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 .
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Claims 1-11 are rejected below.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Examiner suggests using the term shadowless light source.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. PG Pub. 2024/0353348) in view of Hucker (U.S. PG Pub. 2020/0064277).
As to claims 1, 8, 9 and 10, Kim teaches a method for cell detection, comprising: obtaining, by shooting, a cell picture of a cell obtained after tab welding [0033 The monitoring apparatus 100 may determine whether a battery cell is defective based on an image obtained by capturing at least one process processing device 210, 220, and 230. According to an example embodiment, the monitoring apparatus 100 may determine whether the cathode tab of the battery cell and the top cap are weakly welded based on the image of the at least one process processing device 210, 220, and 230.], the cell picture being shot [0032]; determining a detection object in the cell picture [0082 In an example embodiment, when welding is present only in a region where the top cap and the cathode tab of the battery unit 105 overlap, the position detector 170 may determine that the welding position is normal. In an example embodiment, when welding is at least partially present in a region where the top cap and the cathode tab do not overlap, the position detector 170 may determine that the welding position is defective.]; and performing defect detection based on the detection object to obtain a detection result[0082 In an example embodiment, when welding is present only in a region where the top cap and the cathode tab of the battery unit 105 overlap, the position detector 170 may determine that the welding position is normal. In an example embodiment, when welding is at least partially present in a region where the top cap and the cathode tab do not overlap, the position detector 170 may determine that the welding position is defective].
As to claim 2, Kim teaches wherein the cell picture comprises a first cell picture which is obtained, by shooting, of the cell obtained before an identification layer is applied, and the detection object comprises a welding point detection region[0065]; and wherein determining the detection object in the cell picture comprises: determining a reference position of an adapter plate in the first cell picture based on a preset adapter plate model[0065 determining the welds and where to crop. Examiner notes that adapter plate has no definition and can be the area around the welds]; and determining the welding point detection region based on the reference position of the adapter plate[0065-0066].
As to claim 3, Kim teaches wherein the detection result comprises a welding point detection result; and wherein performing defect detection based on the detection object to obtain the detection result comprises: looking for and obtaining spot information within the welding point detection region, and obtaining the welding point detection result by analysis based on the spot information[0086 various weld states in the various known weld area].
As to claim 4, Kim teaches wherein the spot information comprises the number of spots and/or a sum of spot areas[0086 various weld spots in the various weld areas].
As to claims 7 and 11, Kim teaches wherein the cell picture is shot by two cameras under [0037].
Kim teaches most of the claimed invention, but does not explicitly teach that cameras have an illumination source, although this is well known in the art and hardly new Examiner has including another reference to show unequivocally that “a shadowless light source” is well known in the art. This is taught by Hucker as follows:
As to claims 1, 8, 9 and 10, Hucker teaches using a “a shadowless light source” when detecting a product for defects(abstract)[0033].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include the teachings of Hucker into the system and methods of Kim. The motivation to combine is that Hucker teaches [s]urrounding the lens 64 of each of the cameras 60A, 60B, 60C, 60D and 60E is a ring of a plurality of lights 66, preferably LED's. By “ring of lights” is meant a substantially continuous path, or loop of lights 66 which is not necessarily circular but which surrounds the lens 64 and provides uniform, consistent and substantially shadowless light to the features of the workpiece 20 that are being inspected, such as the main journal bearings 22. The paths of light which are designated 68 in FIG. 2 illustrate how the light is generally concentrated on the axial region of the journal bearing 22 directly opposite the camera lens 64 such that a smooth (acceptable) surface reflects significant light to the camera lens 64 whereas a defect such as porosity or a surface inclusion will reflect less light and appear as a dark spot or region. Such significant contrast between the desirable, smooth surface of the journal bearing 22 and the shapes or patterns of dark areas of a defect facilitates detection thereof as described subsequently[0033].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. PG Pub. 2024/0353348) in view of Hucker (U.S. PG Pub. 2020/0064277) in view of Lev (U.S. PG Pub. 2021/0295745).
As to claims 5 and 6 Kim, describes imaging the tab and determining if an defects are present. What Kim in view of Hucker does not do is discuss applying and identification layer. However, this is an obvious variation and is taught by Lev as follows:
As to claims 5 and 6 Lev teaches applying an identification layer determine the of components around it (such as a plate from Kim) and determine if a defect is present based on imagines and known defects [0103].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include the teachings of Lev into the system and methods of Kim modified by Hucker. The motivation to combine is that Lev teaches using defect monitoring an identification layer can be properly placed and corrected, if need be, thereby not allowing defective layers to be released [0103-0106].
Response to Arguments
Although the Examiner firmly believes that it is well known in the art for cameras to have illumination devices that would read on the claimed terms Examiner has added another reference (Hucker) to show that the claims are unpatentable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/NATHAN L LAUGHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights