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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-9 are pending. Claims 6-9 are withdrawn. Claims 1-5 are presented for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 2/1/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 6-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/1/2026.
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.
1. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mathematical calculation without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) dividing the specular reflection, obtaining correction value, adding the correction value and detecting a dark portion by comparing to a threshold value. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the exception is only used in detection of a depression (or an area that is darker based on the obtained value as compared to a threshold). The judicial exception is claimed but not put into a practical application (note that after the calculation is performed no other process steps are recited that put the exception into practice). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim only recites generically applying linear light, moving the electrode plate, and acquiring specular reflection for detection which are well-understood, routine and conventional steps for observing a surface. This does not add significantly more to the judicial exception. Additionally, simply linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field (electrode inspection) does not qualify as significantly more.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
2. Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ukita (U.S. PGPUB No. 2015/0030935) in view of Takanori et al. (JP 2002303582, reference is made to English translation provided by Applicant).
Regarding claims 1-5, Ukita teaches an electrode plate inspection method (abstract and 0068) for inspecting electrode plates (abstract) which is a negative electrode plated coated with a negative electrode active material (0002) coated on a current collector plate (abstract) and rolled (0061). Ukita teaches the process for fabricating a battery (0001) which is a type of power storage device. Ukita teaches detecting a depression in the coating (0061) and determining the plate is defective and cutting the defective portion off (0051). Ukita fails to teach the inspection comprising obliquely applying light in a width direction onto the electrode plate and acquiring specular reflection of the light, obtaining an average value of lightness, applying a correction and then determining if a value of the lightness is lower than a predetermined threshold for identifying a depression/defect in the coating.
However, Takanori teaches a method for inspecting a surface (abstract) to detect depressions in the surface (0001-0003) by obliquely applying linear light extending in a width direction of a surface to be inspected (Figure 1 and 0013); acquiring specular reflection in the width direction and obtaining multiple values of lightness in a longitudinal direction as the substrate is moved in a longitudinal direction (0014-0015, 0019 and Figure 1). Takanori teaches that the collected values are subjected to shading correction, image enhancement, binarization and other processes (0019). Takanori further teaches detecting a dark portion/flaw by comparison of the luminance values of a luminance distribution of lightness values calculated at multiple locations and detecting where a value falls outside the average range for values (0021 and Figure 3a). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ukita’s process by using an inspection method of obliquely applying linear light extending in a width direction of Ukita’s coating, acquiring specular reflection, and then transforming that data by dividing into average values and correction values to ascertain lightness across the coating such that a value that falls outside a predetermined threshold is considered a defect as disclosed by Takanori and then cutting the defective portion out. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Takanori teaches that their process improves on conventional detection processes by allowing a clear image of the surface flaw to be observed (abstract), noise to be reduced (0022), and providing improved flaw detection sensitivity (0022).
Conclusion
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Claims 6-9 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-5 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
March 19, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights