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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendments to the Claims filed on 05/15/2026 have been entered.
Claims 1-10 are pending and rejected under prior art and are examined on their merits below.
The 112(b) rejection of claims 3 and 4, made in the previous Office action is overcome by the amendment and withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/15/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding claim 1, see Remarks page 6, filled 05/15/2026:
Regarding applicant’s arguments addressing amended claim 1, Applicant contends that Fukatsu teaches away from including air or nitrogen in the battery case because Fukatsu employs krypton or xenon gas. This argument is not persuasive.
A reference teaches away only when it criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the claimed approach to such an extent that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be led in a different direction. Merely disclosing a preferred or superior alternative does not constitute teaching away.
Fukatsu does not criticize or prohibit the presence of air or nitrogen in the battery container. To the contrary, Fukatsu expressly recognizes the residual gases in the battery container and discusses the difficulty of imaging such gases because of their relatively small X-ray absorption coefficients ([0010]).
Fukatsu therefore introduces krypton or xenon as a preferred technique to improve image contrast and detection accuracy ([0021, 0024]). The use of noble gases is presented as an enhancement to imaging performance, not as a statement that air or nitrogen cannot be present in the container or should be avoided entirely.
Indeed, Fukatsu's disclosure acknowledges the existence of nitrogen and air in the battery container and merely proposes a more expensive and higher-contrast imaging approach for better visualization. It would be obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art that the noble gases are optional improvements for obtaining enhanced imaging results, rather than a disclaimer or disavowal of systems containing air or nitrogen.
Accordingly, Fukatsu does not teach away from "including air or nitrogen in the battery case." Therefore, Fukatsu remains applicable as the primary reference, and a new grounds of rejection, relying on Fukatsu in view of Hayashi is made in light of the amendments to the claims as of 05/15/2026 (see citation below). Hayashi teaches or evidences the presence of air or nitrogen in the battery case while evaluating injected electrolyte.
Regarding claims 2-5, see Remarks pages 7-8, filled 05/15/2026:
Applicant argues that claims 2-5 depend from claim 1 and that the prior art still does not teach the limitation that "air or nitrogen is included in the battery case"; therefore, Applicant contends that claims 2-5 are allowable. However, in light of the amendments filed on 05/15/2026, a new ground of rejection based on the combined teachings of Fukatsu and Hayashi (see citations below) is made for amended claim 1.
Regarding claim 2 and new claim 6, see remarks page 9, filled 05/15/2026:
Applicant argues that Takumi does not disclose or suggest the limitation of claims 2 and 6 reciting, "in the checking step, the image obtained in the X-ray applying step is divided into a plurality of portions along the winding axis, and the divided portions of the image are superimposed on each other," because Takumi acquires multiple X-ray images and combines those images into a single X-ray image.
The argument is not persuasive and is not commensurate with the scope of claims 2 and 6. Claims 2 and 6 recites "the image obtained in the X-ray applying step" but does not expressly require that the image be obtained from a single X-ray exposure. Rather, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed "image obtained in the X-ray applying step" reasonably encompasses a composite X-ray image obtained during the X-ray applying process.
Takumi teaches obtaining X-ray images of divided portions of an imaging region and superimposing the divided X-ray images so that there is no positional deviation, thereby producing a single X-ray image (See Takumi, [0007-0010, 0029]. Accordingly, Takumi teaches that the divided portions of the image are superimposed on each other to produce a single X-ray image obtained during the X-ray applying process.
With respect to the claim 6 limitation that the image is divided into a plurality of portions along the winding axis, Fukatsu teaches inspecting a wound electrode assembly to determine the permeation state of the electrolyte. Because the wound electrode assembly has a known winding axis, dividing and superimposing image portions along the winding axis would have been an obvious orientation for analyzing repeated winding layers and evaluating electrolyte permeation. The selection of the winding axis represents an obvious choice of image-processing direction based on the geometry of the wound electrode assembly.
Fukatsu teaches a checking step for determining the permeation state of an electrolyte solution based on an X-ray image. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ Takumi's technique of superimposing the divided portions of the image in Fukatsu's X-ray inspection method because doing so improves image continuity and positional alignment, thereby improving the reliability of the image used in the checking step to determine the permeation state of the electrolyte solution.
Therefore, Applicant's argument that Takumi fails to disclose the claimed limitation because it acquires multiple X-ray images rather than a single X-ray exposure is not persuasive, as the argument is not commensurate with the scope of claims 2 and 6, which does not limit "the image obtained in the X-ray applying step" to an image produced from only one X-ray exposure.
Regarding claim 3 and new claim 7, see remarks page 10, filled 05/15/2026:
Applicant's arguments with respect to new claim 7 and amended claim 3, specifically the limitation of “a preliminary X-ray applying step”, have been fully considered and are persuasive in overcoming the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 3 of the prior Office Action relying on Fukatsu in view of Boutry. However, the arguments are directed to limitations introduced by the amended claims that were not present in the claims at the time of the prior Office Action. Accordingly, a new ground of rejection relying on Fukatsu as modified by Boutry and further in view of Yoon (see citations below) is made in light of the claim amendments filed on 05/15/2026.
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukatsu (JP 2014225373 A, citations from enclosed machine translation), and further in view of Hayashi et al. (US 20040028997 A1).
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]).
Specifically, 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 taught, as Fukatsu teaches operating a tube current within the claimed range ([0035]).
Fukatsu does not teach a limitation wherein in the X-ray applying step, air or nitrogen is included in the battery case. Rather, Fukatsu discloses an embodiment in which a vacuum is produced within the sealed container and a rare gas such as krypton or xenon is introduced to improve X-ray visualization of the electrolyte permeation state ([0012, 0016, 0021, 0024])
However, Hayashi teaches manufacturing a battery by injecting electrolyte into a battery case, sealing the battery, and thereafter irradiating the battery with X-rays to inspect the battery following electrolyte injection ([0028-0037]). Hayashi performs the X-ray inspection after electrolyte filling without replacing the residual gas inside the battery with a noble gas. Thus, the battery case necessarily contains the residual atmospheric gas remaining after electrolyte filling, namely air and/or nitrogen.
Furthermore, Fukatsu itself acknowledges that, in conventional electrolyte filling operations, the residual gas remaining in the battery container is generally nitrogen and oxygen [0010]. Accordingly, Hayashi merely evidences the conventional inspection environment recognized by Fukatsu.
Further Hayashi and Fakatsu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both references are directed to battery manufacturing and x-ray inspection after electrolyte filling.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to perform Fukatsu's electrolyte permeation inspection under the conventional manufacturing conditions evidenced by Hayashi, in which residual air or nitrogen remains within the sealed battery during X-ray inspection. Such a modification would have represented the predictable use of a known inspection environment for the same purpose of evaluating electrolyte permeation, while avoiding the additional complexity and expense associated with replacing the residual gas with krypton or xenon.
Regarding claim 4, Fukatsu, as modified by Hayashi, teaches all limitations of claim 1 as stated above. 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 an X-ray detector ([0035], X-ray detector 29, Fig. 2) disposed facing the other one of the first side walls (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Fukatsu, as modified by Hayashi, teaches all limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Fukatsu further teaches a sealing step of sealing a filling port of the battery case with a sealing member ([0034, 0056]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukatsu, as modified by Hayashi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takumi (JP H10215411 A, citations from enclosed machine translation).
Regarding claim 2, Fukatsu, as modified by Hayashi, 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, modified Fukatsu fails to 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 processing an X-ray image by dividing the imaging area into a plurality of portions and combining the divided image portions into a resulting X-ray image by superimposing the divided portions so that corresponding boundary indicators coincide without deviation ([0007-0010, 0029], Figs. 6 and 9A-9D). Thus, Takumi teaches dividing image information into a plurality of portions and superimposing the divided portions of the image. Takumi further teaches that said method displays an x-ray image without degrading image quality ([0041]).
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 modify the image-processing technique of Fukatsu with the known image-processing method taught by Takumi to divide the image into a plurality of portions and superimpose the divided portions of the image, thereby improving the analysis of the X-ray image ([0041]) while determining the permeation state of the electrolyte solution.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukatsu, as modified by Hayashi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boutry (US 20210121151 A1), and Yoon (KR 20190111342 A, citation from enclosed machine translation).
Regarding claim 3, Fukatsu, as modified by Hayashi, teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Modified 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, wherein in the checking step, a background removing process is performed on a result obtained by the X-ray applying step using a result obtained by the preliminary X-ray applying step, the background removing process removing effects of components of the battery other than the electrolyte solution from the result obtained by the X-ray applying step.
However, Boutry teaches the claimed background-removal process. Specifically, Boutry discloses acquiring a reference image and removing background noise from an X-ray image by subtracting a reference image therefrom to obtain a de-noised X-ray image ([0020]). Boutry therefore teaches using a previously acquired image to remove unwanted background effects from a subsequently analyzed X-ray image, thereby improving image quality and reliability. Although Boutry acquires the reference image in the absence of irradiation, the reference image functions as a background reference for removing undesired image components from the analyzed X-ray image.
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 modified 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 and modified Fukatsu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both references are reasonably pertinent to the problem of removing background noise and improving the quality and reliability of X-ray image (see MPEP 2141.01(a)).
Furthermore, Yoon teaches acquiring multiple X-ray images of the same battery at different stages of operation and generating a difference image from those images. In particular, Yoon teaches that the reference image of FIG. 2 is acquired immediately before charging/discharging begins, while the target image is acquired after a predetermined period has elapsed, and the difference between the two images is analyzed to determine changes in lithium-ion concentration ([0053-0055]). Thus, Yoon teaches the use of a preliminary X-ray image acquired before a subsequent process and a later X-ray image acquired after that process to isolate changes attributable to the subsequent process.
Further, modified Fukatsu and Yoon are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both references are directed to X-ray imaging in battery cells.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known background-removal technique taught by Boutry to the multiple-image X-ray analysis taught by Yoon and incorporated into modified Fukatsu. Doing so would have predictably remove background effects ([0020] of Boutry) and isolate only the changes introduced by the subsequent process ([0053-0055] of Yoon), thereby improving the quality, and reliability of the X-ray analysis.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukatsu, as modified by Hayashi, 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, as modified by Hayashi, teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Fukatsu fails to 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.
In addition, mere duplication of parts, providing multiple of wound electrode assemblies instead of a single wound electrode assembly, does not result in a patentably distinct structure and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); see also MPEP 2144.04 VI(B).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukatsu (JP 2014225373 A, citations from enclosed machine translation), and further in view of Takumi (JP H10215411 A, citations from enclosed machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, Fukatsu teaches a method of manufacturing a battery ([0019], battery cell 12 in Fig. 1), the battery including: an electrode assembly including a wound electrode assembly ([0017], Fig. 7a) in which a positive electrode and a negative electrode are stacked with a separator interposed therebetween ([0022]) and wound about a winding axis ([0017], Fig. 7a), 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]).
Specifically, 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 taught, as Fukatsu teaches operating a tube current within the claimed range ([0035]).
While Fukatsu teaches that the X-ray is used to determine an impregnation state of the battery ([0036-0039]), Fukatsu fails to 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 the winding axis, 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 discloses processing an X-ray image by dividing the imaging area into a plurality of portions and combining the divided image portions into a resulting X-ray image by superimposing the divided portions so that corresponding boundary indicators coincide without deviation ([0007-0010, 0029], Figs. 6 and 9A-9D). Thus, Takumi teaches dividing image information into a plurality of portions and superimposing the divided portions of the image.
Takumi describes dividing image information along a predetermined direction rather than expressly identifying a winding axis, the particular direction along which the image is divided would have been an obvious matter of design choice depending upon the geometry of the object being analyzed. Fukatsu is directed to wound electrode assemblies having a winding structure. When applying Takumi's image-processing technique to Fukatsu's battery image, dividing the image along the winding axis would have been an obvious orientation because it follows the geometry of the wound electrode assembly and facilitates comparison of corresponding wound layers when evaluating electrolyte permeation.
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 modify the image-processing technique of Fukatsu with the known image-processing method taught by Takumi to divide the image into a plurality of portions and superimpose the divided portions of the image, thereby improving the analysis of the X-ray image while determining the permeation state of the electrolyte solution.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukatsu (JP 2014225373 A, citations from enclosed machine translation), and further in view of Boutry (US 20210121151 A1), and Yoon (KR 20190111342 A, citation from enclosed machine translation).
Regarding claim 7, 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]);
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]),
Specifically, 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 taught, as Fukatsu teaches operating a tube current within the claimed range ([0035]).
Fukatsu does not teach a preliminary X-ray applying step of applying X-rays to the battery case prior to the electrolyte filling step, and 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, the background removing process removing effects of components of the battery other than the electrolyte solution from the result obtained by the X-ray applying step.
However, Boutry teaches the claimed background-removal process. Specifically, Boutry discloses acquiring a reference image and removing background noise from an X-ray image by subtracting a reference image therefrom to obtain a de-noised X-ray image ([0020]). Boutry therefore teaches using a previously acquired image to remove unwanted background effects from a subsequently analyzed X-ray image, thereby improving image quality and reliability. Although Boutry acquires the reference image in the absence of irradiation, the reference image functions as a background reference for removing undesired image components from the analyzed X-ray image.
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 modified 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 and modified Fukatsu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both references are reasonably pertinent to the problem of removing background noise and improving the quality and reliability of X-ray image (see MPEP 2141.01(a)).
Furthermore, Yoon teaches acquiring multiple X-ray images of the same battery at different stages of operation and generating a difference image from those images. In particular, Yoon teaches that the reference image of FIG. 2 is acquired immediately before charging/discharging begins, while the target image is acquired after a predetermined period has elapsed, and the difference between the two images is analyzed to determine changes in lithium-ion concentration ([0053-0055]). Thus, Yoon teaches the use of a preliminary X-ray image acquired before a subsequent process and a later X-ray image acquired after that process to isolate changes attributable to the subsequent process.
Further, modified Fukatsu and Yoon are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both references are directed to X-ray imaging in battery cells.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known background-removal technique taught by Boutry to the multiple-image X-ray analysis taught by Yoon and incorporated into modified Fukatsu. Doing so would have predictably remove background effects ([0020] of Boutry) and isolate only the changes introduced by the subsequent process ([0053-0055] of Yoon), thereby improving the quality, and reliability of the X-ray analysis.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukatsu, as modified by Hayashi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Antrag (DE 102017100594 A1, citation from enclosed machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, Fukatsu, as modified by Hayashi, teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Modified Fukatsu fails to define a limitation wherein in the X-ray applying step, the tube current of the X-ray generator is set to higher than or equal to 2000 μA.
As discussed with respect to claim 1, 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. Thus, Fukatsu teaches operating the X-ray source within an approximate current range of 500-1000 µA ([0035]), but does not disclose operation at 2000 µA or greater.
However, Antrag teaches that tube current is one of the adjustable setting parameters of a X-ray computed tomography (CT) system. Specifically, Antrag teaches that measurement parameters are selected and optimized based on the measurement task, and that the setting parameters include X-ray tube voltage and tube current, together with other CT operating parameters, such as exposure time, detector settings, and beam filters ([0031, 0036-0037]).
Antrag further teaches that CT operating parameters are selected and optimized to achieve desired measurement performance, including measurement precision, measurement accuracy, measurement uncertainty, structure resolution, and/or measurement time ([0012])). Thus, Antrag recognizes X-ray tube current as a parameter affecting the performance of the CT measurement and therefore as a result-effective variable.
Although Antrag is not directed specifically to inspection of battery cells, Antrag is analogous art because it is directed to optimization of operating parameters for X-ray computed systems, which is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by Fukatsu of selecting suitable X-ray operating conditions for obtaining CT images used to inspect the interior of a battery. Both references concern acquiring and processing X-ray CT images by selecting appropriate imaging parameters. See MPEP 2141.01(a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the X-ray imaging system of Fukatsu by adjusting the tube current in view of the teachings of Antrag that tube current is an adjustable operating parameter of a CT system that is selected and optimized according to the measurement task ([0031, 0036-0037]). It would have been obvious to determine an appropriate tube current, including a value within the claimed range, through routine optimization to obtain suitable x-ray imaging conditions. Discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B), see also In re Aller, 220 F.2d (CCPA 1955).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukatsu, as modified by Hayashi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20260011796 A1, with foreign application prior date of 2021).
Regarding claim 9, Fukatsu, as modified by Hayashi, teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Modified Fukatsu fails to define a limitation wherein the X-rays are applied to a region set to be wider than a height of the battery case and narrower than a width of the battery case.
However, Kim teaches a battery cell inspection system using X-rays ([0002, 0007]). Kim further teaches directing X-rays toward a region of interest (ROI) of the battery cell for obtaining an electrode image ([0044, 0046, 0072]; Figs. 1, 2). Figure 2 illustrates that the inspection region (ROI1 and ROI2) is selected according to the portion of the battery to be inspected and that inspection may be performed along both the X-axis and Y-axis. Thus, Kim teaches that the X-ray irradiation region is configurable and may be selected according to the desired inspection area.
Further, modified Fukatsu and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both references are directed to X-ray inspection of battery cells and addresses selecting a region of interest for X-ray imaging of battery components, which is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by Fukatsu, namely, defining an X-ray irradiation region for inspection of a battery cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the X-ray inspection region of modified Fukatsu, in view of Kim, by selecting an irradiation region having dimensions appropriate for the particular portion of the battery to be inspected, including a region wider than the battery height and narrower than the battery width, because Kim teaches that the inspection region is a selectable region of interest rather than a fixed region. Determining the particular dimensions of the irradiation region which do not affect the functionality of the element are matters of design choice within the ambit of a skilled artisan, see MPEP 2144.04 IVA-B.
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 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
Prosecution Insights