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. REFORM PIN Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/278,742 Art Unit: 1727 March 1 4 , 2026 DETAILED ACTION The Application filed on August 24, 2023 has been entered. Claims 1-7 are currently pending and have been fully considered. 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 Interpretation Claim 1 recites an intended use for a pin . The courts have held that “i f the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation"). See MPEP 2111.02. 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. Claim s 4 and 6 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. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the hollow portion of the electrode assembly" in 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 is drawn to a reform pin, and the electrode assembly is not part of the reform pin and has not been positively recited in the claim. Claim 6 recites the limitation " the electrode assembly " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 is drawn to a reform pin, and the electrode assembly is not part of the reform pin and has not been positively recited in the claim. 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 , 3-4, 6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Sawa et al. (US 2008/0241646 A1; as found in IDS dated 10/24/24) . As to Claim 1, Sawa discloses a center pin (reform pin) comprising: a cylindrical shaped body having a first diameter L4 ; a head portion 15 having a vertex at one end (the top); wherein a second diameter of a circle at a vertical cross-section at any one point of the head portion L5 is larger than the first diameter (Fig. 3). As to Claim 3, Sawa discloses wherein the diameter of the head portion gradually decreases in a direction towards the second end connected to the body (Fig. 3). As to Claim 4, Sawa discloses wherein a length of the second diameter corresponds to a width of the hollow portion of the electrode assembly (Fig. 3). As to Claim 6, the shape of the electrode assembly does not limit the structure of a reform pin. However, Sawa does disclose a battery having a jelly roll shaped electrode assembly (Fig. 1). As to Claim 8, Sawa discloses wherein a portion of the head portion between the vertex (top) and the second diameter has a conical shape (Fig. 3). As to Claim 9, Sawa discloses wherein a portion of the head portion between t he body portion and any one point having the second diameter has a frustoconical shape (Fig. 3). Claim(s) 1 -2 , 4 - 10 and 12 -1 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kubota et al. (JP 2002222660 A; as found in IDS dated 08/24/23; and using machine translation for citation purposes) . As to Claim 1, Kubota discloses a rod (reform pin) 14,18,24 comprising: a cylindrical shaped body 24 having a first diameter; a head portion 14,18 having a vertex at one end (the top); wherein a second diameter of a circle at a vertical cross-section at any one point of the head portion 18 is larger than the first diameter ( Abstract and Fig. 4 and 6). As to Claim s 2 and 10 , Kubota discloses of a pin 14,24 comprising: a head portion having a second diameter larger 18 than a first diameter of a body portion 24 ; and wherein a diameter of a vertical cross-section of the head portion gradually decreases in a direction toward the first end (the point) (Fig. 4 and 6). As to Claim s 4 and 12 , Kubota discloses wherein a length of the second diameter corresponds to a width of the hollow portion of the electrode assembly (Fig. 4 and 6). As to Claim s 5 and 13 , Kubota discloses of a pin having a vertex (top) of the head portion with a third diameter shorter than the second diameter with respect to a central axis of the body portion (Fig. 4 and 6). As to Claim 6, the shape of the electrode assembly does not limit the structure of a reform pin. However, Kubota does disclose a battery having a jelly roll shaped electrode assembly (Abstract and Fig. 3). As to Claim s 7 and 14 , Kubota discloses a method of making an electrode assembly, comprising: providing a jelly roll shaped electrode assembly with ah hollow portion and a separation membrane X defining an inner wall of the hollow portion; inserting a reform pin 14,18,24 as defined in claim 1 (see rejection above) into the hollow portion to reform the membrane (Abstract; Fig. 4-7; and paragraphs [0004]). As to Claim 8, Kubota discloses wherein a portion of the head portion between the vertex (top) and the second diameter has a conical shape (Fig. 4 and 6). As to Claim 9, Kubota discloses wherein a portion of the head portion between the body portion and any one point having the second diameter has a frustoconical shape (Fig. 4 and 6). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. Claim (s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawa et al. (US 2008/0241646 A1; as found in IDS dated 10/24/24) in view of Kubota et al. (JP 2002222660 A; as found in IDS dated 08/24/23; and using machine translation for citation purposes) . As to Claim 2, Sawa does not specifically disclose wherein at the any one point having the second diameter, a diameter of a vertical cross-section of the head portion gradually decreased in a direction of the first end. However, Kubota teaches of a pin 14,24 comprising : a head portion having a second diameter larger 18 than a first diameter of a body portion 24 ; and wherein a diameter of a vertical cross-section of the head portion gradually decreases in a direction toward the first end (the point) (Fig. 4 and 6). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pin of Sawa to read on the claims because Kubota teaches that the separator lining the inner wall can be reformed (Abstract and Fig. 5-7). As to Claim 5, Sawa does not specifically disclose the claimed configuration. However, Kubota teaches of a pin having a vertex (top) of the head portion with a third diameter shorter than the second diameter with respect to a central axis of the body portion (Fig. 4 and 6). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pin of Sawa to read on the claims because Kubota teaches that the separator lining the inner wall can be reformed (Abstract and Fig. 5-7). Claim (s) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. (JP 2002222660 A; as found in IDS dated 08/24/23; and using machine translation for citation purposes) in view of Sawa et al. (US 2008/0241646 A1; as found in IDS dated 10/24/24) . As to Claims 3 and 11, Kubota does not specifically teach the claimed configuration. However, Sawa teaches wherein the diameter of the head portion gradually decreases in a direction towards the second end connected to the body (Fig. 3). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pin of Kubota to comprise the claimed configuration because Sawa teaches that deformation of the electrode assembly can be suppressed (paragraph [0022]). In addition, the courts have held that the particular configuration of the pin of modified Kubota is a matter of choice which a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence the claimed shape was significant, see MPEP 2144.04, IV, B. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5116 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET . 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 Barbara Gilliam can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1330 . 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. /ADAM A ARCIERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727