DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-11, 13 and 18 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. The claims are dependent on cancelled claims. For examination purposes, examiner assumed that they all depend on claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 4, 18, 21-23, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caruthers et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0294036) in view of Calari et al. (WO 2022084299) further in view of Aiko et al. (Pub. No. US 20130320216).
Regarding claims 3, and 22, Caruthers teaches a method for characterizing microstructure features of a surface coating on a battery electrode substrate during a manufacturing process [para. 135], comprising: continuously transporting (pass through) a battery electrode substrate (individual electrode sheets) having a coated surface past an optical image capture (IR camera/ flash-thermography unit) device [Para. 81 “The cathode and anode include a thin current-collecting metal foil backing (usually aluminum or copper) and a thin film coating of the active material.”; para. 136 “During robotic assembly of the anode and cathode sheets with the separator into the cells, the individual electrode sheets pass through a flash thermography unit prior to assembly into the battery cell”]; illuminating (flash energy source 30 is activated) the coated surface of the battery electrode substrate (individual electrode sheets) with a plurality (repeating said pulsing) of short duration light pulses (flash bulb 30; radiation in burst energy) as the substrate is continuously transported past (individual electrode sheets pass through) the image capture device (flash thermography unit; photon detector) [Para. 81 “The cathode and anode include a thin current-collecting metal foil backing (usually aluminum or copper) and a thin film coating of the active material; Para. 136 “During robotic assembly of the anode and cathode sheets with the separator into the cells, the individual electrode sheets pass through a flash thermography unit prior to assembly into the battery cell.”; Para. 96 “The flash energy source 30 is activated, which provides a burst of energy to the foil.”; Para. 149 and 151].
However, Caruthers doesn’t explicitly teach transporting speed ranging from approximately 0.1 meters/second to approximately 3 meters/second, wherein the substrate exhibits Z-axis displacement relative to a focal plane of the image capture device.
Calari teaches transporting (conveyor-driven advancement) speed ranging from approximately 0.1 meters/second to approximately 3 meters/second (generally between 1 and 3 meters per second), wherein the substrate (film 3 during advancement) exhibits Z-axis displacement (out-of-plane distance variations) relative to a focal plane (movement beyond the limited depth-of-field region) of the image capture device (microscope optical system 8 coupled camera 7) [Page. 2 lines 15-21; claim 1 and corresponding description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to modify Caruthers’s online electrode-inspection method by adopting Calari’s conveyor-and-camera arrangement, operating within the disclosed 1-3 meters-per-second range, and accommodating out-of-plane film movement relative to the camera’s limited focal region. This would permit rapid continuous inspection while preserving image quality despite normal transverse movement of thin electrode material.
Caruthers teaches capturing (records; acquired) at least a first raw image (single frame) of the coated surface (thermal profile of the film coating) with the optical image capture device (high-speed thermal camera) [para. 97 “The thermal camera records the thermal profile of the film coating as the energy diffuses through the sample”; Para. 113 “A single frame acquired by the high-speed thermal camera may be used. Analysis of several frames or more will produce results with greater confidence”. Para. 126 also describes post-processing of the raw thermographs].
Caruthers doesn’t explicitly teach collecting light that is reflected from the coated surface.
However, Calari teaches collecting light that is reflected from the film surface [Abstract; Para. 4 lines 13-28; claim 1 and related description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to modify Caruthers’s image-acquisition arrangement by using Calari’s optical camera to acquire an initial digital image from reflected light before processing that image. This would supplement thermal measurements with direct optical surface information and improve the detection of visually distinguishable coating and edge defects.
Caruthers in view of Calari doesn’t explicitly teach focusing the reflected light to compensate for the Z-axis displacement of the substrate.
However, Aiko teaches focusing (Focused by a lens, mirror, or similar optical element; automatically adjusts focal length) the reflected light (scattered light 660 and specular reflected light 670) to compensate for (reflected-light distribution fed back to control the object-pint position) the Z-axis displacement (reflection/object position moved up and down) of the substrate (moving electrode sheet) [Para. 136 “Terahertz illumination light 100 is applied to an object (work) such as an electrode sheet or the like flowing in a work moving direction 520 to form a line-shaped light portion 140.”; Para. 96 “The scattered light 660 is focused by a lens, a mirror or the like in the detection optical unit 260 and introduced into the scattered light detector 200.”; and para. 156 “When the position where the terahertz illumination light 100 is reflected, i.e. the position (corresponding to the position of the object point in the detection of the scattered light 660) is moved up and down, the distribution of the specular reflected light 670 in the sensor varies depending on its moving distance. This means that the distribution of the specular reflected light 670 in the sensor corresponds to the position of the terahertz illumination light 100”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to modify Caruthers’s electrode-inspection optics, modified by Calari, by incorporating Aiko’s reflected light position sensing and autofocus feedback to adjust focus when the moving electrode’s object position changes. This would maintain optical focus despite out-of-plane movement and improve the accuracy of defect detection.
Caruthers teaches processing (post-processing; processed by defect-detection and classifier algorithms) the first raw image (raw thermograph; single image) to identify (looks for) at least a first microstructure feature (striation; coating detect; specific defect type) in the processed image (working image set) [Para. 141 “A single image can be used to identify most defects.”; para. 143 “The working image set is processed by a sequence of defect detection and classifier algorithms.”. Para. 143 further explains that each algorithm looks for a specific defect type]; Determining (examines; attempts to quantify) one or more parameters (number; scale; extent) of the first microstructure feature (detected defect; specific defect type), namely a color [Para. 119 “The uncorrected thermograph of FIG. 7, taken directly from the microbolometer camera, has a 10 degree C. temperature gradient from top to bottom that obscures the defects (note the dark blue at the bottom corners may be due to edge losses in the film, and possibly not the thermal gradient in the film)”; para. 143 “Each algorithm looks for a specific defect type using image signal processing techniques and attempts to quantify the extent of that defect's presence.”; and Para. 145 “The decision engine examines the number and scale of detected defects and compares them with defined threshold limits.”]; and, taking remedial action (rejected and excluded; corrective maintenance) either upstream or downstream in the manufacturing process (assembly into a battery) when at least one of the one or more parameters (number or scale) of the first microstructure feature (detected defect) exceeds (fails inspection after comparison with) a predefined threshold (defined threshold limits) [Para. 145 “If a sheet or sheet region fails inspection, it is rejected and excluded from assembly into a battery. If defects are present, a trending identification module looks at the process log to determine if the defects are isolated or if corrective maintenance is required].
Regarding claim 4, Caruthers teaches identifying (readily detecting through thermographic image processing) the first microstructure feature (an undesirable film defect) as one of the following: an external contaminant or a distortion in the surface coating [Para. 115 and 131].
Regarding claim 18, Caruthers in view Calari further in view of Aiko. Furthermore, Calari teaches guiding the light emitted by the at least one light source to a light concentration assembly and then concentrating the guided light onto the surface [fig. 4, claims 3, 5 and related description].
Claim 21, Caruthers teaches determining, based on the one or more parameters, whether an anomaly is present in the surface [Para. 145].
Regarding claims 23 and 26, Caruthers in view Calari further in view of Aiko. Furthermore, Calari teaches the illumination module further comprises at least one light source [Para. 29].
Regarding claim 27. Caruthers in view Calari further in view of Aiko. Furthermore, Calari teaches the imaging module further comprises a digital camera (Para. 24 and 26].
Regarding claim 28. Caruthers in view Calari further in view of Aiko. Furthermore, Calari teaches a focusing assembly coupled with the digital camera [Para. 32, 35 and claim 24].
Regarding claim 29, Caruthers teaches a control module coupled with the illumination module and configured to pulse the light source [Para. 149, 10, 76, and claim 35].
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caruthers et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0294036) in view of Calari et al. (WO 2022084299) further in view of Aiko et al. (Pub. No. US 20130320216) further in view of Pinter et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0134773).
Regarding claim 9, Caruthers in view Calari further in view of Aiko doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Pinter teaches each light pulse having with a pulse width ranging from 1 microsecond to 100 microseconds [para. 66].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to modify Caruthers in view of Calari further in view of Aiko’s electrode inspection method by incorporating Pinter’s 3.1-microsecond pulse because Pinter selects short pulse widths to limit displacement of a rapidly moving article during image exposure, thereby reducing motion blur and improving feature resolution.
Regarding claim 10, Caruthers in view Calari further in view of Aiko doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Pinter teaches each light pulse spaced apart by up to 1 second [Para. 76].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to modify Caruthers in view of Calari further in view of Aiko’s pulsed illumination method by incorporating Pinter’s repetition rate because repeated high-speed flashes permit successive sharp images of material moving through a production line inspection station in order to improve image quality.
Regarding claim 11, Caruthers in view Calari further in view of Aiko doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Pinter teaches a plurality of light sources each emitting short duration light pulses to illuminate the surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to modify Caruthers in view of Calari further in view of Aiko’s pulsed illumination method by incorporating Pinter’s repetition rate because repeated high-speed flashes permit successive sharp images of material moving through a production line inspection station in order to improve image quality.
Regarding claim 12. Caruthers in view Calari further in view of Aiko doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Pinter teaches wherein each of the plurality of light sources emits a different color light pulses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to modify Caruthers in view of Calari further in view of Aiko’s pulsed illumination method by incorporating Pinter’s repetition rate because repeated high-speed flashes permit successive sharp images of material moving through a production line inspection station in order to improve image quality.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caruthers et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0294036) in view of Calari et al. (WO 2022084299) further in view of Aiko et al. (Pub. No. US 20130320216) further in view of Cao et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0214103).
Regarding claim 13, Caruthers in view Calari further in view of Aiko doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
Cao teaches monitoring (measuring with an ambient light sensor) an ambient brightness adjacent the surface; and adjusting (calculating a responsive flash intensity and changing the LED driving voltage) an intensity of the light source based on the ambient brightness [para. 43 and 54].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to modify Caruthers in view of Calari further in view of Aiko’s electrode-inspection illumination by incorporating Cao’s ambient light feedback because changes in surrounding factory lighting affect reflected light exposure and contrast. Responsive intensity control would predictably provide more consistent images and reduce false feature detections.
Claims 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caruthers et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0294036) in view of Calari et al. (WO 2022084299) further in view of Aiko et al. (Pub. No. US 20130320216) further in view of Hayashi et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0280470).
Regarding claim 14, Caruthers in view Calari further in view of Aiko doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Hayashi teaches the determining step further comprising: determining (extracting an area parameter) a number of pixels (the total number of picture elements) in a portion of the first digital image (labeled defect candidate region obtained from the original image data) that correspond to the first microstructure feature [Para. 85, and 88-89].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to modify Caruthers in view of Calari further in view of Aiko’s identified electrode feature by incorporating Hayashi’s pixel count measurement because pixel count provides an objective measurement of the feature’s size or extent that can be compared with classification and rejection thresholds.
Regarding claim 16, Caruthers in view Calari further in view of Aiko doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Hayashi teaches the step of determining the number of pixels further comprises: comparing an area of the portion to a perimeter of the portion of the first digital image [Para. 89].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to modify Caruthers in view of Calari further in view of Aiko’s identified electrode feature by incorporating Hayashi’s pixel count measurement because pixel count provides an objective measurement of the feature’s size or extent that can be compared with classification and rejection thresholds.
Regarding claim 17 Caruthers in view Calari further in view of Aiko doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Hayashi teaches determining an average color based on a color of each pixel in a portion of the first digital image corresponding to the first microstructure feature [fig. 2, 4 and related description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to modify Caruthers in view of Calari further in view of Aiko’s identified electrode feature by incorporating Hayashi’s pixel count measurement because pixel count provides an objective measurement of the feature’s size or extent that can be compared with classification and rejection thresholds.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caruthers et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0294036) in view of Calari et al. (WO 2022084299) further in view of Aiko et al. (Pub. No. US 20130320216) and Hayashi et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0280470), further in view of Ono et al. (Pub. No. US 2017/0122878).
Regarding claim 15, Caruthers in view Calari further in view of Aiko and Hayashi doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
Ono teaches the step of determining the number of pixels further comprises: comparing a major axis to a minor axis in the portion of the first digital image [Para. 121, and fig. 25a and related description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to modify Caruthers in view of Calari further in view of Aiko and Hayashi’s pixel-defined electrode-feature region by incorporating Ono’s major-axis/manor-axis comparison to the pixel-defined electrode feature region because the ration provides a known measurement of elongation and predictably distinguishes round pores or particles from scratches accurately.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caruthers et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0294036) in view of Calari et al. (WO 2022084299) further in view of Aiko et al. (Pub. No. US 20130320216) further in view of Chang et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0132793).
Regarding claim 24 and 25, Caruthers in view Calari further in view of Aiko doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Chang teaches further comprising a light guide and a light concentrator coupled with the light source and optical fiber [Para. 24, 30, and 37].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to modify Caruthers in view of Calari further in view of Aiko’s illumination arrangement of the modified electrode-inspection system by incorporating Chang’s light guiding bundle and focusing reflector. The bundle routes light from the source to the inspection region, while the reflector concentrates that light into a focused, substantially uniform band.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7452. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10 AM-7 PM..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, O’Neal Mistry can be reached on 313-446-4912. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-0101 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
