DETAILED ACTION Application 18/313633, “BUTTON CELL”, is a CONTINUATION of application 17/224419 (now USP 11695180), which was filed with the USPTO on 4/7/21 and claims priority from a foreign application filed on 7/1/20. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 5/8/23. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show angles 81-83 as described in the specification. The drawings (e.g. Fig. 3) appears to use a different naming convention for the angles than does the specification. The specification or drawings should be amended to correct. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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 of this title, 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. Claims 1-4, 6 , 8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Deng (US 2021/0384482) and Huang (CN 109192889) . Regarding claim 1 and 13 , Deng teaches a button cell (Fig. 2; title) comprising: an electrode assembly (item 9) comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and a separator between the first electrode and the second electrode (paragraph [0027]); a case (item 1) comprising an inner space accommodating the electrode assembly, and an opening (see Fig. 2); a cap plate (item 2) coupled to the case at the opening and comprising a terminal hole exposing the inner space; an electrode terminal (item 6) electrically connected (via item 4) to the electrode assembly through the terminal hole and overlapping the cap plate (see Fig. 2); electrode tabs (items 4 and 10) respectively connected to the first electrode and the second electrode (paragraph [0020]); and an electrolyte solution in the inner space (“leakage of electrolytes” at paragraph [0021] suggests this feature), wherein a diameter of the electrode terminal is smaller than a diameter of the cap plate (compare items 6 and 2 at Fig. 2), , and wherein at least one electrode tab of the electrode tabs comprises an inclined portion that is inclined at a first angle with respect to a surface of the electrode assembly facing the at least one electrode tab (each of tabs 4 and 10 comprise an inclined portion, as claimed). Dong does not appear to teach wherein the diameter of the cap plate is smaller than a diameter of the case , or as to claim 13, wherein the case further comprises a sidewall comprising a step portion recessed to correspond to an outline of the cap plate into which the outline of the cap plate is inserted. In the battery art, Huang teaches a button battery (Fig. 2) configured such that the cap plate (item 31) has a diameter smaller than the battery case (item 1), and the case further comprises a sidewall comprising a step portion recessed to correspond to an outline of the cap plate into which the outline of the cap plate is inserted (see Fig. 2), so that the top plate can be secured into recessed step of the battery case (see junction where items 1 and 31 meet). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the battery of Dong by making the diameter of the cap plate is smaller than a diameter of the case, and providing a step portion recessed into the sidewall, so that the cap plate can be securely attached to the battery case as taught by Huang. Regarding claim 2 , the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Deng does not expressly teach wherein the angle of the first tab is 10 degrees or less. However, it has been held that “ a change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent… It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions ” (MPEP 2144.05 II); see also “ where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device ” (MPEP 2144.04 IVA) Here, although Deng does not teach 10 degrees or less, Deng does illustratively suggest the tabs oriented at shallow angles as illustrated in Figure 2. Moreover, the skilled artisan would understand that if the angles of Figure 2 were not shallow, spatial waste would be the consequence, as significant empty volume [volume without capacity increasing electrode active materials] surrounds both the top and bottom angled tab, and making the tab angle shallow would reduce this empty volume. Therefore, the requirement that the first angle of the inclined portion of the at least one tab is 10 degrees or less at least because, i) the tabs of Deng and the claimed invention are similar enough in angular orientation that substantially the same functions are achieved, ii) the skilled artisan could look at the Figure 2 of Deng and comprehend that making the tabs shallow reduces empty volume, while making the angle sharp would unnecessarily increase empty volume, reducing overall volume efficiency of the battery, and iii) there is no evidence of unexpected results associated with making the tab shallow at 10 degrees are less. Regarding claim 3 , the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Deng further teaches wherein the at least one electrode tab further comprises a flat portion extending from the inclined portion and is electrically connected to a bottom surface of the case or to the electrode terminal (see Fig. 2 where a small flat portion of item 10 contacts case 1; Figure 3 more clearly illustrates the flat portion, but this time at the top of the case). Regarding claim 4 , the cited art remains as applied to claim 3 . Deng further teaches wherein the at least one electrode tab comprises: a first electrode tab (item 10) connecting the first electrode and the bottom surface of the case (see Fig. 2); and a second electrode tab (item 4) connecting the second electrode and the electrode terminal (see Fig. 2), and the first electrode is a negative electrode and the second electrode is a positive electrode (paragraph [0020] explains that item 10 may be of negative polarity). Regarding claim 6 , the cited art remains as applied to claim 3. Deng further teaches wherein a length of the at least one electrode tab is larger than half of a diameter of the electrode assembly and smaller than the diameter of the electrode assembly (Figure 2 suggests each of tabs 4 and 10 have a length larger than half of the diameter of the electrode assembly, but smaller than the diameter of the electrode assembly, suggesting obviousness of the claimed invention ) . Additionally, it is noted that the limitation is merely drawn to matter of scale with such differences not providing patentable distinction absent a showing of criticality as previously described). Regarding claim 8 , the cited art remains as applied to claim 3. Deng further teaches wherein the inclined portion and the flat portion are connected to each other at an obtuse angle (see Fig. 2, where each of tabs 4 and 10 comprise an inclined portion which connects to a flat portion at an obtuse angle; see also Fig. 3 for clarity). Claims 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Deng (US 2021/0384482), Huang (CN 109192889) and Guo (US 2021/0408650). Regarding claim 5 , the cited art remains as applied to claim 4 . Deng further teaches wherein the inclined portion of the first electrode tab is connected to the bottom surface of the case at a second angle, the inclined portion of the second electrode tab is oriented at a third angle (see Fig. 2, where the first and second angles may be drawn on tab 10, in a manner corresponding to applicant’s THETA1 and THETA2 at applicant’s Fig. 3; the tab 4 is oriented at a third angle relative to the horizontal). Deng does not expressly teach that the third angle (the angle of tab 4 relative to the horizontal) is the same angle as the first and second angles (the angles of tab 10, also relative to horizontal using the orientational convention of applicant’s Fig. 3) . However, each of the first, second and third angles are made shallow for the volume efficiency reasons previously given in the rejection of claim 2 . The requirement that the firs , second and third angles are the same is found to be obvious because Deng teaches similarly shallow angles in each instance, and there is no of criticality or unexpected results which would overcome the prima facie case of obviousness associated with the similarity in structure and function. Deng teaches the second electrode tab (item 4) oriented at a third angle, but does not appear to teach where the second electrode tab is connected to a lower surface of the electrode terminal at the third angle. In the battery art, Guo teaches that an electrode tab may be angled and connected to a lower surface of an electrode terminal at the angle, i.e. the angle continues until the tab directly contacts the terminal, where a flattened portion for contact is disposed (see Figure 5). The modification of Deng such that the angle of the electrode tab extends all the way to the electrode terminal, such that the electrode tab contacts the electrode terminal at the third angle would merely require the simple substitution of one known tab design (i.e. the portion of the tab having the third angle leading to another portion of the tab having a more vertical angle, as in the Deng tab 4) for another tab design (i.e. the angled portion leading all the way to directly contact the terminal as in Guo) would merely require the simple substitution of one known tab design for another to yield predictable results (both tab designs achieve the same result of suitably electrically connecting the electrode to the terminal); therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness for substitution exists. Claims 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Deng (US 2021/0384482), Huang (CN 109192889), Ensling (US 2015/0236370) and Suzuki (US 2006/099495). Claims 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Deng (US 2021/0384482), Huang (CN 109192889) and Ensling (US 2015/0236370) . Regarding claim 7 and 14 , the cited art remains as applied to claim 1 or 3. Deng further teaches that the cell may have a winding structure (paragraph [0027]), but does not appear to teach wherein the electrode assembly further comprises a center pin at a center of the electrode assembly, the flat portion of the electrode tab overlaps the center pin as required by claim 7 , or and a length of the center pin in a vertical direction is longer than a length of the electrode assembly in the vertical direction as required by claim 14 . In the battery art, Ensling teaches a button cell with wherein the assembly comprises a center pin at a center thereof, and a length of the center pin in a vertical direction is longer than a length of the electrode assembly in the vertical direction (see Fig. 1), the center pin used as a tool for forming the spiral shape of the wound electrode assembly (paragraph [0068]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to form the electrode assembly as a winding structure comprising center pin at a center of the electrode assembly, with a length of the center pin in a vertical direction is longer than a length of the electrode assembly in the vertical direction, for the benefit of providing a support capable of facilitating the winding as taught by Ensling . As to the claim 7 requirement that the center pin overlaps the flat portion of the flat portion of the electrode tab, which is electrically connected to a bottom surface of the case or terminal, this structure is suggested by the Deng-Huang- Ensling combined embodiment. More specifically, Deng teaches a button cell, Deng teaches that a flat portion of tab (item 4 or 10) is attached to a terminal or the battery case at the axially center of the button cell (see Deng Fig. 2), while Ensling teaches a button cell comprising a center pin, which is also located at the axial center of the battery ( Ensling Fig. 1). Considering these teachings together, since both structures are disposed at the axial center of the button cell, overlap along the central axis is suggested. Moreover, in the battery art, Suzuki explicitly illustrates a battery arrangement including a pin and a flat portion of a tab which connects to a battery case, both at the axial center of the battery, such that they overlap (see Suzuki Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to overlap the flat portion with the center pin since both of these structure structures occupy the axial center of the battery cell and the center pin extends from the top to the bottom of the button cell. Claims 9, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Deng (US 2021/0384482), Huang (CN 109192889) and Wang (US 2021/0359362). Regarding claim 9, 11 and 12 , the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Deng further teaches the button cell further comprising a insulating thermal-fusion layer between the cap plate and the electrode terminal (Fig. 2 item 5; paragraph [0020, 0021] clarify that the sealing between the terminal and the cap plate is facilitated “by means of heat or adhesion”, indicating that 5 functions as a thermal-fusion layer), which melts at a predetermined temperature (the exemplary “polypropylene, polyethylene” of paragraph [0020] have known melting temperatures). Deng does not appear to teach wherein the electrode terminal comprises: a flange portion covering the terminal hole and overlapping the cap plate; and a protrusion integrally formed with the flange portion and protruding from the flange portion toward the terminal hole. In the battery art, Wang teaches a terminal configured to have a flange portion covering a terminal hole and overlapping a cap plate; and a protrusion integrally formed with the flange portion and protruding from the flange portion toward the terminal hole (Fig. 4). It is noted that Wang further teaches an adhesive material (item 40) which separates the terminal’s flange and protrusion from the cap plate (see Fig. 4). The skilled artisan at the time of invention would have understood that the terminal 6 of Deng Fig. 2 is only secured from moving in one direction, such that it would be susceptible to lateral displacement, whereas, the Wang terminal with flange and protrusion would be secured against lateral movement. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the terminal to have a flange portion covering the terminal hole and overlapping the cap plate; and a protrusion integrally formed with the flange portion and protruding from the flange portion toward the terminal hole, as taught by Wang, for the benefit of restricting the terminal from moving in two directions. 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 1-13 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,695,180 [hereinafter ‘180] in view of Huang (CN 109192889). Claims 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,695,180 [hereinafter ‘180] in view of Huang (CN 109192889) and Ensling (US 2015/0236370). Regarding the instant claim 1 and 13 , ‘180 claim 1 claims a battery having the same or functionally equivalent structure to that of claim 1, with the following clear exceptions: i) that the instantly claimed battery is a button cell ii) wherein a diameter of the electrode terminal is smaller than a diameter of the cap plate, and iii) , the diameter of the cap plate is smaller than a diameter of the case. Moreover, as to dependent claim 13 , ‘180 does not claim the sidewall step portion into which the cap plate may be inserted. However, as to i) , this difference is not a patentable distinction because the body of the instant claim does not set forth structure which distinguishes the claimed button cell, functionally or structurally, from the rechargeable battery of ‘180. Moreover, button cell form of battery was known in the art at the time of invention (e.g. see Huang Fig. 1; T029]); therefore, if any structural [unspecified] structural modification was required to make the rechargeable battery of ‘180 a button cell, such modification would have been within PHOSITA ability at the time of invention and obvious to perform in order to make the battery applicable for use in compact device designs where button cells are normally used. As to ii, iii) and dependent claim 13 , Huang further teaches a button battery (Fig. 2) configured such that the electrode terminal (item 33) is smaller in diameter than the cap plate (item 31), and the cap plate (item 31) has a diameter smaller than the battery case (item 1), and the case further comprises a sidewall comprising a step portion recessed to correspond to an outline of the cap plate into which the outline of the cap plate is inserted (see Fig. 2). Making the terminal smaller than the cap plate allows a portion of the cap plate surface to serve as an electrode of opposite polarity to the terminal (see Fig. 2). Since the top plate is smaller in diameter than the case, the top plate can be secured into recessed step of the battery case (see junction where items 1 and 31 meet). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the battery of Dong by sizing the terminal, cap plate and sidewall diameters as instantly claimed, and providing a step portion recessed into the sidewall, so that the cap plate can serve as an electrode contact opposite to the terminal and be securely attached to the battery case as taught by Huang. Regarding the instant dependent claims 2-12 , the limitations are substantially the same as those of ‘180 dependent claims 2-11, with only claim 10 differing by adding an additional relative dimension associated with the cap plate, terminal hole and inclined surface, which naturally follow the geometrical suggestion of ‘180 claim 9, particularly considering that claimed dimensions generally do not provide nonobviousness absent a showing of unexpected results or criticality, and with the limitations of dependent claim 3 included in the independent claim 1 of ‘180. Regarding instant dependent claim 14 and 15 , the added features of claim 14 are obvious over ‘180 claims 6 and Ensling , which teaches the center pin being longer than the electrode assembly as described in the art rejections in detail. The requirements of claim 15 are further obvious in view of ‘180 claim 8 which essentially recites the claimed flange and cap plate geometry, other than the recitation of relative size with respect to the diameter of the center pin and the protrusion. However, since the center pin displaces active material in the volume of the battery/button cell, it would have been obvious to configure the center to have a small volume, ergo a small diameter, such that the protrusion may be larger in diameter compared to the pin, particularly considering that claimed dimensions generally do not provide nonobviousness absent a showing of unexpected results or criticality. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 10 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if 1) rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and 2) the obviousness type double patenting rejections were overcome. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding dependent claim 10, the closest prior art includes Deng (US 2021/0384482), Huang (CN 109192889) and Wang (US 2021/0359362) which are relevant to the claimed invention as described in the rejection of base claim 9. The cited art fails to teach or suggest the terminal having the specific structure described in claim 10, such as including the claimed curved surface, inclined surface, and relative distances. In the search, no closer prior art was discovered which teaches this structure sufficiently to cure the deficiency of the cited art with respect to claim 10, or independent teaches claim 10 as a whole including the limitations of the base claim 9. Therefore, claim 10 is objected to for being dependent on a rejected base claim. Regarding claim 15, the closest prior art includes Deng (US 2021/0384482), Huang (CN 109192889) and Ensling (US 2015/0236370), which are relevant to the claimed invention as described in the rejection of base claim 14. The cited art fails to teach or suggest the terminal having the specific structure described in claim 15, such as including each of the flange portion covering the terminal hole and overlapping the cap plate, the protrusion protruding from the flange toward the terminal hole, and a diameter of the center pin in horizontal direction is smaller than a diameter of the protrusion. In the search, no closer prior art was discovered which teaches this structure sufficiently to cure the deficiency of the cited art with respect to claim 15, or independent teaches claim 15 as a whole including the limitations of the base claim 14. Therefore, claim 15 is objected to for being dependent on a rejected base claim. Relevant or Related Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, though not necessarily pertinent to applicant’s invention as claimed. Skoumpris (US 2002/0142216) battery cell comprising electrode assembly within a case and cap plate with hole covering the opening; Lee (US 2021/0328290) button cell with cap smaller than casing; Chen (US 2023/0178832) battery cell with center post for enabling winding. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7005 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 PM (EST) . 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 Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7078 . 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. /JEREMIAH R SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723