (see detailed rejection of Claim 1 above) ; the quick-swapping assembly comprises a locking unit (260) and a battery unit (174) , and the locking unit is used for connecting to the vehicle beams (Fig. 6C) , and the battery unit comprises a plurality of battery packs (222) , and a connecting unit (250) is arranged between the two adjacent battery packs (generally indicated at 206 and 208 in Fig. 6A) corresponding to the vehicle beams, and the connecting unit is matched with the locking unit (Fig. 6C) . Allowable Subject Matter Should the double patenting and indefiniteness rejections above be overcome, Claims 2-7, 9-12, 19 and 20 would be 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. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2019/129289 A1 discloses a locking mechanism for use in a battery pack (see ABSTRACT). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT EDWIN YOUNG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4781 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm (CST) . 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 Jacob S Scott can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3415 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT EDWIN YOUNG Primary Examiner Art Unit 3655 /Edwin A Young/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655