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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 07/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/14/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are currently pending in the application, of claims 6-11 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-5 are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
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) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joung et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0357294) and further in view of Kim (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0196173).
Regarding claim 1, Joung teaches an apparatus for inspecting an electrode cell (100) (i.e., battery cells) (paragraph [0036]) (see figure 1 and 6). Joung teaches a plurality of leads (110) and bonded to the plurality of electrode cells (100) (paragraph [0036]) (see figures 1 and 6), the apparatus comprising:
a heater configured to heat the lead (i.e., heating using Joule Heat – implying there is a heater) (abstract) (claim 1) (paragraph [0015]); and
a thermal detection sensor (i.e., thermal imaging camera) (500) (see figures 1 and 6) configured to detect a temperature distribution by heat conducted from the lead (paragraph [0036]).
Joung does not particularly define the electrode cell comprising a plurality of electrodes stacked with a separator therebetween, a plurality of tabs connected to the plurality of electrodes, and a lead bonded to the plurality of tabs, and of the plurality of tabs heated by heat conducted from the lead. However, such limitations are describing the article worked upon. Inclusion by a material or article worked upon by a structure (i.e., apparatus for inspecting electrode cells) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115). In the claims, the electrode stack and the separator described the cell being inspected, rather than components of the inspection apparatus. Consequently, internal construction may provide no patentable distinction over the disclosed apparatus.
Moreover, Joung teaches a secondary battery (100) (paragraph [0003]-[0005]) which, in the art of batteries, are known and common to be arranged and configured with a plurality of electrodes stacked with a separator therebetween, a plurality of tabs connected to the plurality of electrodes, and a lead bonded to the plurality of tabs. The capability of Joung apparatus is established in the same manner as the claimed apparatus, to inspect battery cell tabs for various performance by measuring a temperature change (paragraphs [0036]-[0038]). As such, the electrode/separator stack imposes no additional apparatus requirement. Nonetheless, additional guidance is provided below.
Kim, directed to a secondary battery (paragraph [0007]), teaches a secondary battery (same as Joung) having a plurality of electrodes (180) stacked with a separator (160) therebetween, a plurality of tabs (170) connected to the plurality of electrodes, and a lead (190) bonded to the plurality of tabs (paragraph [0064]-[0066]) (see figure 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the inspection apparatus of Joung to inspect the electrode cell of Kim, in order to evaluate the bonded connections between the lead and the tabs using the thermal inspection technique taught by Joung. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expected success because the cell of Kim provides the lead-to-tab heat-conduction path used in the inspection apparatus: heating lead conducts heat into the bonded tabs, whose temperature distribution can be detected by the thermal detection sensor. Thus, applying the known inspection technique to the electrode cell of Kim would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Joung teaches determining that the electrode cell is defective when a temperature difference between two different points of at least one of the plurality of tabs is out of a preset range (paragraph [0040]). Joung teaches the heat is express by different colors based on the temperature using technology well known (paragraph [0040]) implying a controller can be used to convert temperature signals into colors and display it.
Regarding claim 4, Joung teaches the thermal detection sensor comprises a first thermal detection sensor and a second thermal detection sensor, which are disposed to face each other with a non-bonding part of each of the plurality of tabs therebetween (a plurality of thermal imaging cameras may be used) (paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 5, Joung teaches the heater comprises a pair of contact bodies (i.e., welds) (300) which are in contact with the lead (110) (see figures 1 and 5) and of which, and wherein at least one of the pair of contact bodies is configured to be heated to a preset temperature (paragraph [0022]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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. In other words, claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to incorporate:
all the limitations of claim 1 and claims 2-3, or
Applicant is encouraged to consider amending claim 1 accordingly to place the application in condition of allowance.
The prior art whether alone or in combination do not teach or fairly suggest the limitations “further comprising at least one of: an output interface configured to output a failure occurrence signal when the controller determines that the electrode cell is defective; or an unloader configured to collect the electrode cell from a manufacturing line when the controller determines that the electrode cell is defective.” as recited in claim 3 in combination with the features of claims 1-2.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0110068). Seki teaches an electrode cell with a plurality of electrode tabs and an electrode lead (paragraph [0187]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 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, TONG GUO can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights