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 with respect to claims 1, 4-9, 11, 15-18, 20 and 22-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed March 20, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 4-9, 11, and 15-26 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claims 1, 4-9, 11, 15-18, 20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN112798609A) in view of Honda (US20220291140A1), Lucovsky (US5828460A) and Terumi (JP2008070273A).
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches a battery cell appearance defect detection apparatus, comprising:
a first detection assembly (17, Fig. 2) comprising a first image collector (173, Fig. 5) and a first light source (174, Fig. 5), wherein the first light source emits first light toward a detection surface of a battery cell (paragraph [0018]; Fig. 5 depicts the light source pointed towards the surface being inspected, 20), and the first light forming a first included angle with the detection surface (β3, Fig. 5), and the first image collector collects a first image of the position on the battery cell irradiated by the first light (multiple paragraphs (such as [n0013] and [n0018]) discloses imaging accuracy of the cameras. The examiner is interpreting this to mean an image is taken);
a second detection assembly (19, Fig. 2) comprising a second image collector (183, Fig. 5) and a second light source (183, Fig. 5), wherein the second light source emits second light toward the detection surface (paragraph [0018]; Fig. 5 depicts the light source pointed towards the surface being inspected, 20), the second light forming a second included angle with the detection surface (β4, Fig. 5), and the second image collector collects a second image of the position on the battery cell irradiated by the second light (multiple paragraphs (such as [n0013] and [n0018]) discloses imaging accuracy of the cameras. The examiner is interpreting this to mean an image is taken); and
detect defects between the outer film and a shell of the battery cell and defects on the outer film appearance defects of the battery cell according to the first image and the second image respectively (paragraph [n0002] discloses the different detection assemblies check for defects in different layers of the object being examined; paragraph [0018] discloses assembly 17 (third assembly in the reference) is used to inspect one layer, while assembly 19 (fourth assembly in the reference) is used to inspect a different layer),
along a direction perpendicular to the detection surface, the spacing distance between a light source light-emitting surface of the first light source and the detection surface is D1, and the spacing distance between a light source light-emitting surface of the second light source and the detection surface is D2, which satisfy the relational expression: D2 < D1,
60mm < D1 < 80mm (paragraph [0046] discloses a light source 163 is at a distance of 70mm from the object being inspected. Paragraph [n0011] discloses this light source is positioned in order to enable defect detection of a deeper part of the object than a closer distance (paragraph [n0021] discloses a smaller distance of 40 mm between the light source and object results in shallower detection), therefore further improving the applicability of the device. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the larger distance of light source 163 with light source 184 in order to improve the applicability of the device by enabling it to image at greater depths), and
10mm < D2 < 50mm (paragraph [0056] discloses the third light source, 173, at a distance of 50mm (corresponding to D1), and the fourth light source, 184, at a distance of 40mm (corresponding to D2)).
Xu does not teach the first light being adapted to pass through an outer film of the battery cell, the second included angle being less than the first included angle; and
a control assembly connected respectively with the first image collector and the second image collector,
wherein the first included angle is α, which satisfies the relational expression: 60o ≤ α ≤ 80o and the second included angle is β, and 5o ≤ β ≤ 15o and the first light emitted by the first light source is a parallel light, and the second light emitted by the second light source is a parallel light.
However, in the same field of endeavor of defect detection systems, Honda teaches an apparatus (Fig. 1) with light source that may be infrared, which has the ability to pass through an outer layer (paragraph [0064]).
Honda discloses that the use of infrared light allows the inside of the object to be images (paragraph [0064]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the two light sources taught in Xu with the infrared light source taught in Honda as a way to detect defects on the inside of the battery.
Xu and Honda fail to teach the second included angle being less than the first included angle; and
a control assembly connected respectively with the first image collector and the second image collector,
wherein the first included angle is α, which satisfies the relational expression: 60o ≤ α ≤ 80o and the second included angle is β, and 5o ≤ β ≤ 15o and the first light emitted by the first light source is a parallel light, and the second light emitted by the second light source is a parallel light.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical inspection of surfaces, Lucovsky teaches an inspection system with two light sources, one produces a light beam at an angle between 60-70 degrees with the object surface (column 3, line 60) and the second at an angle of less than 12 degrees (column 3, line 65).
Lucovsky discloses the use of a small and larger angle of incidence gives the device the ability to detect both contaminants and roughness of the surface being inspected (column 2, lines 60-62), therefore expanding the applicability of the device. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Xu as modified by Honda with the angles of incidence taught in Lucovsky in order to expand the applicability of the device.
Xu as modified by Honda and Lucovsky fails to teach a control assembly connected respectively with the first image collector and the second image collector, and the first light emitted by the first light source is a parallel light, and the second light emitted by the second light source is a parallel light.
However, in the same field of endeavor of defect detection, Terumi teaches a control connected to the image collectors (paragraph [0009] discloses the use of a control to control the position of the image detector. The examiner is interpreting this to mean the control is connected to the image detector) and a first and second light source which are parallel (the examiner is interpreting "parallel light" to mean a light source which emits rays that are parallel to each other. This is shown in Figs. 1 and 7 and disclosed in paragraphs [0019] and [0030]).
The use of a controller is a well-known technique to allow user control over an apparatus or system. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use the known technique of a controller to improve the device of Xu as modified by Honda in order to gain control of the image collectors. Further, the use of parallel light ensures the illumination from the light rays on the surface is uniform (not overlapping), which allows for defects to be detected over a greater area (Terumi: paragraph [0019]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device of Xu as modified by Honda and Lucovsky with the controller and parallel light taught in Terumi as it enables user control and defect detection.
Regarding claim 4, Xu as modified by Honda, Lucovsky and Terumi teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further discloses the first light and the second light are both infrared scanning light (Honda: paragraph [0064]).
As discussed above in claim 1, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Xu as modified by Honda, Lucovsky and Terumi with the infrared light taught in Honda as it allows defects inside of the battery to be detected.
Regarding claim 5, Xu as modified by Honda, Lucovsky and Terumi teaches the invention as explained above in claim 4, and further discloses a wavelength of the first light and/or a wavelength of the second light are both which satisfy the relational expression: 800 nm < λ < 900 nm (Honda: paragraph [0064] discloses the use of infrared light, which has a wavelength that encompasses this range).
As discussed above in claim 1, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Xu as modified by Honda, Lucovsky and Terumi with the infrared light taught in Honda as it allows defects inside of the battery to be detected.
Regarding claim 6, Xu as modified by Honda, Lucovsky and Terumi teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further discloses the first image collector is constructed as a line scan camera (Xu: paragraph [0078] describes the cameras as line scan cameras), and the position on the detection surface irradiated by the scanning line of the first image collector coincides with the position on the detection surface irradiated by the first light (Xu: shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Xu as modified by Honda, Lucovsky and Terumi teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further discloses the second image collector is constructed as a line scan camera (Xu: paragraph [0078] describes the cameras as line scan cameras), and the position on the detection surface irradiated by the scanning line of the second image collector coincides with the position on the detection surface irradiated by the second light (Xu: shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Xu as modified by Honda, Lucovsky and Terumi teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further discloses the first detection assembly and the second detection assembly are located on the same side of the detection surface (Xu: Fig. 2 depicts the first assembly, 17, and the second assembly, 18, on the same side of the detection surface, 133).
Regarding claim 9, Xu as modified by Honda, Lucovsky and Terumi teaches the invention as explained above in claim 8, and further discloses a first light region on the detection surface irradiated by the first light is misaligned with a second light region on the detection surface irradiated by the second light (Xu: Fig. 5 depicts the first line source, 174, irradiating a different light region than the second light source, 184).
Regarding claim 11, Xu as modified by Honda, Lucovsky and Terumi teaches the invention as explained above in claim 8, and further discloses the first light source and the second light source respectively emit light from different directions to the detection surface (Terumi: Fig. 7 depicts the two light sources being emitted from different directions).
Emitting the light sources from different directions illuminates different sections of the object, and allows a change in certain defects, such as surface density, of the detected object to be calculated by determining the difference between sections (Terumi: paragraph [0037]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Xu as modified by Honda, Lucovsky and Terumi with the embodiment of Terumi which has the light sources in two different directions as it illuminates two different sections, allowing for defects to be calculated.
Regarding claim 15, Xu as modified by Honda, Lucovsky and Terumi teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further discloses the battery cell appearance defect detection apparatus is adapted to perform an appearance detection of the battery cell that is moving (Xu: paragraph [0012] discloses the object being inspected is carried along a transmission mechanism; paragraph [0011] discloses the transmission mechanism moves along the length direction of the defect detection apparatus).
Regarding claim 16, Xu as modified by Honda, Lucovsky and Terumi teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further discloses a first light region on the detection surface irradiated by the first light is parallel to a second light region on the detection surface irradiated by the second light (Fig. 1 depicts the light sources parallel to each other).
Arranging the light sources to irradiate surfaces parallel to each other is commonly used to prevent interference between the two light sources. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the device of Xu as modified by Honda, Lucovsky and Terumi with the embodiment of Terumi which has the light sources irradiating parallel regions in order to prevent interference between the two.
Regarding claim 17, Xu as modified by Honda, Lucovsky and Terumi teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further discloses along the direction of extension of a first light region on the detection surface irradiated by the first light, the width of the detection surface is L 1 and the length of the first light region is L2, which satisfy the relational expression: L1 < L2 (Fig. 1 depicts a first light source, 2a, which illuminates a region longer than it is wider).
The device being detected in Terumi is a cylinder shape, much like a cylindrical battery (Fig. 1 depicts the object, 4, as a cylinder). Therefore, it would be obvious to illuminate a surface longer than wider in order to fit the geometry of a cylindrical battery shape, or any elongated shape such as a rectangle. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the device of Xu as modified by Honda, Lucovsky and Terumi with the elongated illumination region taught in Terumi in order to match the geometry of a cylindrical battery.
Regarding claim 18, Xu as modified by Honda, Lucovsky and Terumi teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further discloses along the direction of extension of a second light region on the detection surface irradiated by the second light, the width of the detection surface is L3 and the length of the second light region is L4, which satisfy the relational expression: L3 < L4 (Fig. 1 depicts a second light source, 2b, which illuminates a region longer than it is wider).
As discussed above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the device of Xu as modified by Honda, Lucovsky and Terumi with the elongated illumination region taught in Terumi in order to match the geometry of a cylindrical battery).
Regarding claim 20, Xu as modified by Honda, Lucovsky and Terumi teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further discloses an angle detector to detect an included angle between the first light and the detection surface and an included angle between the second light and the detection surface (Xu: paragraphs [n0011], [n0021], [n0036] disclose setting the angle of the light sources. The examiner is interpreting this to mean there is some detection mechanism which determines the angle).
Regarding claim 22, Xu as modified by Honda, Lucovsky and Terumi teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further discloses the battery cell appearance defect detection apparatus (Xu: 17, Fig. 2) according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 23, Xu as modified by Honda, Lucovsky and Terumi teaches the invention as explained above in claim 22, and further discloses there are a plurality of said battery cell appearance defect detection apparatuses, the plurality of said battery cell appearance defect detection apparatuses being used for correspondingly detecting a plurality of said detection surfaces of the battery cell (Xu: 17, 18, 19, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 24, Xu as modified by Honda, Lucovsky and Terumi teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further discloses a scanning line of the first image collector and a scanning line of the second image collector each are perpendicular to the detection surface (Terumi: Fig. 6a depicts one embodiment where the scanning lines of the detectors, 3 (which encompasses two detectors, as shown in Fig. 7), perpendicular to the detection surface).
Xu discloses one embodiment where line cameras are at 85 degrees (paragraph [n0016]), but not 90 degrees. Xu does disclose the angle of the line scan affects the accuracy of the image (paragraph [n00046]) and the angle can be adjusted based on the type of object being inspected, which improves the scope of use (paragraph [n0048]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device of Xu as modified by Honda, Lucovsky and Terumi with the embodiment of Terumi where the scan is taken perpendicular to the detection surface as taught in Terumi in order to accurately image an object being inspected.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN112798609A) in view of Honda (US20220291140A1), Lucovsky (US5828460A) and Terumi (JP2008070273A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kumar (US20100182450A1).
Regarding claim 19, Xu as modified by Honda, Lucovsky and Terumi teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the first image collector and/or the second image collector are/is constructed as a line scan camera (Xu: paragraph [0078]).
Xu as modified by Honda, Lucovsky and Terumi fails to teach the gray scale value of an image generated through collection by the line scan camera is 80-100.
However, in the same field of endeavor of line scan cameras used to capture images of objects, Kumar teaches a line scan camera with a gray scale between 80-100 (paragraph [0026] discloses a gray scale ranging from 0 to 255).
Kumar discloses that defects (such as dirt, debris, etc.) in the image will have a lower values (paragraph [0028]), meaning if one is looking for defects, the range will be on the lower end. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device of Xu as modified by Honda, Lucovsky and Terumi with the gray scale range taught in Kumar as it enables defect detection.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN112798609A) in view of Honda (US20220291140A1), Lucovsky (US5828460A) and Terumi (JP2008070273A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park (KR102357695B1).
Regarding claim 21, Xu as modified by Honda, Lucovsky and Terumi teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the control assembly is communicatively connected to both the first light source and the second light source, and the control assembly is used to control the turning on or off of the first light source, the second light source, the first image collector, and the second image collector.
However, in the same field of endeavor of defect detection, Park teaches a device with a controller which controls the image collectors and light sources to turn on and off (paragraph [0024]).
Park discloses the controller ensures the light sources and the image sensors are in sync (paragraph [0024]), which prevents images being taken with no light source. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the device of Xu as modified by Honda, Lucovsky and Terumi with the light and image sensor control taught in Park in order to prevent images being taken with no light source.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN112798609A) in view of Honda (US20220291140A1), Lucovsky (US5828460A) and Terumi (JP2008070273A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN110441316B).
Regarding claim 25, Xu as modified by Honda, Lucovsky and Terumi teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the control assembly is configured to:
detect the defects comprising foreign matter particles and air bubbles between the outer film and the shell of the battery cell from the first image (Xu: paragraph [n0030] discloses the detection of bubbles and foreign matter in different layers; paragraph [n0036] discloses one of the cameras is used to detect dirt in a layer; paragraph [n0040] discloses one of the cameras is used to detect bubbles in one of the layers).
Xu as modified by Honda, Lucovsky and Terumi fails to teach the control assembly is configured to detect the defects comprising pits on the outer film from the second image.
However, in the same field of endeavor of battery defect detection, Zhang discloses a system where one image is used to pits on the battery surface may be detected (paragraph [n0003] discloses the detection of pits; paragraph [n0014] discloses one defect detector is used to detect defects in the surface).
Terumi discloses identifying the type of defect is important when checking the manufacturing process (paragraph [0007]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the device of Xu as modified by Honda and Terumi with the pit detection taught in Zhang based on different images in order to determine errors in the manufacturing process.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN112798609A) in view of Honda (US20220291140A1), Lucovsky (US5828460A) and Terumi (JP2008070273A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirono (JPH0792099A).
Regarding claim 26, Xu as modified by Honda, Lucovsky and Terumi teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach wherein 10mm < D2 < 30mm.
However, in the same field of endeavor of object inspection, Hirono discloses the distance between the light source and the object detected may be 10 mm (paragraph [0024] discloses the distance between the inspection light optical axis and the inspection surface may be 10 mm. Fig. 4 depicts the light source, 8, the optical axis, 16, and the surface 10).
Hirono discloses the light source must be arranged closely to the optical surface (paragraph [0024]) in order to best detect defects on the surface level of the object (paragraph [0005]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Xu as modified by Honda, Lucovsky and Terumi with the distance of 10mm taught in Hirono in order to facilitate the best surface-level defect detection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 9:00 - 6:00 CDT.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights