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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments are presented on pages 5-7 that Koo would not teach the claimed limitation of an entirety of the uppermost surface consisting of a planar surface extending radially and continuously from an axial center of the head portion to an outer periphery of the head portion. These arguments are not found persuasive due to the fact that the claim only requires the uppermost surface to be planar and does not require the entire head portion to be planar. As seen in fig. 7 of Koo the central portion extends below the outer planar portion and would not be considered part of the uppermost surface. Therefore, the planar area surrounding the central portion (corresponding to the area under the label for sub-terminal 21e in annotated fig. 7 below) would comprise the uppermost portion and read on the claimed planar surface extending radially and continuously.
The arguments are presented on pages 6-7 that intermediate structures represented in figures 2 and 4 of Koo are relied upon for the rejection and the features displayed in the figures would be depressed during assembly. These arguments are not found persuasive due to the fact that as shown in annotated fig. 7 below the upper surface of head portion (sub-terminal 21e) remains flat after assembly.
The arguments are presented on page 7 that Kohira would not teach a planar uppermost surface. These arguments are not found persuasive due to the fact that Kohira is not currently relied upon for teaching this feature and is currently relied on for teaching the use of cylindrical cells [Kohira 0001-0002].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-6, 21, and 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo (US 2016/0276645 A1, hereafter Koo) in view of Kohira et al. (US 2018/0062124 A1, hereafter Kohira).
With regard to claim 1, Koo teaches a terminal rivet (negative terminal 21) for a secondary cell [0051] comprising:
a head portion (sub-terminal 21e) adapted to form an external terminal of the secondary cell, the head portion having an uppermost surface and an opposing lower surface, an entirety of the uppermost surface of the head portion (sub-terminal 21e) consisting of a planar surface extending radially and continuously from an axial center of the head portion to an outer periphery of the head portion (as seen in fig. 2) [0033, fig. 2]; and
a shaft portion (rivet terminal 21a) adapted to extend through a wall of the cylindrical secondary cell [0051, fig. 2], the shaft portion having a first end (upper) attached to the head portion and a second end arranged to face a current collecting plate in the secondary cell (as seen in fig. 2) [0051, fig. 1];
wherein the second end of the shaft portion comprises: a protruding portion radially surrounding a recess and extending a first distance from the head portion, [annotated fig. 7]
a contact portion contained within the recess and extending a second distance from the head portion the second distance being less than the first distance [annotated fig. 7], and
a groove contained within the recess, extending along an exterior perimeter of the contact portion and positioned a third distance from the head portion, the third distance being less than the second distance [as seen in annotated fig. 7 below].
PNG
media_image1.png
360
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Koo does not explicitly teach a cylindrical cell, however in the same field of endeavor, Kohira teaches the use of cylindrical cells [0001]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the cylindrical shape of Kohira with the battery of Koo for the benefit of use in applications including tools and electric vehicles [Kohira 0002].
Koo does not explicitly teach that the head portion (sub-terminal 21e) is adapted in use to form an external terminal. However, this would only require that the head portion forms part of a terminal structure, which is taught by Koo [0051, fig. 2]. While intended use recitations and other types of functional language cannot be entirely disregarded. However, in apparatus, article, and composition claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). See also MPEP § 2114.
With regard to claim 2, Koo teaches a head portion (sub-terminal 21e) that would form a factory rivet head and a shaft portion (rivet terminal 21a) that is capable of forming a shop rivet head (via compression molding) [0023, 0051].
With regard to claim 3, Koo does not explicitly teach the claimed shapes. However, this would be an obvious variant to one of ordinary skill in the art since it would provide the same function and only require a change in shape. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
With regard to claim 4, Koo teaches the head portion (sub-terminal 21e) has a protrusion element (flange 751) that faces the cell wall [0054, fig. 2-3]. Koo does not explicitly teach a cylindrical cell, however in the same field of endeavor, Kohira teaches the use of cylindrical cells [0001]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the cylindrical shape of Kohira with the battery of Koo for the benefit of use in applications including tools and electric vehicles [Kohira 0002].
With regard to claim 5, Koo teaches a welding region (bottom 711), a flange region (plate portion 741) radially surrounding the welding region, and the welding region is recessed in relation to the flange region [0053-0054, fig. 3].
With regard to claims 6, 21, and 31-33, Koo teaches the terminal rivet as detailed in the rejection of claims 1-5 above but does not teach a cylindrical cell. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kohira teaches a cylindrical secondary cell comprising an electrode roll (electrode assembly) comprising a conductive sheet (current collector) [0013, 0037],
a current collecting plate (metal plate 13) configured to be in direct electrical contact with the conductive sheet [0026],
a can (25) arranged to at least partially enclose the electrode roll [0025, fig. 1], and
a terminal rivet part is riveted (fastened) to the can and configured to be in direct electrical contact (welded) with the current collecting plate [0025-0027]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the cylindrical configuration of Kohira with the terminal of Koo for the benefit of use in applications including tools and electric vehicles [Kohira 0002] and the use of a terminal with reduced cost and enhanced strength [Koo 0011].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT C THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7737. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible schedule, typical hours 11-7 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/BRENT C THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights