Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 15, 2026
Application No. 18/035,019

TERMINAL ASSEMBLIES AND METHODS OF USING AND MAKING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
May 02, 2023
Priority
Nov 03, 2020 — provisional 63/109,202 +1 more
Examiner
YUSIF, HUNSUYADOR MUGEESATU
Art Unit
1743
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
EaglePicher Technologies LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
100%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 100% — above average
100%
Career Allowance Rate
3 granted / 3 resolved
+35.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
25
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
52.1%
+12.1% vs TC avg
§102
30.2%
-9.8% vs TC avg
§112
14.6%
-25.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 3 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 06/15/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that amended claims 1, 9 and 17 now overcome the prior art. This is not found persuasive because the technical feature of the cell terminal assembly as claimed is still not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior at in view of Nemoto et al. (US-20190189995-A1). The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/15/2026. Claim Objections Claims 9-16 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 1-8. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nemoto et al. (US-20190189995-A1). With regards to claim 1 and 9, Nemoto teaches cell terminal assembly comprising: an outer terminal configured to be disposed at an external location of a cell (¶ 0007, Fig. 2: item 16), the outer terminal including a feedthrough passage (Fig. 2: item 16a), the feedthrough passage (insertion hole, 16a) including a recess having a seating surface (16b) and a side surface(15d) (¶0042, Fig. 2); and an inner terminal including an electrically conductive body (electrode assembly) configured to be disposed within a housing (case) of the cell (¶ 0034 - ¶ 0035), the inner terminal including a feedthrough member (15c) electrically connecting the conductive body to the outer terminal (¶ 0034 - ¶ 0035, Fig. 2). This also reads on the feedthrough member being configured to electrically connect the conductive body the outer terminal. Nemoto also teaches the feedthrough member including a head portion (15c1) having a shape that conforms to a shape of the recess and the seating portion and secures the feedthrough member thereto (¶ 0056, Fig. 2). This rads on the head portion being configured to be shaped to conform to a shape of the seating portion and secure the feedthrough member thereto. As shown in Fig. 2 below, the head portion (15c1) contacts both the seating surface and the side surface. Nemoto discloses that the side surface (15d) is a portion of the internal terminal formed by welding a part of the feedthrough member (15c) to the external terminal and serves as a conductive path between the internal terminal and the outer terminal (¶ 0056). This reads on the head portion contacting or being configured to contact both the seating surface and side surface, providing an electrical connection between the inner terminal and the outer terminal. As mentioned earlier, Nemoto teaches that the side surface (15d) is formed by welding which reads on providing a fluid tight seal between the head portion and the seating PNG media_image1.png 670 1245 media_image1.png Greyscale surface. See Fig. 2 below. PNG media_image2.png 503 763 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 454 750 media_image3.png Greyscale With regards to claim 2 and 10, In ¶ 0056 and Figs. 4 and 5, Nemoto teaches that a riveting tool member (63) is pressed against the tip end of the feedthrough member (shaft portion 15c) to deform the head portion ( tip end 15c1). This reads on the head portion being shaped or being configured to be shaped via deformation. See Figs. 4 and 5 below. PNG media_image4.png 634 1158 media_image4.png Greyscale With regards to claim 3 and 11, Nemoto teaches that the feedthrough member (shaft potion) is a rivet portion (¶ 0005). This reads on the feedthrough member including a rivet. With regards to claim 4 and 12, in Fig. 2, the feedthrough passage (insertion hole) includes a lower portion having a first diameter, the recess forming an upper portion of the feedthrough passage and having a second diameter greater than the first diameter. Fig. 2 is shown below. With regards to claim 5 and 13, as shown in Fig. 2 above, the recess of the second diameter and bevel is a counter bore as it is an additional conical recess to accommodate the head of the terminal. This reads on the recess including a counterbore. With regards to claim 6 and 14, as shown in Fig. 2 below, the seating surface (16b) faces an axial direction that is at least partially parallel to a longitudinal axis of the feedthrough member (shaft), and the recess includes a side surface facing a radial direction that is at least partially orthogonal to the longitudinal axis. As discussed earlier, Nemoto teaches that the side surface (15d) is formed by welding a part of the feedthrough member (15c) to the external terminal which includes the head portion (¶ 0056). This reads on the head portion having or being configured to be shaped having a sealing engagement with both the seating surface and the side surface. PNG media_image5.png 666 1227 media_image5.png Greyscale With regard to claim 7 and 15, in ¶ 0035, Nemoto teaches that the feedthrough member (shaft portion) is a part of the internal terminal which reads on the feedthrough member being integral with the conductive body (electrode assembly). With regards to claim 8 and 16, Nemoto teaches fastening the feedthrough member (shaft portion) of the internal terminal to the external terminal (¶ 0041 and Figs. 4-5). This reads on the feedthrough member being a separate component that is attached to the conductive body. Figs. 4-5 are shown above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNSUYADOR YUSIF whose telephone number is (571)272-4531. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 5 pm (M-R). 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, Galen H Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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. /HUNSUYADOR MUGEESATU YUSIF/Examiner, Art Unit 1743 /GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 02, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12665222
ELECTROLYTES COMPRISING TRIALKYLSILYL PHOSPHORUS ESTER ADDITIVES
3y 3m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 1 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
100%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+0.0%)
3y 2m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 3 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month