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 1-12, 14-19 are presented for examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “portions of the at least one sensor are spaced apart from one another periodically along a lateral direction substantially parallel to the plurality of layers and in a field of view of the at least one X-ray source” recited in claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murai (WO 2020250609 A1; pub. Dec. 17, 2020) in view of Kim et al. (US 2025/0189465 A1; pub. Jun. 12, 2025).
Regarding claim 1, Murai discloses: An apparatus configured to monitor a plurality of layers of a battery layer stack during manufacturing (para. [0003]-[0004], [0014]), the apparatus comprising: at least one X-ray source configured to generate X-rays with X-ray energies that exhibit contrast of transmission through the plurality of layers of the battery layer stack (para. [0026]-[0027]),
Murai is silent about: the at least one X-ray source is configured to face a first side of the battery layer stack; and at least one sensor configured to detect the X-rays transmitted through the plurality of layers, the at least one sensor configured to face a second side of the battery layer stack.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kim et al. disclose: the at least one X-ray source (fig.1 item 110) is configured to face a first side of the battery layer stack (fig.1 item 200, para. [0027]); and at least one sensor (fig.1 item 120) configured to detect the X-rays transmitted through the plurality of layers, the at least one sensor configured to face a second side of the battery layer stack motivated by the benefits for quick and accurate defect detection (Kim et al. para. [0004]).
In light of the benefits for quick and accurate defect detection as taught by Kim et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Murai with the teachings of Kim et al.
Regarding claim 2, Murai discloses: the at least one sensor comprises at least one pixelated 1D or 2D semiconductor sensor configured to directly detect the transmitted X-rays (para. [0020]-[0021]).
Regarding claim 3, Murai discloses: the at least one sensor comprises: at least one scintillator configured to receive the transmitted X-rays and to generate light in response to the received X-rays; and at least one pixelated semiconductor sensor configured to directly receive the light from the at least one scintillator (para. [0020]-[0021]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Murai and Kim et al. disclose: portions of the at least one sensor are spaced apart from one another periodically along a lateral direction substantially parallel to the plurality of layers and in a field of view of the at least one X-ray source (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Murai and Kim et al. disclose: a computer system configured to analyze information from the at least one sensor the at least one laminographic image to determine at least one of:
a thickness of at least one layer of the plurality of layers; a variation of thickness of at least one layer of the plurality of layers along a lateral direction substantially parallel to the plurality of layers; an order and/or positions of the layers of the plurality of layers; and at least one defect, damage, or contamination of the plurality of layers (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murai (WO 2020250609 A1; pub. Dec. 17, 2020) in view of Kim et al. (US 2025/0189465 A1; pub. Jun. 12, 2025) and further in view of Schlecht et al. (US 2016/0054239 A1; pub. Feb. 25, 2016).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Murai and Kim et al. disclose: at least one scintillator configured to receive the transmitted X-rays and to generate light in response to the received X-rays, and at least one pixelated semiconductor sensor (see rejection of claim 1). The combined references are silent about: at least one lens configured to receive the light from the at least one scintillator; the at least one lens configured to focus the light from the at least one scintillator onto the at least one pixelated semiconductor sensor.
In a similar field of endeavor, Schlecht et al. disclose: at least one lens configured to receive the light from the at least one scintillator; the at least one lens configured to focus the light from the at least one scintillator onto the at least one pixelated semiconductor sensor (para. [0037]-[0038]) motivated by the benefits for reducing light loss.
In light of the benefits for reducing light loss, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Murai and Kim et al. with the teachings of Ganguly et al.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Murai, Kim et al. and Schlecht et al. disclose: the at least one sensor comprises: at least one scintillator configured to receive the transmitted X-rays and to generate light in response to the received X-rays; at least one lens configured to receive the light from the at least one scintillator; at least one mirror configured to receive the light from the at least one lens; and at least one pixelated semiconductor sensor, the at least one lens configured to focus the light from the at least one scintillator and the at least one mirror configured to reflect the focused light onto the at least one pixelated semiconductor sensor (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 4).
Regarding claim 6, Schlecht et al. disclose: the at least one mirror (fig.2 item 58) is configured to reflect the light from the at least one lens (fig.2 item 52) by a non-zero angle to the at least one pixelated semiconductor sensor (fig.2 item 56) motivated by the benefits for reducing light loss.
Regarding claim 7, Schlecht et al. disclose: the angle is approximately 90 degrees (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 6).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Murai, Kim et al. and Schlecht et al. disclose: the at least one scintillator has a thickness configured to provide a low pass energy filter (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 5 since the claim does not recite any addition structure to further limit claim 5).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murai (WO 2020250609 A1; pub. Dec. 17, 2020) in view of Kim et al. (US 2025/0189465 A1; pub. Jun. 12, 2025) in view of Schlecht et al. (US 2016/0054239 A1; pub. Feb. 25, 2016) and further in view of Takihi (US 2011/0095191 A1; pub. Apr. 28, 2011).
Regarding claim 9, the combined references are silent about: the at least one scintillator comprises at least two scintillators, each scintillator having a different thickness configured to absorb a different portion of the transmitted X-rays.
In a similar field of endeavor, Takihi disclose: the at least one scintillator comprises at least two scintillators, each scintillator having a different thickness configured to absorb a different portion of the transmitted X-rays (para. [0022]-[0023], [0031]-[0032]) motivated by the benefits for high accuracy inspection (Takihi para. [0021]).
In light of the benefits for high accuracy inspection as taught by Takihi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Murai, Kim et al. and Ganguly et al. with the teachings of Takihi.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Murai, Kim et al., Schlecht et al. and Takihi disclose: the different portions have different energies (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 9).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Murai, Kim et al., Schlecht et al. and Takihi disclose: an attenuator material on one scintillator of the at least two scintillators, the at least one attenuator material configured to block low energy X-rays from the one scintillator such that the attenuator material and the one scintillator act as an energy notch filter (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 9, para. [0031] of Takihi teaches aluminum same material as that described in para. [0036] of the specification).
Claims 15-16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraken et al. (US 2023/0003670 A1; pub. Jan. 5, 2023) in view of Shin et al. (US 2024/0265519 A1; pub. Aug. 8, 2024).
Regarding claim 15, Kraken et al. disclose: A system comprising: an apparatus comprising: at least one X-ray source configured to generate X-rays and to direct the X-rays towards a first side of a battery layer stack comprising a plurality of layers (para. [0012] – [0014]); and at least one sensor configured to detect the X-rays transmitted through the plurality of layers, the at least one sensor facing a second side of the battery layer stack, the second side opposite to the first side (para. [0012] – [0014], [0058]); a battery mechanism configured to fabricate the battery layer stack; and a feedback subsystem configured to generate feedback signals in response to information from the apparatus and to transmit the feedback signals to the battery mechanism to maintain alignment of the plurality of layers during fabrication (para. [0049], [0058]).
Kraken et al. are silent: the battery mechanism is a battery rolling mechanism.
In a similar field of endeavor, Shin et al. disclose: the battery mechanism is a battery rolling mechanism (para. [0051]) motivated by the benefits for improved reliability of result of battery inspection (Shin et al. para. [0012]).
In light of the benefits for improved reliability of result of battery inspection as taught by Shin et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kraken et al. with the teachings of Shin et al.
Regarding claim 16, Shin et al. disclose: the feedback subsystem comprises a computing device configured to use the information from the apparatus to perform at least one of:
monitoring positions of one or more edges of the layers of the plurality of layers; and
identifying defects, damage, and/or contamination computationally or through machine learning algorithms (para. [0010], [0015]-[0019]) motivated by the benefits for improved reliability of result of battery inspection (Shin et al. para. [0012]).
Regarding claim 19, Kraken et al. disclose: the computing device is configured to prevent telescoping of the layers of the plurality of layers (para. [0049]).
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraken et al. (US 2023/0003670 A1; pub. Jan. 5, 2023) in view of Shin et al. (US 2024/0265519 A1; pub. Aug. 8, 2024) and further in view of Watanabe (US 2020/0348242 A1; pub. Nov. 5, 2020).
Regarding claim 17, the combined references are silent about: the feedback signals are configured to pause the battery rolling mechanism so that human intervention can be initiated to manually align the layers of the plurality of layers with one another and/or to remove one or more layers of the plurality of layers.
In a similar field of endeavor, Watanabe discloses: the feedback signals are configured to pause the battery rolling mechanism so that human intervention can be initiated to manually align the layers of the plurality of layers with one another and/or to remove one or more layers of the plurality of layers (para. [0061]) motivated by the benefits for an accurate and reliable foreign matter detection (Watanabe para. [0015]).
In light of the benefits for an accurate and reliable foreign matter detection as taught by Watanabe, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kraken et al. and Shin et al. with the teachings of Watanabe
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraken et al. (US 2023/0003670 A1; pub. Jan. 5, 2023) in view of Shin et al. (US 2024/0265519 A1; pub. Aug. 8, 2024) and further in view of Masuch (US 2024/0154194 A1; pub. May 9, 2024).
Regarding claim 18, the combined references are silent about: the feedback signals are configured to automatically align the layers of the plurality of layers with one another without human intervention.
In a similar field of endeavor, Masuch discloses: the feedback signals are configured to automatically align the layers of the plurality of layers with one another without human intervention (para. [0012]) motivated by benefits for improving manufacturing accuracy.
In light of the benefits for improving manufacturing accuracy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kraken et al. and Shin et al. with the teachings of Masuch.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884