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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/21/2023 and 09/02/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 4 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 3 is indefinite because it recites “a background removing process” term without providing any specific steps or instructions, either in the claim itself or in the specification. For examination purpose, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this term encompasses any process whose general purpose is to remove background noise. Applicant is advised to define this process with specific steps in the specification to provide clarity.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the X-ray detector” in line 5 (clause 3). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim 4 because claim 4 does not recite any “X-ray detector” prior to the recitation in line 5 (“an X-ray detector” is suggested).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukatsu (JP 2014225373 A, citations from enclosed machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Fukatsu teaches a method of manufacturing a battery ([0019], battery cell 12 in Fig. 1) including an electrode assembly including a positive electrode and a negative electrode ([0022], positive electrode and a negative electrode), an electrolyte solution ([0011], electrolyte solution), and a battery case enclosing the electrode assembly and the electrolyte solution ([0004], battery container) the method comprising: an electrolyte filling step of filling the electrolyte solution into the battery case enclosing the electrode assembly ([0032]); an X-ray applying step of applying X-rays to the battery case enclosing the electrode assembly and the electrolyte solution ([0035]); and a checking step of checking a permeation state of the electrolyte solution in the electrode assembly based on an image obtained in the X-ray applying step ([0036]), wherein in the X-ray applying step, a tube current of an X-ray generator is set to higher than or equal to 100 μA and lower than or equal to 10000 μA ([0035]). Fukatsu teaches that a high voltage of 100 kV or more (preferably 200 kV), with an output of 100 W or more, is used for the X-ray source, which is a tungsten tube high-voltage X-ray source 26. Based on the stated voltage and power relationship (I = P/V), the current would be 1000 μA at 100 kV, and 500 μA at 200kV. Accordingly, the claimed current range is anticipated, as Fukatsu teaches operating a tube current within the claimed range ([0035]).
Regarding claim 4, Fukatsu further teaches a limitation wherein the battery case includes a pair of first side walls; each of the first side walls has a larger area than another side wall (battery cell 12 in Fig. 2); and the X-ray applying step is performed with the X-ray generator ([0035], X-ray source 26 ) disposed facing one of the first side walls and the X-ray detector ([0035], X-ray detector 29, Fig. 2) disposed facing the other one of the first side walls (Fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukatsu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takumi (JP H10215411 A, citations from enclosed machine translation)
Regarding claim 2, Fukatsu teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. While Fukatsu teaches that the X-ray is used to determine an impregnation state of the battery, Fukatsu fails to explicitly define a limitation wherein in the checking step, the image obtained in the X-ray applying step is divided into a plurality of portions along a predetermined direction, and the divided portions of the image are superimposed on each other, to determine the permeation state of the electrolyte solution based on the superimposed portions of the image. However, Takumi teaches the limitation wherein an X-ray image is divided into a plurality of portions along a predetermined direction, and the divided portions of the image are superimposed on each other (Fig. 9A and Fig. 9B, the divided X-ray images are superimposed so that there is no deviation). Takumi further teaches that said method displays an x-ray image without degrading image quality (abstract). While Takumi is directed to an X-ray image analysis process primarily used in hospitals or other medical institutions, Takumi is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed in Fukatsu. In both references, an X-ray image is acquired and processed for analysis, and Takumi specifically addresses techniques for improving X-ray image quality. Accordingly, Takumi is analogous art to Fukatsu because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of improving the quality and reliability of X-ray image analysis (see MPEP 2141.01(a)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would use the known method as taught by Takumi to the X-ray image taught by Fukatsu, because such a modification would predictably improve the quality of X-ray image (abstract).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukatsu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boutry (US 20210121151 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Fukatsu teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Fukatsu fails to define a limitation in which the method according to claim 1, further comprises a preliminary X-ray applying step of applying X-rays to the battery case prior to the electrolyte filling step, and wherein in the checking step, a background removing process is performed from a result obtained by the X-ray applying step using a result obtained by the preliminary X-ray applying step. However, Boutry teaches this limitation. Specifically, Boutry discloses capturing a preliminary X-ray image initially ([0020]; X-ray image acquired in the absence of irradiation), and performing a background-removal process on an X-ray image using the preliminary X-ray ([0020]; background noise is removed from the X-ray image). Boutry further teaches that removing background noise from the X-ray image results in a de-noised X-ray image ([0020]). While Boutry is directed to an X-ray image analysis process primarily used in radiology systems, Boutry is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed in Fukatsu. In both references, an X-ray image is acquired and processed for analysis, and Boutry specifically addresses techniques for removing noise from X-ray image and improving its quality. Accordingly, Boutry is analogous art to Fukatsu because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of removing background noise and improving the quality and reliability of X-ray image (see MPEP 2141.01(a)).
Therefore, , it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would apply the known background-removal method as taught by Boutry to the X-ray image taught by Fukatsu, because such a modification would predictably improve image quality and yield a de-noised X-ray image ([0020]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukatsu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wakimoto et al. (JP 2019008972 A, citations from enclosed machine translation).
Regarding claim 5, Fukatsu teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Fukatsu fails to explicitly teach a limitation wherein the electrode assembly includes a plurality of wound electrode assemblies disposed in the battery case. Fukatsu instead discloses a wound type secondary battery having a single wound electrode assembly (Fig. 1, and Fig. 6; [0019], [0044]). However, Wakimoto teaches an electrode body including a plurality of wound electrode body elements (elements 3a and 3b in Fig. 18; elements 3c-3f in Fig. 20; paragraph 1 of [Configuration of electrode body]) in order to provide a secondary battery having high volumetric energy density (abstract). Further, Fukatsu, and Wakimoto are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of secondary battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of Fukatsu in the single wound electrode assembly to test the electrolyte impregnation in a different wound battery, such as that of Wakimoto with the plurality of wound electrode assemblies and higher volumetric energy density.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lili Rassouli whose telephone number is (571)272-9760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM-4:00 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/LILI RASSOULI/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728