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 .
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) 1-2 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 107097009 B)(The following remarks are made with respect to the English translation, mailed herewith).
Regarding claim 1, Li et al. disclose a method of sensing a state of a battery cell (2; see paragraph 27), the method comprising:
an image acquisition step of acquiring, by an image acquisition unit (4; see paragraph 28) on an upper part of a mounting unit (cell mounting position; see paragraph 27) on which the battery cell is disposed, an image (image; see paragraph 30) of the mounting unit and the battery cell;
a height information extraction step of extracting, by a controller, height information (c1 and c2; see paragraph 30) of a tab (1; see paragraph 29) included in the battery cell with respect to a point of the mounting unit from the image; and
a battery cell state analysis step of determining, by the controller, a state of the battery cell (whether the position of the tab is within tolerance; see paragraph 30) based on the height information.
Regarding claim 2, Li et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the state of the battery cell includes at least one of an arrangement state of the tab with respect to the mounting unit and an arrangement state of the battery cell with respect to the mounting unit (see paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 14, Li et al. disclose a device of sensing a state of a battery cell (2; see paragraph 27) disposed on an upper surface of a mounting unit (cell mounting position; see paragraph 27) and including a tab (1; see paragraph 29), the device comprising:
an image acquisition unit (4; see paragraph 28) positioned on an upper part of the mounting unit and configured to acquire an image of the mounting unit and the battery cell (see paragraph 30); and
a controller (5; see paragraph 30) connected to the image acquisition unit and configured to extract height information of the tab with respect to a point of the mounting unit from the image.
Regarding claim 15, Li et al. disclose the device of claim 14, wherein the image acquisition unit includes a 3D scanner, and
wherein the image is a 3D image (see paragraph 30).
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.
Note that, in the following rejections, the highlighting indicates differences from the exact claim language, or items involved in an obviousness argument.
Claim(s) 3, 10, 16, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 107097009 B)(The following remarks are made with respect to the English translation, mailed herewith).
See the foregoing rejections of claims 1 and 14 for limitations recited therein.
Regarding claim 3, Li et al. do not disclose the highlighted limitations:
wherein the mounting unit includes:
a base having an upper surface on which the battery cell is disposed;
a wall extending upward from the upper surface of the base along at least a portion of a perimeter of the base; and
an inner space formed by the base and the wall, the battery cell being disposed in the inner space.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Li et al. such that the mounting unit includes: a base having an upper surface on which the battery cell is disposed; a wall extending upward from the upper surface of the base along at least a portion of a perimeter of the base; and an inner space formed by the base and the wall, the battery cell being disposed in the inner space, because it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed subject matter is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 10, Li et al. do not disclose the highlighted limitations:
wherein the wall includes a first wall and a second wall disposed with the battery cell interposed therebetween.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Li et al. such the wall includes a first wall and a second wall disposed with the battery cell interposed therebetween, because it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed subject matter is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 16, see the foregoing rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 19, Li et al. further disclose the device of claim 16, wherein the wall includes a plurality of upper surfaces with different heights,
wherein the plurality of upper surfaces include a first reference surface and a second reference surface (see paragraph 30), and
wherein the controller extracts height information of the tab with respect to the first reference surface and the second reference surface (see paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 20, Li et al. do not disclose the highlighted limitations:
wherein the battery cell includes a plurality of battery cells,
wherein the plurality of battery cells are arranged side by side on the mounting unit, and
wherein the image acquisition unit moves in an arrangement direction of the plurality of battery cells.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Li et al. such that the battery cell includes a plurality of battery cells because it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the invention of Li et al. such that the plurality of battery cells are arranged side by side on the mounting unit, because it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the invention of Li et al. such that the image acquisition unit moves, because it has been held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance. In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the invention of Li et al. such that the image acquisition unit moves in an arrangement direction of the plurality of battery cells, such a modification would have merely required choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9, 11-13, and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose or suggest, "wherein the height information extraction step comprises extracting height information of an upper surface of the wall and height information of an upper surface of the tab", in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 4, and claims 5-9 and 12-13 depending therefrom.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest, "when a height of the point on ... the first wall is greater than a height of the point on ... the second wall, determining the state of the battery cell as a state in which a portion of the battery cell spans the first wall", in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 11.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest, "wherein the image acquisition unit moves between an upper part of the first wall and an upper part of the second wall", in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 17, and claim 18 depending therefrom.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY T EVANS whose telephone number is (571)272-2369. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/GEOFFREY T EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 2852