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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 11-12, 14-15, and 17 are amended. Claims 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, and 16 are cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 11-12, 14-15, and 17, as filed 3 November 2025, are examined herein. No new matter is included.
Response to Arguments
Amended drawings are entered.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the amended claims recite concrete control features of the electrolyte leakage detection system to designate an irradiation angle and a wavelength of the second light, to acquire spectral image data. This is persuasive, the rejection under 35 USC 101 is withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach or suggest using battery data to select an irradiation angle and wavelength and do not teach or suggest subtraction of a normalization and evaluation wavelength. This argument is moot in light of newly cited references.
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) 1-3, 5, 8 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20170069178 A) in view of Ito (US 20060134511 A1), Chinnadurai (US 2014027797 A1), Plese (US 20120138820 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Examiner notes that the statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to limit the claim (MPEP 2112.02, II). Here, the limitation “an electrolyte leakage detection system for a battery” does not impart additional structure. Kim teaches (abstract and [0023]) an inspection system capable of inspecting surface defects such as liquid residues is determined to meet this limitation. Kim teaches the system further comprising:
an imaging device comprising an image sensor; ( [0114] ID reader)
a first irradiation unit comprising a first lighting device configured to emit first light; ([0038] coaxial lighting and oblique and transmitted)
a second irradiation unit comprising a plurality of second lighting devices configured to emit second light at least one of (i) mutually different irradiation angles or (ii) mutually different wavelengths; and ([0094] irradiation method - coaxial, transmission, reflection … can be adjusted)
a hardware processor configured to: ([0100] PC-based machine vision inspection system)
control the first irradiation unit to irradiate a first surface of a battery with the first light, the first light being for determining battery data on a model number of the battery; control the imaging device to take a first image of the first surface of the battery irradiated with the first light by the first irradiation unit, to acquire image data; determine the battery data from the acquired image data, the determined battery data comprising the model number of the battery; ( [0114] ID reader… reads the ID of an inspection target … transmits the detected product ID to a computer.) Examiner notes that “product ID” is a synonym for model number.
Examiner notes that Kim does not explicitly contemplate the use of Kim’s inspection system capable of inspecting surface defects such as liquid residues for the inspection of a battery. Ito at abstract and FIG. 3 provides evidence that an optical inspection machine can be used to detect electrolyte leakage in a battery. At [0009], Ito’s method is nondestructive. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select Kim’s inspection system for use on batteries based on Ito’s disclosure that optical methods are nondestructive, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Kim does not explicitly teach the step of designate an irradiation angle and a wavelength of the second light corresponding to the determined battery data,
Chinnadurai, in the field of (abstract) diagnostic systems for motor vehicle parts, discloses [0036] the use of a bar code reader to retrieve information that points to a database. At [0037], test specifications and electrical specifications are retrieved. At [0042] “the charging module may charge the capacitive element based at least in part on the supplied electrical specification.” A [0039] “these features … eliminate possible typographical errors … and speed[ing] up part number selection.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify Kim’s inspection system to read a bar code and retrieve test parameters (e.g. how the machine should be configured to carry out the test) with a reasonable expectation of successfully reducing opportunities for human error in the selection of test parameters.
Examiner notes that the following limitation of claim 1 requires at least one of (1) mutually different irradiation angles or (ii) mutually different wavelengths. Therefore, this limitation can be met by providing one of the two features.
Kim further teaches control the second irradiation unit to irradiate the first surface of the battery with the second light at the designated irradiation angle corresponding to the determined battery data, the second light being for detecting an electrolyte adhered to the battery; ([0084] “applies various … lighting arrangements … optimal inspection solution was derived.” [0086] “adjust the … angle …of lighting.” [0115] “white or red LED lights” [0094] irradiation method - coaxial, transmission, reflection … can be adjusted.) Examiner notes that if multiple lighting arrangements were tested to derive an optimal inspection solution, a person of ordinary skill would expect that at least the wavelength or angle was changed.
Plese, in the field of (abstract) hyperspectral imaging to detect residues, provides evidence for the use of multiple wavelengths of light [0013] that spectroscopic imaging combines digital imaging and molecular spectroscopy techniques … which can include fluorescence, photoluminescence, ultra-violet, visible and infrared absorption spectroscopies. Examiner notes that these spectroscopies require different wavelengths of light. At [0022] Plese discloses that the hyperspectral imagining technique allows the maximum contrast between the sample and the background to be found and viewed. A person of ordinary skill would understand that this maximum contrast would improve the sensitivity of detecting liquid contamination and would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify Kim’s inspection device with the multiple wavelengths of light of Plese, with a reasonable expectation of successfully achieving the desirable result of improved sensitivity of detection.
Kim teaches controlling the imaging device to take a second image of the first surface of the sample irradiated with the second light by the second irradiation unit, to acquire spectral image data [0099] “The feature values of the normal image and the inspection image are compared to precisely measure the location of foreign substances.” At [0145] Kim teaches outputting a vision inspection result, and a display is shown at FIG. 4C. However, Kim does not explicitly teach acquiring spectral image data, selecting a normalization wavelength and an evaluation wavelength based on at least one of the spectral image data or the determined battery data; calculating, from the spectral image data, a reflectance based on spectral intensity at the selected normalization and evaluation wavelengths, and detect the electrolyte based on the calculated reflectance.
Plese discloses at (FIG. 1B detector 250 and [0013-0017]) that data is collected in the form of a hyperspectral image. At (FIG. 1C and [0083]) Plese discloses processing module 260 “a computer and other controls for displaying and analyzing images on a monitor”) At [0022] Plese discloses using multiple image frames to reference (e.g. normalization and evaluation wavelengths) to obtain maximum contrast. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to use the hyperspectral image of Plese with the inspection device of modified Kim, in order to obtain maximum contrast for an image and therefore maximum detection sensitivity, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Kim in view of Ito, Chinnadurai, and Plese teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Kim at [0158] discloses the use of Otsu’s threshold determination. does not explicitly teach wherein the hardware processor is configured to extract area data indicating an area in which an intensity of the first light becomes equal to or more than a threshold value from the image data, and determines the battery data based on the area data.
Ito, in the field of optical inspection of batteries, discloses (FIG. 5) forming a bi-leveled image and counting the number of pixel, to determine if electrolyte leakage is present. At [0098] a threshold is applied. At [0017] Ito explicitly teaches that this determines area of leakage.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select the use of area measurement as taught by Ito for the inspection system of modified Ito, with a reasonable expectation of successfully determining if electrolyte has leaked.
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Kim in view of Ito, Chinnadurai, and Plese teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Kim’s automated inspection machine includes ([0084-0086]) selecting conditions and the optimal inspection solution that can obtain more stable and accurate images. Kim explicitly teaches at [0084] “considering the characteristics of the inspection sample … adjusting shooting angles of cameras, lenses, lighting and the sample … optimal inspection solution … was derived.” and at [0086] adjusting the angle of lighting between the camera and the sample, and at [0087] optical systems such as coaxial, transmission, and reflection. At [0089] two types of illumination are used. Examiner notes that the use of battery identification information (e.g. bar code) to retrieve test parameters and the availability of multiple lighting devices have both been rendered obvious with respect to claim 1, above. A person of ordinary skill would expect that, given Kim’s disclosure of optimal lighting angles and use of two types of illumination, that the automated inspection system of modified Kim would irradiate the battery at a designated angle and wavelength, with a reasonable expectation of successfully inspecting the battery.
Regarding claims 5, 11, and 12, Kim in view of Ito, Chinnadurai, and Plese teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Kim further teaches wherein the hardware processor ([0100] the system is PC-based) is configured to acquire, as the spectral image data, any of spectral image data including the second light (at [0089] that a fixed sample is tested using two types of illumination) reflected by the first surface of the battery, spectral image data including the second light scattered by the first surface of the battery, ([0083-0084] images are acquired which include reflected lighting)
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that Plese discloses ([0013] Raman scattering and [0089] fluorescence hyperspectral images) Examiner notes that the fluorescence hyperspectral image includes a range of wavelengths (FIG. 33, FIG. 34, FIG. 35) and therefore includes a first light reflected from the surface and a second light reflected from the surface.) At FIG. 6 and FIG. 7, Plese discloses the suitability of fluorescence hyperspectral imaging for a wide variety of substances. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the battery inspection system of modified Kim with the use of Plese’s fluorescence hyperspectral images, with a reasonable expectation of successfully detecting a wide variety of substances.
Claim(s) 6, 14-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20170069178 A) in view of Ito (US 20060134511 A1), Chinnadurai (US 20140277907 A1), Plese (US 20120138820 A1), as set forth in claim 1, above, and in further view of Bangalore (US 20090066947 A1).
Regarding claims 6, 14 - 15 and 17, Plese in view of Ito, Chinnadurai, and Plese teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, Kim further teaches the hardware processor ([0100] the system is PC-based).
However, Kim does not explicitly teach wherein is configured to select a specific wavelength in a predetermined wavelength range as a normalization wavelength and a specific wavelength in a predetermined wavelength range as an evaluation wavelength based on the spectral image data acquired by the second acquisition unit, calculates a reflectance from a difference of a spectral intensity between the normalization wavelength and the evaluation wavelength in a wavelength range between the normalization wavelength and the evaluation wavelength, and detects the electrolyte based on the calculated reflectance.
Plese, in the field of hyperspectral imaging, discloses [0016-0018] the use of hyperspectral imaging having multiple wavelengths to detect substances. At [0022] the wavelengths are selected based on maximum contrast. Plese does not explicitly disclose calculating a reflectance from a difference of a spectral intensity between the normalization wavelength and the evaluation wavelength. However, Plese discloses [0076] the use of spectral mixture resolution, which may include the claimed feature.
Bangalore, in the field of (abstract) hyperspectral images, discloses [0021-0023] the use of a background wavelength (normalization wavelength) and a determined wavelength (evaluation wavelength) to create wavelength resolved hyperspectral images. A [0030] the background is subtracted. At [0028] the disclosed subtraction is used to accurately attribute a wavelength/intensity relationship to a specific chemical species.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to analyses the hyperspectral image of modified Kim using the subtraction technique of Bangalore, with a reasonable expectation of improving the detection of a specific chemical species.
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 CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on 571-270-1292. 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.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/18/2026