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 9/11/23, 11/18/24, and 8/12/25 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “between the second electrode plate and of the separator” seems grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-5 and 8 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 4 recites “the step of calculating a gap between the anode region and the cathode region as well as a gap between the anode region and the protective region”, but it is unclear whether this step refers back to “calculating a distance in width direction between the anode region and the cathode region as well as a gap in width direction between the anode region and the protective region” introduced in claim 1, due to the recitations of “a distance” versus “a gap” throughout causing antecedent basis confusion.
Further, Claim 4 recites the limitation "the first gap" in clause 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “the step of determining a distance between the first electrode plate and the separator from the sampled images, and the step of determining a distance between the second electrode plate and the separator from the sampled images”. It is unclear whether each recitation of “a distance” in claim 5 is a newly recited value or is intended to refer back to some distance(s) introduced in previous claims 1-3.
Further, claim 5 recites “an edge of the first electrode plate … on the first side” and “the edge of the first electrode plate … on a second side”, but it is unclear whether “an edge” and “the edge” are the same edge (of the first electrode plate) if such is/are located on both a first and second side. Similarly, claim 5 recites “an edge of the separator… on the first side” and “the edge of the separator… on a second side”, but it is unclear whether “an edge” and “the edge” are the same edge (of the separator) if such is/are located on both a first and second side. Claim 5 also does not clarify in which direction “the first side” and “a second side” are located. For purposes of examination under 35 USC 103 below, these edges are interpreted as two different edges at two different width-wise sides (in light of instant Figures 1, 4, and 7 showing two imaging locations spatially separated in the width-wise direction).
Claim 7 recites “the step of calculating a gap between the anode region and the cathode region”, but antecedent basis for this limitation is unclear because claim 1 introduces “a step of calculating a distance in width direction between the anode region and the cathode region”.
Claim 7 also recites “a gap between the anode region and the protective region”, but it is unclear whether such refers to the same “a gap in width direction between the anode region and the protective region” recited in claim 1, or perhaps to some gap in a different direction.
Claim 8 recites “an edge of the second electrode plate … on the first side” and “the edge of the second electrode plate … on a second side”, but it is unclear whether “an edge” and “the edge” are the same edge (of the second electrode plate) if such is/are located on both a first and second side. Similarly, claim 8 recites “an edge of the separator… on the first side” and “the edge of the separator… on a second side”, but it is unclear whether “an edge” and “the edge” are the same edge (of the separator) if such is/are located on both a first and second side. Claim 8 also does not clarify in which direction “the first side” and “a second side” are located. For purposes of examination under 35 USC 103 below, these edges are interpreted as two different edges at two different width-wise sides (in light of instant Figures 1, 4, and 7 showing two imaging locations spatially separated in the width-wise direction).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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):
Claim 1 recites the abstract ideas of “determining a distance” and “calculating a distance”, which are either mental steps and/or math.
Claim 2 recites the abstract idea of “determining a distance”, which is either a mental step and/or math.
Claim 3 recites the abstract idea of “determining a distance”, which is either a mental step and/or math.
Claim 4 recites the abstract ideas of “calculating a gap” and “obtaining a … gap … by subtracting”, which are either mental steps and/or math.
Claim 5 recites the abstract idea of “determining a distance”, which is either a mental step and/or math.
Claim 6 recites the abstract ideas of “determining the distance” and “determining a … gap”, which are either mental steps and/or math.
Claim 7 recites the abstract ideas of “calculating a gap”, and “obtaining a … gap … by adding” and “… by subtracting”, which are either mental steps and/or math.
Claim 8 recites the abstract idea of “determining a distance”, which is either a mental step and/or math.
Claim 9 recites the abstract ideas of “determine a distance” and “calculate a distance”, which are either mental steps and/or math.
Claim 10 recites the abstract idea of “to acquire image information” which is a mental step.
Claim 11 refers back to claim 1 including the abstract ideas (cited above) of “determining” and “calculating” distances, which are either mental steps and/or math.
Claim 12 refers back to claim 1 including the abstract ideas (cited above) of “determining” and “calculating” distances, which are either mental steps and/or math. Claim 12 also recites “a non-volatile computer storage medium”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
In claim 1, once the determination and calculation are performed, then no action is taken. Therefore, there is no particular practical application.
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 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.). In claim 10, the image acquisition devices does not integrate because it is 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 anode/cathode regions on electrode plates. These additional elements 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 claims 2-9: The claims does not appear to recite any additional elements aside from the basic structure of stacked and wound electrode plates and separator, 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, performing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer (e.g., a processor/control unit) is not enough to integrate the exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(b)I.). Claim 10 includes the image acquisition devices, but such are basically cameras 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).
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 and Relevant Prior Art sections below in the present Office action).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (CN105987919A, cited and provided in the 9/11/23 IDS) in view of Hori et al. (US 2010/0281685 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ito teaches a method for detecting an electrode plate winding gap in a production process of winding battery cells (detecting winding deviation of various sheets wound on a core during winding, [0015]), wherein the method comprises steps of:
acquiring (via inspection devices 18-19, cited below)
a first width of an anode region (via inspection device 19A: distance L3 in the sheet width direction of the boundary portion 5T of the non-coated portion 5b was inspected for winding misalignment on the exposed side of the negative electrode sheet 5, [0092, 0142] and Fig. 1; see also [0090-0093] and Fig. 2 regarding overall negative side inspection device 19, and [0059] regarding anode/negative active material coating region being 5a – such that distance L3 correlates to width of 5a in Fig. 1, which can be calculated based on L3 and L4 data from 19A and 19B within the calculation steps explained in [0137-0139, 0142-0143] – see also Hori reference character “b” citation below),
a second width of a cathode region (via inspection device 18A: distance L1 in the sheet width direction of the boundary portion 4T of the non-coated portion 4b was inspected for winding misalignment on the exposed side of the positive electrode sheet 4, [0088, 0140] and Fig. 1; see also [0086-0089] and Fig. 2 regarding overall positive side inspection device 18, and [0059] regarding cathode/positive active material coating region being 4a – such that distance L1 correlates to width of 4a in Fig. 1, which can be calculated based on L1 and L2 data from 18A and 18B within the calculation steps explained in [0135-0136, 0139-0141] – see also Hori reference character “a” citation below), and
a third width of a protective region (separators 2 and 3 are insulative to prevent contact/protect from short-circuit between different electrode sheets 4 and 5, [0056]; width of 2 relates to L1, L2 in Fig. 1; width of 3 relates to L3, L4 in Fig. 1; inspection devices 18A,18B based on width-side edges 2R,2S of separator 2 per [0088-0089]; inspection devices 19A,19B based on width-side edges 3R,3S of separator 3 per [0092-0093])
determined after electrode plates are cut but obtained in a previous electrode plate manufacturing process (electrode sheets 4 and 5 are already provided at a certain width in Fig. 1, thus reading on after plates were cut in previous process; L1-L4 of Fig. 1 measured by 18-19 of Fig. 2, thus relevant widths are determined for the pre-cut strips of electrode sheets; see also [0018] regarding strip-shaped electrode sheets, and [0031] referring to “slices” and position information based on “slice width direction”; [0062] regarding supplying pre-formed/pre-cut 4 and 5; see also [0063, 0068]),
wherein the anode region covers a surface of a first electrode plate (anode/negative active material 5a coated on copper foil 5, [0057-0059] and Fig. 1), and the cathode region (cathode/positive active material 4a coated on aluminum foil 4, [0057-0059] and Fig. 1) and the protective region cover a surface (separator 2 interposed at surface of 4 which faces toward 5, [0055] and Figs. 1-2; such that 2 covers said surface of 4 upon winding, especially at uncoated region 4b beyond 4T where 2 covers the surface of 4 that is exposed beyond the coating 4a – see Fig. 1) of a second electrode plate (aluminum foil 4 as cited above is second electrode plate; positive electrode active material coated on both inner and outer surfaces thereof per [0057] – with surface of 4 facing separator 2 reading on “a surface” of 4 which is also covered by 2 as explained above);
receiving (inputs into control device 90, [0101] and Fig. 3) sampled images of edges (inspection devices 18 and 19 include first and second imaging mechanisms 133 and 134, respectively, which are visible light cameras; [0095] and Fig. 3; photographed per [0099-0100]) of two sides (see [0151], where inspecting two sides in width direction gives improved accuracy) of a separator (separators 2 and 3, Fig. 1), the first electrode plate, and the second electrode plate (18 checks offset of electrode 4 and separator 2, 19 checks offset of electrode 5 and separator 3; [0076] – see also Figs. 2-3 and 5)
after winding (visible light irradiated from side to inspection areas of positive electrode sheet 4/separator 2 assembly and negative electrode sheet 5/separator 3 assembly, respectively, which are wound on the winding core 13, per [0096]; 18 and 19 positioned on peripheral surface sides of winding core along direction of central axis 13a, [0094]; assemblies 2/4 and 3/5 thus photographed, [0099-0100]; photographed when wound, per [0128]);
determining a distance in width direction between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate from the sampled images (winding deviation is determined based on the relative positional relationship between the positive electrode sheet 4 and the negative electrode sheet 5, [0173]); and
calculating a distance in width direction between the anode region and the cathode region (e.g., calculation of L1 minus L4 and L2 minus L3, Fig. 1 – thus finding distances 4T to 5S and 4S to 5T, [0135-0138]; calculations of various distances and the like are performed based on the values extracted, [0139] – see also Hori reference characters “s5” and “s6” cited below) as well as
a gap (offset, [0076, 0171]; winding deviation/misalignment, [0087, 0165]) in width direction between the anode region and the protective region (L3, L4 are respective gap/distances between edges 5T, 5S of anode region 5a and protective separator 2; Fig. 1) according to the first width, the second width, the third width, and the distance between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate (winding deviation in width direction, [0172-0173]; winding misalignment based on L1,L2,L3,L4, [0087-0093]; width direction as shown in Fig. 1; calculation based on L1-L4 per [0144]).
While Ito does not explicitly explain each of the width/distance calculations/determinations claimed, Ito generally teaches toward determining relative distances and width-direction positions of relevant positive and negative electrode sheets, active material layer coatings, and protective separator sheets interposed therebetween via calculations performed based on the width-wise imaging input data (see all above citations, and Ito [0031, 0139] regarding various distance calculations performed based on positioning data gathered from imaging). Ito further teaches in [0171-0173] that various calculations based on distances are performed to determine the winding deviation/offset (reads on “gap”), and then be able to beneficially make desirable necessary adjustments via controller 90 in order to prevent defects in the final wound battery product (see also Ito [0149]).
Additionally, Hori is analogous in the art of electrode winding apparatus and electrode winding method (title) and teaches toward similarly measuring/calculating a displacement amount between electrodes and separators based on photographed images of both width-wise edges thereof ([0009-0013] and Figs. 1-2). Hori teaches in [0013] first and second imaging devices check the edges of the electrode coated portions to ensure the active material coatings do not project beyond the separator, thus avoiding short circuiting (see also [0007] and Fig. 5). Hori [0033] and Fig. 1 show that negative electrode coated portion 13a (i.e., anode region) has a width represented by distance “b”, and positive electrode coated portion 11a (i.e., cathode region) has a width represented by distance “a”. Hori [0033] teaches that marginal distances between the anode region and separator edges as well as cathode region and separator edges should be of sufficient width in order to tolerate displacement errors and prevent short-circuiting between anode and cathode regions. Hori teaches in [0034-0037] teaches their edge detecting means can detect both widthwise edges of the strip-shaped electrodes and both widthwise edges of the strip-shaped separators, which is input data used for desirably controlling the marginal edge differences and preventing short-circuits as explained above. Therefore, utilizing the positional image data capture and controller calculations made possible within the inventive elements of Ito, to rearranging of parts and/or routinely optimizing calculated values would be within the ambit of a person having ordinary skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04 VI C and 2144.05 II), especially when motivated to ensure the anode and cathode regions and all relevant edge distances between these opposite-polarity electrodes and intervening separators were sufficient in the width-wise direction to prevent short-circuiting, per the teachings of Hori.
See also Hori [0033, 0036] as applied above, where difference (b−a) represents widthwise difference between anode and cathode regions; see also Hori Fig. 1 where “s5” and “s6” represent respective right and left side distances between anode and cathode region edges. Hori teaches in [0058] that 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. Therefore, when modifying Ito in view of Hori as explained above, it would have further been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to ensure such distance/gap between anode region and cathode region edges at both respective widthwise edges were determined (as useful input data) in order to ensure sufficient marginal distances were maintained therebetween (and were covered by the intervening separators) to prevent short circuiting (see Hori [0007, 0033] as cited above in regards to claim 1, and see Ito [0056]).
As such, modifying Ito in view of Hori to arrive at all limitations of instant claim 1 would have been obvious at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 2, modified Ito teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and further comprising: determining a distance in width direction between the first electrode plate and the separator (L4 offset between separator 3 edge and negative electrode plate 5 at edge 5S, Ito Fig. 1) as well as a distance in width direction between the second electrode plate and of the separator (L2 offset between separator 2 edge and positive electrode plate 4 at edge 4S, Ito Fig. 1) from the sampled images (L2 and L4 inspected per Ito [0089, 0093]; imaging of separators and electrode sheets to check for misalignment based on the captured image data per Ito [0128, 0147]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Ito teaches the limitations of claim 2 above and wherein when the first electrode plate is stacked on the second electrode plate to cover a part of the protective region (5 stacked on 4 with protective 2 intervening, Ito Figs. 1-2), the step of determining the distance between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate from the sampled images specifically comprises: determining, from the sampled images (as cited above), a first distance (L4 in Ito Fig. 1) between an edge of the anode region on a first side (edge of 5a at 5S, at right side in Ito Fig. 1) and an edge of the protective region on the first side (edge of 2 at 2R, at right side Ito Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ito teaches the limitations of claim 3 above and wherein the step of calculating a gap between the anode region and the cathode region (see claim 1 rejection above, based on Ito in view of Hori) as well as a gap between the anode region and the protective region according to the first width, the second width, the third width, and the distance between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate (see claim 1 rejection over Ito above, citing L3 and L4 of Ito Fig. 1) specifically comprises:
obtaining a second gap between the edge of the anode region on the first side and an edge of the cathode region on the first side by subtracting the first gap from the third width (such would be the difference of L1 minus L4 at right side in Ito Fig. 1; various distance calculations performed per Ito [0139, 0171-0172]); and
obtaining a third gap between an edge of the anode region on a second side and an edge of the cathode region on the second side by subtracting the second gap and the second width from the first width in sequence (such would be the difference of L2 minus L3 at left side in Ito Fig. 1; various distance calculations performed per Ito [0139, 0171-0172]).
While Ito fails to explicitly teach these “by subtracting” steps as claimed, Hori as applied to modified Ito in rejection of claim 1 above does teach 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]).
Since preventing short circuiting is a common goal (see Ito [0056]), a person having ordinary skill in the art would have further found it obvious in view of Hori to use subtraction steps to calculate distances between edges of anode versus cathode regions in order to ensure sufficient marginal space was maintained, with the motivation to prevent short circuiting. Thus, claim 4 is obvious.
Regarding claim 5, modified Ito teaches the limitations of claim 3 above and wherein in the step of determining a distance between the first electrode plate and the separator from the sampled images (L4 offset between separator 3 edge and negative electrode plate 5 at edge 5S, Ito Fig. 1), and the step of determining a distance between the second electrode plate and the separator from the sampled images (L2 offset between separator 2 edge and positive electrode plate 4 at edge 4S, Ito Fig. 1) specifically comprise:
determining a distance between an edge of the first electrode plate and an edge of the separator (L4 offset between separator 3 edge 3S and negative electrode plate 5 at edge 5S, Ito Fig. 1) as well as a distance between an edge of the second electrode plate and the edge of the separator (L1 between 3S and a boundary edge 4T of positive electrode plate 4, at right side Ito Fig. 1) from a sampled image located on the first side (the side where 18A/19A are located in width direction, at right in Ito Fig. 5); and
determining a distance (L3 between edge 5T and separator edge 3R, Ito Fig. 1) between the edge of the first electrode plate (interpreted as an opposing edge – see also 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 5 above; such that edge of boundary 5T of negative electrode plate 5 in Ito Fig. 1 reads on this edge) and the edge of the separator (interpreted as an opposing edge – see also 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 5 above; such that edge 3R of separator 3 in Ito Fig. 1 reads on this edge) from a sampled image located on a second side (the side where 18B/19B are located in width direction, at left in Ito Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ito teaches the limitations of claim 2 above and wherein when the second electrode plate is stacked on the first electrode plate to cover a part of the anode region (the belt-shaped positive electrode sheet 4 and negative electrode sheet 5 are superimposed, Ito [0055] and Figs. 1-2; plate/sheet 4 covers anode coating region 5a which is coated on both surfaces of 5, Ito [0057] and Fig. 1), the step of determining the distance between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate from the sampled images specifically comprises: determining, from the sampled images, a fourth gap (e.g., difference of L1 and L4 in Ito Fig. 1; calculations of various distances and the like are performed based on the values extracted, Ito [0139]) between an edge of the cathode region on a first side (4T at edge of 4a on right side, Ito Fig. 1) and an edge of the anode region on the first side (5S at edge of 5a on right side, Ito Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ito teaches the limitations of claim 6 above wherein the step of calculating a gap between the anode region and the cathode region (see claim 1 rejection above, based on Ito in view of Hori) as well as a gap between the anode region and the protective region according to the first width, the second width, the third width, and the distance between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate (see claim 1 rejection over Ito above, citing L3 and L4 of Ito Fig. 1) specifically comprises:
obtaining a fourth width of an overlapping portion between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate by subtracting the fourth gap from the first width (corresponds to L1-L4 and L2-L3 in Ito Fig. 1, various distance calculations performed per Ito [0139, 0171-0172]; see also citation to Hori difference (b-a) in rejection of claim 1 above, and explained below in instant rejection);
obtaining a fifth gap between an edge of the protective region on the first side (2R on right side, Ito Fig. 1) and the edge of the anode region on the first side (5S at right, Ito Fig. 1); and
obtaining a sixth gap between an edge of the cathode region on a second side (4S at left in Ito Fig. 1) and an edge of the anode region on the second side (5T at left in Ito Fig. 1) by subtracting the fifth gap from the third width (corresponds to L2-L3, Ito Fig. 1).
Ito fails to teach said fifth gap obtained by: adding the second width with the third width and subtracting the fourth width from the sum. However, Ito does teach various distance calculations performed (per Ito [0139, 0171-0172]) and that the winding deviation .is determined based on the
relative positional relationship between the positive electrode sheet 4 and the negative electrode sheet 5 ([0173]). Hori also teaches 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 gap. Such is used by the control unit 400, per Hori [0051, 0056]. Since Ito also teaches toward controller 90 gathering positional input data (Ito [0101]), a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious in view of Hori to further modify Ito to utilize such fifth gap data in operating the controller to desirably position the anode region 5a relative to the protective region (of the separator 2 covering the positive electrode 4).
While Ito fails to explicitly teach these “by subtracting” steps as claimed, Hori as applied to modified Ito in rejection of claim 1 above does teach 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]).
Since preventing short circuiting is a common goal (see Ito [0056]), a person having ordinary skill in the art would have further found it obvious in view of Hori to use subtraction steps to calculate distances between edges of anode versus cathode regions in order to ensure sufficient marginal space was maintained, with the motivation to prevent short circuiting. Thus, claim 4 is obvious.
Regarding claim 8, modified Ito teaches the limitations of claim 6 above and wherein the step of determining the distance between the first electrode plate and the separator from the sampled images, and the determining the distance between the second electrode plate and the separator from the sampled images (see claim 2 rejection above) specifically comprise:
determining a distance between an edge of the second electrode plate and an edge of the separator (L1 between boundary edge 4T on plate 4 and edge 3S, Ito Fig. 1) from a sampled image located on the first side (at right, Ito Figs. 1 and 5); and
determining a distance (L2 between 4S and 3R, Ito Fig. 1) between the edge (interpreted as an opposing edge in width direction – see 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 8 above) of the second electrode plate (4S at left, Ito Fig. 1) and the edge (interpreted as an opposing edge in width direction – see 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 8 above) of the separator (3R at left, Ito Fig. 1) as well as a distance (L3 between 5T and 3R, Ito Fig. 1) between an edge of the first electrode plate (edge of boundary 5T on plate 5, Ito Fig. 1) and the edge of the separator (3R at left, as cited/explained above) from a sampled image located on a second side (left in Ito Figs. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 9, Ito teaches an apparatus for detecting an electrode plate winding gap in a production process of winding battery cells (an inspection device and a winding facility capable of detecting winding deviation of various sheets wound on a core during winding, [0015]) comprising:
a width data receiving module (input/output interface 141 of controller 90, [0101] and Fig. 4), configured to acquire (from cameras 133 and 134, [0102] and Figs. 3-4)
a first width of an anode region (width of 5a as shown in Ito Fig. 1 – see also Hori reference character “b” citation below), a second width of a cathode region (width of 4a as shown in Ito Fig. 1 – see also Hori reference character “a” citation below), and a third width of a protective region (width of separator 2 uncoated 4b as shown in Fig. 1; 2 is insulative to prevent contact/protect from short-circuit between different electrode sheets 4 and 5, [0056]) (inspection devices 18A,18B,19A,19B perform various distance calculations in sheet width directions, [0139-0143])
determined after electrode plates are cut but obtained in a previous electrode plate manufacturing process (image data with respect to slices, [0031]; negative and positive electrode foils 5 and 4 already have pre-set widths when provided to wound electrode assembly, Fig. 2 in view of Fig. 1; see also [0063, 0068] regarding cutters),
wherein the anode region covers a surface of a first electrode plate (5a on 5, Fig. 1; negative active material coated on Cu foil per [0057-0059]), and the cathode region (4a on 4, Fig. 1; positive active material coated on Al foil per [0057-0059]) and the protective region cover a surface of a second electrode plate (2 covering uncoated region of 4 beyond 4T within L1, Fig. 1; at same surface as 4a because 4a is coated on both sides of 4 per [0057]);
an image data receiving module (inspection devices 18-19, receiving data from cameras 133-134; Fig. 3 and [0095]), configured to receive sampled images that contain at least a part of edges of two sides of the first electrode plate, the second electrode plate, and a separator after winding (left and right sides in Fig. 5; groups of camera mechanisms correspond to one side edge portion and the other side edge portion in the width direction of the sheet per [0040]); and
a gap calculation module (image processing mechanism which calculates the position information, [0031]; calculations of various distances performed, [0139]), configured to:
determine a distance in width direction between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate from the sampled images (winding deviation is determined based on the relative positional relationship between the positive electrode sheet 4 and the negative electrode sheet 5, [0173]); and
calculate a distance in width direction between the anode region and the cathode region (e.g., calculation of L1 minus L4 and L2 minus L3, Fig. 1 – thus finding distances 4T to 5S and 4S to 5T, [0135-0138]; calculations of various distances and the like are performed based on the values extracted, [0139] – see also Hori reference characters “s5” and “s6” cited below) as well as a distance (offset, [0076, 0171]; winding deviation/misalignment, [0087, 0165]) in width direction between the anode region and the protective region (L3, L4 are respective gap/distances between edges 5T, 5S of anode region 5a and protective separator 2; Fig. 1) according to the first width, the second width, the third width, and the distance between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate (winding deviation in width direction, [0172-0173]; winding misalignment based on L1,L2,L3,L4, [0087-0093]; width direction as shown in Fig. 1; calculation based on L1-L4 per [0144]).
While Ito does not explicitly explain each of the width/distance calculations/determinations claimed, Ito generally teaches toward determining relative distances and width-direction positions of relevant positive and negative electrode sheets, active material layer coatings, and protective separator sheets interposed therebetween via calculations performed based on the width-wise imaging input data (see all above citations, and Ito [0031, 0139] regarding various distance calculations performed based on positioning data gathered from imaging). Ito further teaches in [0171-0173] that various calculations based on distances are performed to determine the winding deviation/offset (reads on “gap”), and then be able to beneficially make desirable necessary adjustments via controller 90 in order to prevent defects in the final wound battery product (see also Ito [0149]).
Additionally, Hori is analogous in the art of electrode winding apparatus and electrode winding method (title) and teaches toward similarly measuring/calculating a displacement amount between electrodes and separators based on photographed images of both width-wise edges thereof ([0009-0013] and Figs. 1-2). Hori teaches in [0013] first and second imaging devices check the edges of the electrode coated portions to ensure the active material coatings do not project beyond the separator, thus avoiding short circuiting (see also [0007] and Fig. 5). Hori [0033] and Fig. 1 show that negative electrode coated portion 13a (i.e., anode region) has a width represented by distance “b”, and positive electrode coated portion 11a (i.e., cathode region) has a width represented by distance “a”. Hori [0033] teaches that marginal distances between the anode region and separator edges as well as cathode region and separator edges should be of sufficient width in order to tolerate displacement errors and prevent short-circuiting between anode and cathode regions. Hori teaches in [0034-0037] teaches their edge detecting means can detect both widthwise edges of the strip-shaped electrodes and both widthwise edges of the strip-shaped separators, which is input data used for desirably controlling the marginal edge differences and preventing short-circuits as explained above. Therefore, utilizing the positional image data capture and controller calculations made possible within the inventive elements of Ito, to rearranging of parts and/or routinely optimizing calculated values would be within the ambit of a person having ordinary skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04 VI C and 2144.05 II), especially when motivated to ensure the anode and cathode regions and all relevant edge distances between these opposite-polarity electrodes and intervening separators were sufficient in the width-wise direction to prevent short-circuiting, per the teachings of Hori.
See also Hori [0033, 0036] as applied above, where difference (b−a) represents widthwise difference between anode and cathode regions; see also Hori Fig. 1 where “s5” and “s6” represent respective right and left side distances between anode and cathode region edges. Hori teaches in [0058] that 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. Therefore, when modifying Ito in view of Hori as explained above, it would have further been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to ensure such distance/gap between anode region and cathode region edges at both respective widthwise edges were determined (as useful input data) in order to ensure sufficient marginal distances were maintained therebetween (and were covered by the intervening separators) to prevent short circuiting (see Hori [0007, 0033] as cited above in regards to claim 1, and see Ito [0056]).
As such, modifying Ito in view of Hori to arrive at all limitations of instant claim 9 would have been obvious at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 10, modified Ito teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and a system for detecting an electrode plate winding gap in a production process of winding battery cells (an inspection device and a winding facility capable of detecting winding deviation of various sheets wound on a core during winding, Ito [0015]), comprising:
at least two groups of image acquisition devices (inspection devices 18 and 19 each having two devices {18A+18B, 19A+19B} including multiple cameras, Ito Figs. 2-3 and 5 and [0095, 0127]), wherein the image acquisition devices
are located on two sides of a winding needle (18/19 at sides of winding core 13, which has axis 13a; Ito Figs. 2-3 and 5), and
are configured to acquire image information (image data captured by the cameras 133 and 134, Ito [0103]) of edges of two sides (groups of camera mechanisms correspond to one side edge portion and the other side edge portion in the width direction of the sheet and are respectively arranged in a group at a time, Ito [0040]) of a to-be-detected sample (slice, Ito [0031]) formed after a first electrode plate, a second electrode plate, and a separator are wound (imaging is performed every time the core 13 rotates 180 degrees, Ito [0103]);
a processor (CPU and the input/output interface 141 mainly constitute an image processing means, Ito [0101]) communicatively connected to the image acquisition devices (cameras 133 and 134 of each 18/19 connected to 141 within controller 90, as shown by arrows in Ito Figs. 3-4; electrically connected per Ito [0102]), wherein the processor is configured to receive the image information acquired by the image acquisition devices (input arrows from 133/134 to 141/90, Ito Figs. 3-4) to perform the method for detecting an electrode plate winding gap (an input/output interface 141 for controlling the inspection devices 18, 19, etc.; Ito [0101, 0103]) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 method above).
Regarding claim 11, modified Ito teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and an electronic device (controller 90, Ito Figs. 3-4), comprising: a processor (CPU and the input/output interface 141 mainly constitute an image processing means, Ito [0101]) and a memory (a calculation result storage means 143 for storing various data; a setting data storage means 144 for storing various information in advance; Ito [0101] and Fig. 4) communicatively connected to the processor (143/144 electrically connected to 141, Ito [0102] and Fig. 4), wherein the memory stores computer program instructions (CPU, Ito [0101-0102]) which, when invoked by the processor, causes the processor to perform (controller 90 controls inspection devices, Ito [0101-0103] and Fig. 3) the method for detecting an electrode plate winding gap (an input/output interface 141 for controlling the inspection devices 18, 19, etc.; Ito [0101, 0103]) according to claim 1 (method of claim 1 as rejected above).
Regarding claim 12, modified Ito teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and a non-volatile computer storage medium (controller 90 includes a CPU, Ito [0101]) storing computer program instructions (a calculation result storage means 143 for storing various data; a setting data storage means 144 for storing various information in advance; Ito [0101] and Fig. 4) which, when invoked by a processor (CPU and the input/output interface 141 mainly constitute an image processing means, Ito [0101]), perform the method for detecting an electrode plate winding gap (an input/output interface 141 for controlling the inspection devices 18, 19, etc.; Ito [0101, 0103]); according to claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1 method above).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kaito et al. (US 20030224242 A1) teaches a protective non-active material region 113 covering (and specifically carried/formed on – per [0047, 0050]) positive current collector 111 at marginal edges thereof beyond positive active material coating 112 ([0050] and Fig 1) which can stabilize the edges of the positive electrode current collector, and the use of an insulating material as the non-active material part can suppress not only the short-circuit between the burrs of the positive electrode current collector and the negative electrode active material part but also general short-circuits ([0047]). See also Kaito Figs. 8-9.
Hatekenaka (US 20210280895 A1) teaches inspection machine 207 inspecting winding body 204 at two sides thereof (Fig. 4A and [0081]) and determining defects based on magnitude of distance between first sheet material 202 and second sheet material 203 ([0103]).
Conclusion
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