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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 1, line 8, the phrase “a high-resolution scan” should be changed to -- the high-resolution scan --.
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 1-15 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 claim 1, lines 4 and 5-6, it is not clear how the first acoustic scanner is able to perform such limitations as “determine … not” and “send … anomalous” when an acoustic scanner typically uses sound waves to create images of an object or environment. Please clarify. In lines 9-10, it is not clear how the second acoustic scanner is able to perform such limitations as “confirm … defective” and “determine … defect-free” when an acoustic scanner typically uses sound waves to create images of an object or environment. Please clarify.
In claim 4, lines 1-2, it is not clear how the second acoustic scanner is able to perform such limitation as “identify … cell” when an acoustic scanner typically uses sound waves to create images of an object or environment. Please clarify.
In claim 5, line 2, the phrase “selected for an in-depth analysis” is not clear what technical features of the system are being defined as the system neither provides a means for the selection nor do the in-depth analysis means form part of the system. Please clarify.
In claim 7, the system is deployed on a battery cell manufacturing line. The additional limitations for the system are not clear as the line is not part of the claimed system. Please clarify.
In claim 8, lines 1-2, it is not clear how the first acoustic scanner is able to perform such limitation as “determine … anomalous” when an acoustic scanner typically uses sound waves to create images of an object or environment. Please clarify.
In claim 10, line 2, it is not clear how the second acoustic scanner is able to perform such limitations as “confirm … defective” and “determine … defect-free” when an acoustic scanner typically uses sound waves to create images of an object or environment. Please clarify.
In claim 15, lines 1-2, it is not clear how the first acoustic scanner is able to perform such limitation as “generate … probability” when an acoustic scanner typically uses sound waves to create images of an object or environment. Please clarify. In line 2, the phrase “the potentially defective battery cell” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0287219 (Sood et al.).
With regards to claim 1, Sood et al. discloses a system for health monitoring of an energy storage device comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1A-21, a system 1000 (e.g. battery health monitoring device; paragraph [0089]) comprising a first acoustic scanner 1002a (e.g. first array of transducers; paragraph [0089]; Figure 10) configured to scan a battery cell 200 (e.g. battery cell; paragraph [0089]); determine if the battery cell is potentially anomalous or not (e.g. battery management system 1508 includes controller 312 and battery control module 1506 using A-scan; paragraphs [0104]-[0105],[0061]); send the battery cell for a high-resolution scan (e.g. move to obtain a C-scan; paragraphs [0067],[0062],[0072]) if the battery cell is determined to be potentially anomalous; a second acoustic scanner 1002b (e.g. second array of transducers; paragraph [0089]) configured to perform the high-resolution scan of the battery cell (e.g. C-scan; paragraphs [0067],[0072]); one of confirm that the battery cell is defective or to determine that the battery cell is defect-free (e.g. image of defect or degradation; paragraph [0067],[0072]). (See, paragraphs [0037] to [0252]).
With regards to claim 2, Sood et al. further discloses the first acoustic scanner 1002a is an array (e.g. array of transducers; paragraph [0089]) configured to perform a fast and low-resolution scan of the battery cell. (See, paragraphs [0089]-[0092]).
With regards to claim 3, Sood et al. further discloses the second acoustic scanner 1002b is a rastering scanner (e.g. raster scanning; paragraphs [0062],[0122]).configured to perform the high-resolution scan.
With regards to claim 4, Sood et al. further discloses the second acoustic scanner 1002b is configured to identify a type of defect present in the battery cell. (See, defective, degraded, useful lifetime, state of health; paragraphs [0067],[0072],[0078],[0082],[0086],[0104]
With regards to claim 5, Sood et al. further discloses upon confirming that the battery cell is defective, the battery cell is selected for an in-depth analysis (e.g. comparing analysis along with thickness analysis; paragraphs [0066],[0071],[0097],[0126]-[0128]).
With regards to claim 6, Sood et al. further discloses the in-depth analysis includes a CT scan of the battery cell, subject the battery cell to long term cycling, or performing a tear down analysis of the battery cell (e.g. tear down analysis of the battery cell; paragraph [0062]).
With regards to claim 7, Sood et al. further discloses the system is deployed on a battery cell manufacturing line (e.g. manufacturing line like a conveying system; paragraph [0125]; Figure 21).
With regards to claim 8, Sood et al. further discloses the first acoustic scanner 1002a is configured to determine if the battery cell is potentially anomalous using a defect detection technique. (See, paragraph [0105]).
With regards to claim 13, Sood et al. further discloses the system 1000 includes at least two second acoustic scanners for each first acoustic scanner (e.g. observed in Figure 10).
With regards to claim 14, Sood et al. further discloses the defective battery cell has one or more of plating of lithium metal on an anode, dry spots, air or gas bubbles within the battery cell, physical or chemical variation in anode or cathode electrode compositions, on-surface or subsurface electrode defects, electrode misalignment, electrode folds, separator holes, folds, and wrinkles, foreign object debris or particulate inclusions, insufficient electrolyte, incorrect electrolyte formulation, incomplete solid-electrolyte-interphase buildup, or tab welding. (See, paragraphs [0040],[0046],[0095],[0128]).
With regards to claim 15, Sood et al. further discloses the first acoustic scanner 1002a is configured to generate a probability for the potentially defective battery cell. (See, paragraphs [0104]-[0105],[0061],[0067],[0062],[0072]).
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 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0287219 (Sood et al.) in view of either U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0175553 (Van Tassell et al.) or CN 105737773 (Wimplinger).
With regards to claim 9, Sood et al. does not disclose the defect detection technique utilizes a trained neural network.
Van Tassell et al. discloses a system to analysis batteries comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1A-8, a system 120 (e.g. a system; paragraph [0060]) comprising a first acoustic scanner 124a,126a (e.g. transmitter and receiver form this first acoustic scanner; paragraph [0062]; Figure 1B) configured to scan a battery cell 122 (e.g. battery cell; paragraph [0062]); determine if the battery cell is potentially anomalous or not (e.g. processor 130 analysis the signals; paragraph [0063]); send the battery cell for a high-resolution scan if the battery cell is determined to be potentially anomalous (e.g. paragraph [0080]); a second acoustic scanner 124b,126b (e.g. transmitter and receiver form this first acoustic scanner; paragraph [0062]; Figure 1B) configured to perform the high-resolution scan of the battery cell (e.g. obtain high-solution or a CT-scan; paragraphs [0005],[0059]); one of confirm that the battery cell is defective or to determine that the battery cell is defect-free (e.g. identified and removed from further processing or be scrapped; paragraphs [0091],[0102]); the defect detection technique utilizes a trained neural network (e.g. deep learning neural network; paragraphs [0129]-[0136]; Figure 6). (See, paragraphs [0045] to [0160]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have readily recognize the advantages and desirability of employing the use of neural networks is standard for the analysis of signals in the field of non-destructive testing as suggested by Van Tassell et al. to the system of Sood et al. to have the ability, in this time and age, to provide a model that has been optimized to perform a specific task by learning patterns from a large dataset where the network can accurately process new, unseen data related to the original training task. (See, paragraphs [0129]-[0136] of Van Tassell et al.).
With regards to claim 10, Van Tassell et al. further discloses the second acoustic scanner 126a,126b is configured to one of confirm 122 that the battery cell is defective or determine that the battery cell is defect-free, using a trained neural network 600 (e.g. paragraphs [0129]-[0136]; Figure 6).
With regards to claim 11, Sood et al. does not explicitly specify such parameter (the first acoustic scanner is configured to scan the battery cell in less than 10 seconds) as in the claim. However, to have set such test characteristics as in the claim is considered to have been a matter of choice possibilities to the operator or manufacturer that would have been obvious to a skilled artisan in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention without departing from the scope of the invention.
With regards to claim 12, Sood et al. does not disclose a duration of the high-resolution scan is longer than a duration of the scan performed by the first acoustic scanner.
Wimplinger discloses a measuring system comprising, as Figures 1-12, an acoustic scanner 9,10 (e.g. transmitter and receiver form this acoustic scanner); a duration of the high-resolution scan is longer than a duration of the scan performed by the first acoustic scanner (e.g. paragraph [0051]). (See, paragraph [0001] to [0068]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have readily recognize the advantages and desirability of employing a duration of the high-resolution scan is longer than a duration of the scan performed by the first acoustic scanner as suggested by Wimplinger to the system of Sood et al. to have the ability to provide a continuously scan performance to obtain continuous measuring signal of each measuring position for analysis by an evaluation unit. (See, paragraph [0051] of Wimplinger).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references cited, particularly Lee, Biswas, Van Tassell, Dou, Shen and Matsumoto, are related to monitoring energy storage devices like battery cells by evaluating acoustic signals.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Helen C Kwok whose telephone number is (571)272-2197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:30 to 4:00 EST.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/HELEN C KWOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855