DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims 3-5, 8-18, and 21-29 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The rejections are necessitated due to claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 22 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. In this case, it’s unclear what m/s means. Is it meter or mile.
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, 21, 22, 23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0113919) in view of TU et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0265526).
Regarding claim 3, Qiao teaches a method for characterizing microstructure features (micro-structure) of a surface coating (coated films) on an electrode substrate (web material) during a manufacturing process, comprising [Para. 3, 6, 24 and brief summary]: continuously transporting (moves) an electrode substrate having a coated surface past an optical image capture device (cameras) at a speed of at least 0.1 m/s [Para. 18, 29 and 19. Even though the claim doesn’t explicitly teaches 0.1m/s, para. 18 states “Systems that implements web manufacturing may include electronic controllers that output control signals to engage the motors and drive the web at pre-determined speeds and/or with pre-determined force”. Therefore, it is clear that the user can set 0.1m/s using the controller]; wherein the substrate (web material) exhibits Z-axis displacement (web flutter) relative to a focal plane of the image capture device [Para. 19. the term “relative” is very broad. Therefore, the cited portion of the reference teaches the claim limitation]; illuminating the coated surface of the battery electrode substrate (object which is a web material) as the substrate is continuously transported (passes) past the image capture device [Para. 6, 18, 49, 19, fig. 6 and related description]; capturing at least a first raw image of the coated surface by collecting light that is reflected from the coated surface with the optical image capture device [Para. 45 and fig. 6 and related description. It’s well known in the art that when image is captured by optical camera, using the light reflected off the object]; focusing (in focus) the reflected light (reflection of the sensor light) to compensate for the Z-axis displacement (flutter distance) of the substrate (web material) [Para. 29, 30]; and
processing the first raw image to identify at least a first microstructure feature (defects) in the processed image parameterizing the first microstructure feature [Para. 5, and 32]; taking remedial action (repair) either upstream or downstream in the manufacturing process when a parameter of the first microstructure feature (anomaly) exceeds a predefined threshold number [Para. 118, and 119].
However, Qiao doesn’t explicitly teach having a battery electrode substrate.
TU teaches battery electrode plate detection method when the electrode travels at certain speed on a conveyor belt. [Abstract, para. 111, and 135].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Qiao to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by TU; because the modification enables the system to improve inline quality control of moving battery electrode coating by using camera imaging to automatically detect coating region defects and enable online deviation correction during manufacturing.
Claim 21, Qiao teaches determining, based on the parameterization, whether an anomaly is present in the surface [Para. 5, 32, fig. 6 and related description].
Claim 22 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3. Furthermore, Qiao teaches having a system to perform the claim limitations [See fig. 2-5 and related description].
Claims 23 and 26, Qiao teaches plurality of light sources [fig. 5 and related description].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0113919) in view of TU et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0265526) and further in view of Shikhodaie et al. (Pub. No. US 20120281908).
Regarding claim 4, Qiao in view of TU doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Shikhodaie teaches identifying the first microstructure [Abstract and para. 21] feature as one of the following: a pore of the microstructure [fig. 3-5 and corresponding description]; a grain of active material in the microstructure [fig. 3-5 and corresponding description]; a clump of active or inactive material in the microstructure [fig. 3-5 and corresponding description]; a texture of the microstructure [fig. 3-5 and corresponding description]; a mixing precursor in the microstructure [fig. 3-5 and corresponding description]; and a distribution of binder material in the microstructure; and an external contaminant or a distortion in the surface coating [fig. 3-5 and corresponding description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Qiao in view of TU to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Shikhodaie; because the modification enables the system to improve manufacturing quality control by automating image-based detection.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0113919) in view of TU et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0265526) in view of Shikhodaie et al. (Pub. No. US 20120281908) further in view of Wang et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0272599).
Regarding claim 5, Qiao in view of TU further in view of Shikhodaie doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Wang, for similar motivation, determining the first parameter to be a size of the first microstructure feature [Abstract “automatically analyzed to quantify dendrite cell size information that is subsequently converted into a quantified dendrite arm spacing”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Qiao in view of TU further in view of Shikhodaie to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Wang; because the modification enables the system to improve manufacturing quality control by automating image-based detection.
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0113919) in view of TU et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0265526) and further in view of Gladnick et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0310270).
Regarding claim 8, Qiao in view of TU doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Gladnick teaches the illuminating step further comprises: pulsing a light source to illuminate the surface [Para. 10 “emit light of one or more visible or invisible wavelengths of radiation that are suitable for imaging the workpiece, as a transient flash or pulse to the workpiece. The transient flash or pulse, also referred to as an illumination pulse”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Qiao in view of TU to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Gladnick; because the modification enables the system freeze motion and improve signal to noise ration.
Regarding claims 11 Qiao in view of TU doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Gladnick pulsing a plurality of light sources to illuminate the surface [Para. 43 “light sources, including stage light source 220, coaxial light source 230, and programmable ring light (PRL) source 240”; Para. 44 “four ring-light sources 240a through 240d”; Para. 104 “illumination levels for multiple light sources during a single flash”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Qiao in view of TU to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Gladnick; because the modification enables the system freeze motion and improve signal to noise ration.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0113919) in view of TU et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0265526) in view of Gladnick et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0310270) further in view of Brown et al. (Patent No. US 9,426,400).
Regarding claim 9, Qiao in view of TU further in view of Gladnick doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Brown teaches pulsing the light source with light pulses each light pulse having with a pulse width ranging from 1 microsecond to 100 microseconds [Col. 3 lines 10-14].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Qiao in view of TU further in view of Gladnick to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Brown; because the modification enables the system avoid motion blur in high-speed imaging.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0113919) in view of TU et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0265526) in view of Gladnick et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0310270) further in view of Donati et al. (Patent Number 5,659,287).
Regarding claim 10, Qiao in view of TU further in view of Gladnick doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Donati teaches pulsing the light source with light pulses spaced apart by up to 1 second [claim 5 “plurality of possible flash rates includes a 1 Hz. flash rate”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Qiao in view of TU further in view of Gladnick to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Donati; because the modification enables to lower cadence sampling in inspection system.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0113919) in view of TU et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0265526) and further in view of Gladnick et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0310270) and further in view of Westphal et al. (Patent No. US 9,239,293).
Regarding claim 12, Qiao in view of TU further in view of Gladnick doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Westphal teaches wherein each of the plurality of light sources emits a different color [Col. 3, line 11-15].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Qiao in view of TU further in view of Gladnick to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Westphal; because the modification enables to the system to select distinct color sources in the strobed multi-source setup yields multispectral contrast enhancement.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0113919) in view of TU et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0265526) and further in view of Gladnick et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0310270) and further in view of Davis (Patent No. SU 6,870,529).
Regarding claim 13, Qiao in view of TU further in view of Gladnick further in view of Davis doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Davis teaches monitoring an ambient brightness adjacent the surface; and adjusting an intensity of the light source based on the ambient brightness [Col. 18-22].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Qiao in view of TU further in view of Gladnick to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Davis; because the modification enables to the system to select distinct color sources in the strobed multi-source setup yields multispectral contrast enhancement.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0113919) in view of TU et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0265526) and further in view of Koide (Patent No. US 6,711,284).
Regarding claim 14, Qiao in view of TU doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Koide teaches the determining step further comprising: determining a number of pixels in a portion of the first digital image that correspond to the first microstructure feature [Abstract “counting a number of the pixels relating”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Qiao in view of TU to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Koide; because the modification enables to the system to improve image quality.
Regarding claim 15 Qiao in view of TU doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Koide 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 [fig. 4 and related description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Qiao in view of TU to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Koide; because the modification enables to the system to improve image quality.
Regarding claim 16, Qiao in view of TU doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Koide 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 [fig. 6-8 and related description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Qiao in view of TU to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Koide; because the modification enables to the system to improve image quality.
Regarding claim 17 Qiao in view of TU doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Koide 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. 6-8 and related description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Qiao in view of TU to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Koide; because the modification enables to the system to improve image quality.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0113919) in view of TU et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0265526) in view of Gladnick et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0310270) further in view of Gerst, III et al. (Patent No. US 8,770,483).
Regarding claims 18, Qiao in view of TU further in view of Gladnick doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Gerst 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 [Abstract].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Qiao in view of TU further in view of Gladnick to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Gerst; because the modification enables to the system to improve image quality.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0113919) in view of TU et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0265526) in view of Gerst, III et al. (Patent No. US 8,770,483).
Regarding claims 24, and 25, Qiao in view of TU doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Gerst 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 [Abstract].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Qiao in view of TU to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Gerst; because the modification enables to the system to improve image quality.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0113919) in view of TU et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0265526) in view of Wang et al. (Pub. No. SU 2013/0272599).
Regarding claim 27, Qiao in view of Tu doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Wang teaches the imaging module further comprises a digital camera [Para. 26 “inverted microscope 320 is used to make an image 322 that is captured by the camera 330].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Qiao in view of Tu to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Wang; because the modification enables the system to automate microstructure image analysis to deliver robust, accurate, repeatable quality-control metrics that reduce error and save time.
Regarding claim 28, Qiao in view of Tu teaches focusing light reflected from the illuminated surface onto an image capture device [Para. 18 “The metrology system can include an optical assembly to collect diffuse or specular reflection from the substrate. The metrology system can include an optical assembly to collect the light transmitted through the semiconductor”].
However, Qiao in view of Tu doesn’t explicitly teach capturing an image.
Wang teaches capturing the first image using the image capture device [Para. 7 “an image of the field of view to be measured should be captured”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Qiao in view of Tu to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Wang; because the modification enables the system to automate microstructure image analysis to deliver robust, accurate, repeatable quality-control metrics that reduce error and save time.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0113919) in view of TU et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0265526) in view of Brown et al. (Patent No. US 9,426,400).
Regarding claim 29, Qiao in view of TU doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Brown teaches pulsing the light source with light pulses each light pulse having with a pulse width ranging from 1 microsecond to 100 microseconds [Col. 3 lines 10-14].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Qiao in view of TU to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Brown; because the modification enables the system avoid motion blur in high-speed imaging.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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-8 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oneal 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, call 888-786-0101 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-4000.
/SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666