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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/03/2026 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 05/13/2026 has been entered.
The objection to claim 2 is overcome by the amendment and is withdrawn.
Claims 4 and 7 are still rejected to under 35 USC 112(b) below, although the confusion regarding the word “gap” was corrected by the amendment.
Claim 5 is still rejected to under 35 USC 112(b) below, although the confusion regarding the multiple recitations of “edge” was corrected by the amendment.
Claim 8 is still rejected to under 35 USC 112(b) below because the multiple recitations of “edge” were not differentiated.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-12 are maintained below.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to for the minor informality of “the-distance”, wherein “-“ should be removed or otherwise corrected.
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.
Claims 3-8 and 11-12 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.
Claims 4 and 7 recite “a distance in width direction between the anode region and the cathode region” and “a distance in width direction between the anode region and the protective region”, but it is unclear whether these are the same or different than the corresponding distances introduced in claim 1. It is suggested that “a distance” be replaced with “the distance” for corresponding distances which were introduced in previous claims, to establish proper antecedent basis when intended to refer back to previously claimed distances.
Claim 5 recites “a distance in width direction between the first electrode plate and the separator”, but it is unclear whether this are the same or different than the corresponding distance introduced in claim 2 upon which claim 5 depends. It is suggested that “a distance” be replaced with “the distance” for any corresponding distance which was introduced in a previous claim, to establish proper antecedent basis when intended to refer back to the previously claimed distance.
Claim 8 recites “the edge of the separator” after introducing “an edge of the separator … located on the first side” but between the introduction of “an edge of the separator” and its qualifier “located on the second side”. It is unclear which of “an edge” that “the edge of the separator” refers to. Also, claim 1 introduces “edges of the separator”, so it is further unclear is “an edge” recitations in claim 8 intend to reference any of “edges” introduced in claim 1. It is recommended to introduce respective first and second edges of the separator for clarity in claim 8.
Claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 recite “the first side”, while claims 4, 5, 7, and 8 also recite “the second side”. It is unclear whether these recitations definitely refer to “a first side and a second side of the winding needle” introduced in claim 1, “first side and second side images of edges of the separator”, or some other first and second sides of another structural element or viewpoint not explicitly introduced.
Claims 3, 6, and 11-12 recite limitations introduced by “when”, such that it is unclear whether these are only optional limitations or are positively required by the claim.
10. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim 1 limitation of “an execution device” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because “execution device” amounts to a generic placeholder with no identified specifics (only mentioned in [0066] of the specification with no defined structure for performing function). It is also unclear whether said execution device performs only the “cutting” functions or also the “generating” functions recited in claim 1. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims are similarly rejected for including the limitations of claim 1.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
11. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “with an execution device, cutting …” but there is no corresponding written description in the specification which conveys such; only [0066] of the specification mention “an execution device of the previous process” but does not describe sufficiently what an execution device is or how such obtains width measurements or possibly performs coating and/or cutting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
12. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
Claims 1 and 9 recite “calculating a distance in width direction between the anode region and the cathode region as well as a distance in width direction between the anode region and the protective region”, wherein “calculating” is a mental step and/or math.
Claims 2, 5, and 8 recite “determining a distance” which are mental steps and/or math.
Claim 3 recites “determining … a first distance” which is a mental step and/or math.
Claims 4 recites “calculating a distance …” and “obtaining a second distance” which are mental steps and/or math.
Claim 6 recites “determining … a fourth distance” which is a mental step and/or math.
Claims 7 recites “calculating a distance … “ and “obtaining” various width measurements and distances via addition and subtraction, which are mental steps and/or math.
Claim 10 refers back to claim 1 including the abstract idea (cited above) of “calculating” distance, which is a mental step and/or math.
Claim 11 refers back to claim 1 including the abstract idea (cited above) of “calculating” distance, which is a mental step and/or math.
Claim 12 refers back to claim 1 including the abstract idea (cited above) of “calculating” distance, which is a mental step and/or math. Claim 12 also recites “a non-volatile computer storage medium”
Even with the instant amendments, it is not clear whether the processor is performing the “calculating steps” or only the “determining” steps of claims 1 and 9; nor is it clear if the processor is performing the “determining”, “obtaining”, and/or “subtracting” steps as recited in the dependent claims.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
In claim 1, once the calculation is performed, then no action is taken. Therefore, there is no particular practical application. The “execution device” as claimed appears to cut the electrode plates before generating measurements, thus action is not based on the determinations nor calculations as claimed, and the “processor” merely performs determination steps but does not take further action. The abstract idea is recited as being performed by a processor/control unit, which is a general purpose computer. However, performing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer is not enough to integrate the exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(b)I.).
Regarding claims 2-9: The claims do recite acquiring widths and receiving images. However, these are just method steps that are used to gather data that is then used in the abstract ideas. Gathering data to be used in the abstract idea is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 2-3, 5, 6, 8, 9 are directed towards determining steps with no application/integration. Claims 4 and 7 are directed towards calculating and obtaining steps with no application/integration.
In claim 10, the image acquisition devices do not integrate because they are only used in data gathering.
In claims 11-12, the abstract idea (i.e., from claim 1) is recited as being performed by a processor/control unit, which is a general purpose computer. However, performing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer is not enough to integrate the exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(b)I.).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
Claim 1 does not appear to recite any additional elements aside from the basic structure of stacked and wound electrode plates having anode/cathode regions and a separator, a general “execution device” used for cutting (and/or generating widths), a “winding needle” used for winding of the battery internal elements, image acquisition devices only used for data gathering, and “a processor” which amounts to a general purpose computer. The first and second image acquisition devices as well as generating a first width measurement and second width measurements are each data gathering and therefore insignificant extra solution activities. These additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional within the prior art (see prior art references cited within 35 USC 103 Rejection below in the present Office action).
Regarding claims 2-9: The claims does not appear to recite any additional elements aside from those of claim 1 noted above, which are well-understood, routine, and conventional within the prior art (see prior art references cited within 35 USC 103 Rejection and Relevant Prior Art sections below in the present Office action).
Regarding claim 10, the image acquisition devices are basically cameras which are well-understood, routine, and conventional within the prior art (see prior art references cited within 35 USC 103 Rejection below in the present Office action). The entirety of the system is directed towards the intended use.
Claim 11 does not appear to recite any additional elements aside from a basic processor and memory. These additional elements seem well-understood, routine, and conventional within the prior art (see prior art references cited within 35 USC 103 Rejection and Relevant Prior Art sections below in the present Office action).
Regarding claim 12: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes grouping unless the claim limitation cannot practically be performed in the mind. Likewise, performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not preclude the claim limitation from being in the mathematical concepts grouping. In the instant case, the “determining” and “calculating” steps of the method of claim 1 amount to mental steps and/or math (as noted above). The additional elements of a computer storage medium and a processor seem well-understood, routine, and conventional within the prior art (see prior art references cited within 35 USC 103 Rejection below in the present Office action).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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.
14. Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori et al. (US 2010/0281685 A1, as cited in the previous Office action) and Harunobu et al. (JP 2006145298 A, see attached translation for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Hori teaches a method for detecting an electrode plate winding gap in a production process of winding battery cells (method of detecting/measuring displacement between a strip-shaped electrode and a strip-shaped separator when stacking and winding, [0016-0017]), wherein the method comprises steps of:
with an execution device (control unit executes, [0014-0015]), a first electrode plate having a surface covered by an anode region, a second electrode plate having a surface covered by a cathode region (negative and positive strip-shaped electrodes 13 and 11 have respective coated portions 13a and 11a, in which electrode materials 42 and 32 are coated, [0032]) and a protective region and a separator (the strip-shaped separators 12, 14, [0032] – one of which reads on protective region and other on separator); and generating a first width measurement of said anode region, a second width measurement of said cathode region, and a third width measurement of said protective region (measuring per [0017], width of anode region 13a is “b” in Fig. 3, and width of cathode region 11a is “a” in Fig. 3; with of separator and protective region are “c1,c2” in Fig. 3);
with a winding needle (winding shaft 101, [0031] and Fig. 2), forming a winding of the separator, the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate (wound electrode body 10, [0031] and Fig. 2);
with first and second image acquisition devices arranged on a first side and a second side of the winding needle (imaging device units 20, 21 on two upper/lower thickness-direction sides of 101 per Fig. 3; also 21a/21b at two width-direction sides in Fig. 5, and/or 20a/20b also at two width-direction sides per Fig. 8; see [0046-0050]), generating respectively sampled first side and second side images of edges of the separator, the first electrode plate, and the second electrode plate (two imaging devices 21a and 21b for respectively photographing both widthwise side edge portions, [0048] and Figs. 2 and 5);
with a processor, determining a distance in width direction between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate from the sampled images (control unit 400 determines differences in widthwise displacement, [0055-0056, 0059] – specifically a difference (s5−s50) or a difference (s6−s60) as the displacement amount of the strip-shaped positive electrode 11 and the strip-shaped negative electrode 13 per [0059]; control unit 400 receives image inputs per Figs. 2,5,8);
with the processor, determining if the winding of the separator, the first electrode plate, and the second electrode plate meets predetermined process requirements (the control unit 400 stores predetermined values, [0055-0056, 0059]) by calculating a distance in width direction between the anode region and the cathode region (the amounts s5, s6 of the coated portion 13a of the strip-shaped negative electrode 13 that sticks out from the coated portion 11a of the strip-shaped positive electrode 11 can be detected at both widthwise sides; [0058-0059] and Fig. 3) as well as a distance in width direction between the anode region and the protective region according to the first width measurement, the second width measurement, the third width measurement (the control unit 400 can detect the amounts s2 and s3 of the second strip-shaped separator 14 that sticks out from the coated portion 13a of the strip-shaped negative electrode 13 at both widthwise sides; [0051] and Fig. 5), and the distance in width direction between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate (specifically a difference (s5−s50) or a difference (s6−s60) as the displacement amount of the strip-shaped negative electrode 13 and the strip-shaped positive electrode 11 per [0059]).
Hori fails to teach the execution device cutting the first electrode plate, second electrode plate, and separator; Hori also fails to explicitly teach generating the sampled images after winding by the winding needle.
Harunobu is analogous in the art of detection methods used in battery winding, teaching camera 47 and an image processing device 48 used in winding deviation image processing unit 49 so that the state of the positive electrode 41, the separator S41, the negative electrode 42, and the separator S42 wound on the core 46 is photographed by the camera 47 every rotation and sent to the image processing device 48 ([0037] and Fig. 6). Harunobu teaches calculating average edge position data of the cell from detected position data that is temporarily accumulated for each rotation to compare and correct versus target edge position, which is a predetermined/preset datum ([0037-0039]). Harunobu teaches a calculation method of positive and negative electrode clearance wherein by obtaining the positive and negative electrode clearance 60, it is possible to detect winding deviation between the positive electrode and the negative electrode and winding deviation between the winding layers ([0045] and Figs. 7-8). The “positive and negative electrode clearance” of Harunobu reads on the instantly claimed “distance in width direction between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate” and “the displacement amount of the strip-shaped positive electrode 11 and the strip-shaped negative electrode 13” of Hori. Harunobu teaches that since the image processing device 48 detects whether the positive and negative electrode clearances 60 are within the reference value every time the core 46 is rotated once (360 ° rotation), a correction to the edge position can be applied when needed by the edge position control (EPC) unit 45 ([0039, 0044] and Fig. 12).
However, before such detection steps, Harunobu teaches that: in order to produce such a wound type electrode, first, the positive and negative electrode strips formed in a band shape with a predetermined width are cut into strips using an electrode cutting device, and next, a wound body (battery element) is obtained by winding a laminated electrode in which the positive electrode, the separator, the negative electrode, and the separator are stacked in this order by a predetermined number of times using a winding device ([0004]). Hori also teaches when manufacturing a wound electrode body, in which strip-shaped electrodes and strip-shaped separators are stacked and wound, it is desired to wind the strip-shaped electrodes and the strip-shaped separators so as not to be displaced as much as possible ([0007]) but fails to explicitly teach obtaining the strip-shaped elements via cutting.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Hori in view of Harunobu to include a cutting device to first cut the elements into their desired strip-shape before winding and obtaining positional data through imaging, as taught by Harunobu.
In view of Harunobu, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have further found it obvious to modify the image acquisition of Hori to generate sampled images of the edges after winding (for each rotation) in order to calculate and compare average edge position data of the cell to predetermined target edge position in order to detect winding deviation between the layers of the wound cell, and be able to take corrective action to correct the edge position if such is found to be outside the reference value after any single rotation, as taught by Harunobu.
Thereby, claim 1 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 2, modified Hori teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and teaches determining a distance in width direction between the first electrode plate and the separator (s2, s3 from 21a, 21b; Hori Fig. 5) as well as a distance in width direction between the second electrode plate and of the separator from the sampled images (s1, s2 from 20a, 20b; Hori Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 3, modified Hori teaches the limitations of claim 2 above and teaches wherein when the first electrode plate is stacked on the second electrode plate to cover a part of the protective region (stack in Fig. 3 of Hori), the step of determining the distance in width direction between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate from the sampled images (a difference (s5−s50) or a difference (s6−s60) as the displacement amount of the strip-shaped positive electrode 11 and the strip-shaped negative electrode 13 per Hori [0059] – as cited above) specifically comprises: determining, from the sampled images, a first distance in width direction between a first edge of the anode region on the first side and a first edge of the protective region on the first side (s3 between 13g and 14b, Hori Figs. 5-6 – from imaging device 21b shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, modified Hori teaches the limitations of claim 3 above and teaches wherein the step of calculating a distance in width direction between the anode region and the cathode region as well as a distance in width direction between the anode region and the protective region according to the first width measurement, the second width measurement, the third width measurement, and the distance in width direction between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate (see above citations) specifically comprises:
obtaining a second distance in width direction between the first edge of the anode region on the first side and an a first edge of the cathode region on the first side by subtracting the first distance in width direction from the third width measurement (equates to s6 shown in Hori Fig. 3; difference between a width b of the coated portion 13a of the strip-shaped negative electrode 13 and a width a of the coated portion 11a of the strip-shaped positive electrode 11 noted in Hori [0033]);
and obtaining a third distance in width direction between an a second edge of the anode region on the second side and an a second edge of the cathode region on the second side by subtracting the second distance in width direction and the second width measurement from the first width measurement in sequence (equates to s5 shown in Hori Fig. 3; difference between width b of the coated portion 13a of the strip-shaped negative electrode 13 and width a of the coated portion 11a of the strip-shaped positive electrode 11 noted in Hori [0033]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Hori teaches the limitations of claim 2 above and teaches wherein the step of determining a distance in width direction between the first electrode plate and the separator from the sampled images, and the step of determining the distance in width direction between the second electrode plate and the separator from the sampled images (see above citations) specifically comprise:
determining a distance in width direction between a first edge of the first electrode plate and an a first edge of the separator (edges 13e and 12b detected by imaging device per Hori [0035, 0037, 0046, 0062], see also left side in Hori Figs. 3) as well as a distance in width direction between a first edge of the second electrode plate and the first edge of the separator from a sampled image located on the first side (s1 at left, Hori Figs. 3,8 from imaging device 20a; see also Hori [0063] regarding calculated differences); and
determining a distance in width direction between a second edge of the first electrode plate and a second edge of the separator from a sampled image located on the second side (s2 at right from 21a, Hori Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, modified Hori teaches the limitations of claim 2 above and teaches when the second electrode plate is stacked on the first electrode plate to cover a part of the anode region (stack in Hori Fig. 3), the step of determining the distance in width direction between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate from the sampled images (see above citations) specifically comprises:
determining, from the sampled images, a fourth distance in width direction between an edge of the cathode region on the first side and an edge of the anode region on the first side (s6 at left, Hori Fig. 3; s6 amount detected by imaging device per Hori [0058]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Hori teaches the limitations of claim 6 above and teaches the step of calculating a distance in width direction between the anode region and the cathode region as well as a distance in width direction between the anode region and the protective region according to the first width measurement, the second width measurement, the third width measurement, and the distance in width direction between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate (see above citations) specifically comprises:
obtaining a fourth width measurement of an overlapping portion between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate (13 and 11 overlap, Hori Fig. 1 – edge detection per Hori [0035,0062]) by subtracting the fourth distance in width direction from the first width measurement (difference (b−a) represents widthwise difference between anode and cathode region, Hori [0033,0036] and Figs. 1,3);
obtaining a fifth distance in width direction gap between an edge of the protective region on the first side and the edge of the anode region on the first side (corresponds to s3, Hori Fig. 5); and
obtaining a sixth distance in width direction between an edge of the cathode region on the second side and an edge of the anode region on the second side (see right side in Hori Fig. 3 where s5 is distance from 11g to 13f coated region edges) by subtracting the fifth distance in width direction from the third width measurement (difference (b−a) represents widthwise difference between anode and cathode region, Hori [0033,00336] and Figs. 1,3).
Hori fails to explicitly teach that the fifth distance obtained “by adding the second width measurement with the third width measurement and subtracting the fourth width measurement from the sum”.
However, Hori does teach toward detecting the amount s2 of the second strip-shaped separator 14 that sticks out from the coated portion 13a of the strip-shaped negative electrode 13 (Hori [0049]), where “s2” here corresponds to the instantly claimed fifth distance. Such is used by the control unit 400, per Hori [0051, 0056]. Hori also teaches subtraction in setting differences (i.e., by subtracting) image input data related to the edge positions of the anode and cathode coating portions (Hori [0033, 0036-0037]). Hori teaches such subtraction steps are used within the process steps to ensure that the coated portion the positive electrode and the coated portion of negative electrode do not stick out from the strip-shaped separators, therefore preventing short-circuit (Hori [0007, 0036]). Examiner notes that addition is the inverse of subtraction, and that comparing offsets in the edge detection calculations performed by the Hori control unit would read on steps of both adding and subtracting.
Thus, claim 7 is obvious.
Regarding claim 8, modified Hori teaches the limitations of claim 6 above and teaches the step of determining the distance in width direction between the first electrode plate and the separator from the sampled images, and the determining the distance in width direction between the second electrode plate and the separator from the sampled images (see above citations) specifically comprise:
determining a distance in width direction between an edge of the second electrode plate and an edge of the separator from a sampled image located on the first side (s1 at left, Hori Figs. 3 and 8); and
determining a distance in width direction between an edge of the second electrode plate and an edge of the separator (11e and 12a detected at right, Hori [0035,0037,0062] and Figs. 3, 8) as well as a distance in width direction between an edge of the first electrode plate and the edge of the separator from a sampled image located on the second side (corresponds to s2, from 12a to 13f at right per imaging device 21a; Hori [0037] and Figs. 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 9, Hori teaches an apparatus for detecting an electrode plate winding gap in a production process of winding battery cells (electrode winding apparatus has correction mechanisms… control unit detects displacement between a strip-shaped electrode and a strip-shaped separator when stacking and winding, [0014-0017]), the apparatus comprising:
a width data receiving module, configured to acquire from an execution device (control unit 400 receives image inputs and compares width displacement data, [0044-0059] and Figs. 2,4,5,7,8) a first width measurement of an anode region (“b” of negative 13a in Fig. 3 and [0033]), a second width measurement of a cathode region (“a” of positive 11a in Fig. 3 and [0033]), and a third width measurement of a protective region (c1,c2 where 12,14 cover coating regions; Hori Fig. 3) after the execution device has cut a first electrode plate having a surface covered by the anode region, has cut a second electrode plate having a surface covered by the cathode region and a protective region and has cut a separator in a previous electrode plate manufacturing process (strip-shaped positive electrode 11, strip-shaped negative electrode 13; [0033] and Figs. 1-2);
a winding needle (winding shaft 101, [0031] and Fig. 2) arranged to form a winding of the separator, the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate (wound electrode body 10, [0031] and Fig, 1);
first and second image acquisition devices arranged on a first side and a second side of the winding needle arranged to generate respectively sampled first side and second side images that contain at least a part of edges of two sides of the first electrode plate, the second electrode plate, and a separator (imaging device units 20,21 in Fig. 2; each having two devices i.e. 20a,b and 21a,b per Figs. 5,8); and
a processor (control device 400 with correction mechanisms, cited above), configured to:
determine a distance in width direction between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate from the sampled images (relative positional relationship between the edges of 11 and 13 based on imaging device unit input, [0058-0059]); and
determine if the winding of the separator, the first electrode plate, and the second electrode plate meets predetermined process requirements (the control unit 400 stores predetermined values corresponding to s5 and s6 as a reference values s50 and s60, and determines a difference (s5−s50) or a difference (s6−s60) as the displacement amount of the strip-shaped positive electrode 11 and the strip-shaped negative electrode 13, [0059]) by calculating a distance in width direction between the anode region and the cathode region (difference (b-a), [0033,0062] and Fig. 1) as well as a distance in width direction between the anode region and the protective region (s3 corresponds to distance from edge of 13g at left of “b” to edge of 14b at “c2”, Fig. 3) according to the first width measurement, the second width measurement, the third width measurement, and the distance in width direction between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate (s5,s6 cited above – see also Fig. 3).
Hori fails to teach an execution device explicitly cutting the first electrode plate, second electrode plate, and separator; Hori also fails to explicitly teach generating the sampled images after winding by the winding needle.
Harunobu is analogous in the art of detection methods used in battery winding, teaching camera 47 and an image processing device 48 used in winding deviation image processing unit 49 so that the state of the positive electrode 41, the separator S41, the negative electrode 42, and the separator S42 wound on the core 46 is photographed by the camera 47 every rotation and sent to the image processing device 48 ([0037] and Fig. 6). Harunobu teaches calculating average edge position data of the cell from detected position data that is temporarily accumulated for each rotation to compare and correct versus target edge position, which is a predetermined/preset datum ([0037-0039]). Harunobu teaches a calculation method of positive and negative electrode clearance wherein by obtaining the positive and negative electrode clearance 60, it is possible to detect winding deviation between the positive electrode and the negative electrode and winding deviation between the winding layers ([0045] and Figs. 7-8). The “positive and negative electrode clearance” of Harunobu reads on the instantly claimed “distance in width direction between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate” and “the displacement amount of the strip-shaped positive electrode 11 and the strip-shaped negative electrode 13” of Hori. Harunobu teaches that since the image processing device 48 detects whether the positive and negative electrode clearances 60 are within the reference value every time the core 46 is rotated once (360 ° rotation), a correction to the edge position can be applied when needed by the edge position control (EPC) unit 45 ([0039, 0044] and Fig. 12).
However, before such detection steps, Harunobu teaches that: in order to produce such a wound type electrode, first, the positive and negative electrode strips formed in a band shape with a predetermined width are cut into strips using an electrode cutting device, and next, a wound body (battery element) is obtained by winding a laminated electrode in which the positive electrode, the separator, the negative electrode, and the separator are stacked in this order by a predetermined number of times using a winding device ([0004]). Hori also teaches when manufacturing a wound electrode body, in which strip-shaped electrodes and strip-shaped separators are stacked and wound, it is desired to wind the strip-shaped electrodes and the strip-shaped separators so as not to be displaced as much as possible ([0007]) but fails to explicitly teach obtaining the strip-shaped elements via cutting.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Hori in view of Harunobu to include a cutting device to first cut the elements into their desired strip-shape before winding and obtaining positional data through imaging, as taught by Harunobu.
In view of Harunobu, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have further found it obvious to modify the image acquisition of Hori to generate sampled images of the edges after winding (for each rotation) in order to calculate and compare average edge position data of the cell to predetermined target edge position in order to detect winding deviation between the layers of the wound cell, and be able to take corrective action to correct the edge position if such is found to be outside the reference value after any single rotation, as taught by Harunobu.
Thereby, claim 9 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 10, modified Hori teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and teaches a system for detecting an electrode plate winding gap in a production process of winding battery cells arranged for implementing the method of claim 1 (control unit connected to correction mechanisms of winding apparatus, Hori [0014-0017, 0053]), wherein:
the first and second image acquisition devices comprise at least two groups of image acquisition device (imaging device units 20,21 in Fig. 2, each having two devices - i.e.: 20a,b as one group and 21a,b as another group - per Hori [0058] and Figs. 5,8).
Regarding claim 11, modified Hori teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and teaches an electronic device (control unit 400, Hori [0044]), comprising: a processor and a memory communicatively connected to the processor, wherein the memory stores computer program instructions (a storing unit comprising, for example, a non-volatile memory; Hori [0044]) which, when invoked by the processor, causes the processor to perform the method (an arithmetic unit comprising, for example, a CPU; Hori [0044]) for detecting an electrode plate winding gap (executes various electronic arithmetic processes for the electrode winding apparatus 100 and control processes for various components according to predetermined programs; Hori [0044]) according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 12, modified Hori teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and a non-volatile computer storage medium storing computer program instructions (a storing unit comprising, for example, a non-volatile memory; Hori [0044]) which, when invoked by a processor, performs the method for detecting an electrode plate winding gap executes various electronic arithmetic processes for the electrode winding apparatus 100 and control processes for various components according to predetermined programs; Hori [0044]) according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Response to Arguments
15. Applicant’s arguments on pages 13-15 with respect to claim(s) 1 and its dependent claims, and claim 9, in view of Ito have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the Ito reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The grounds of rejection presented above are necessitated by amendment.
Remarks page 15 mentions Hori but does not expand arguments thereagainst. Thus, any arguments against Hori are considered unpersuasive, and Hori is relied upon in the grounds of rejection presented above.
Relevant Prior Art
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamashita et al. (US 2020/0067051 A1) is analogous in the art of using imaging devices during battery production processes and teaches that downstream in the process after the electrodes are provided and stacked with a separator, two positive electrode joining position detection cameras 61 and 62 that are located above the positive electrode 6 joined to the strip of separator 8 and detect a joining position of the positive electrode 6 and two negative electrode joining position detection cameras 63 and 64 that are located below the negative electrode 10 joined to the strip of separator 8 and detect a joining position of the negative electrode 10 are provided ([0022] and Fig. 1). Yamashita teaches adsorption drum 38 stacks the positive electrode 6 on an upper surface 8a of the separator 8 one by one so that the positive electrode 6 corresponds to (or is harmonized with) a position of the negative electrode 10 joined to the lower surface 8b of the separator 8 ([0018] and Fig. 1). Further, Yamashita teaches cutter 56 cuts the separators 4 and 8 between adjacent two negative electrodes 10, guided by two cut position detection cameras 81 and 82 ([0020, 0037] and Fig. 1).
Harunobu et al. (JP 2006145298 A, see attached translation for citations – as cited above in 35 USC 103 section) is analogous in the art of detection methods used in battery winding, with a camera 47 and an image processing device 48 used in winding deviation image processing unit 49 so that the state of the positive electrode 41, the separator S41, the negative electrode 42, and the separator S42 wound on the core 46 is photographed by the camera 47 every rotation and sent to the image processing device 48 ([0037] and Fig. 6). Harunobu teaches gathering average edge position data of the cell to compare and correct versus target edge position, which is a predetermined/preset datum ([0037-0039]). Harunobu teaches a calculation method of positive and negative electrode clearance wherein by obtaining the positive and negative electrode clearance 60, it is possible to detect winding deviation between the positive electrode and the negative electrode and winding deviation between the winding layers ([0045] and Figs. 7-8). The “positive and negative electrode clearance” of Harunobu reads on the instantly claimed “distance in width direction between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate”.
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 Jessie Walls-Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-1664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, typically 10-4.
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 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.
/JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights