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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is merely a slightly revised version of claim 1 and does not serve as a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Distinctly different roles are served by the claims and abstract. The claims define the legal scope of protection while the abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure. Moreover, the technical disclosure in this case is not coextensive with the claims. Also, please recognize that a properly drafted abstract increases the defensive value of Applicant’s asset and better serves the public interest by making the full breadth of the disclosure more readily discernable. In other words, an abstract is also a search tool and having a claim charade as an abstract dulls that tool.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the image acquisitor, curve extractor and calculator of claims 15-17 which are generic nonce terms that do not denote structure to one of ordinary skill and are wholly functionally defined.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Each of the claims fall within at least one statutory category (machine, claims 1-12 and process, claims 15-17) thus passing Step 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite abstract mathematical concepts identified in bold or abstract mental processes ad identified in italics as follows:
1. As a method for inspecting a folding portion of a pouch-type secondary battery, formed by folding an outer portion of a secondary battery case, the method comprising:
acquiring an image of a target inspection portion, which is a portion of the folding portion in which measurement is performed {mere data gathering};
extracting N curve profiles including a folding vertex of the folding portion from an inside of the target inspection portion; and
calculating a radius of curvature around the folding vertex from the N curve profiles.
2. The method for inspecting a folding portion of a pouch-type secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the operation of acquiring the image comprises setting the target inspection portion.
3. The method for inspecting a folding portion of a pouch-type secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the outer portion of the secondary battery case comprises a sealing portion formed by being sealed, and the target inspection portion comprises at least one of both ends of the sealing portion {mere field of use/context}.
4. The method for inspecting a folding portion of a pouch-type secondary battery of claim 3, wherein the sealing portion comprises a first sealing portion formed in a longitudinal direction of the secondary battery case and including the folding portion; and a second sealing portion formed in a direction intersecting the first sealing portion, wherein the target inspection portion includes a portion in which the first sealing portion and the second sealing portion meet {mere field of use/context }.
5. The method for inspecting a folding portion of a pouch-type secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the target inspection portion is 4.5 mm or more and less than 5.5 mm from an end of the secondary battery case in the longitudinal direction of the secondary battery case {mere field of use/context }.
6. The method for inspecting a folding portion of a pouch-type secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the operation of calculating the radius of curvature comprises
acquiring a plurality of n measurement points, in respective curve profiles;
obtaining a slope between two adjacent points of the plurality of n measurement points; and respectively obtaining coordinates of a first point P1 in which a measurement section of the radius of curvature starts and a second point P2 in which the measurement section of the radius of curvature ends.
7. The method for inspecting a folding portion of a pouch-type secondary battery of claim 6, wherein the first point P1 and the second point P2 are set by a size of a point determination section (a).
8. The method for inspecting a folding portion of a pouch-type secondary battery of claim 7, wherein the radius of curvature is calculated using points of the curve profiles between the first point P1 and the second point P2.
9. The method for inspecting a folding portion of a pouch-type secondary battery of claim 7, further comprising: a verification operation of verifying appropriacy of the first point P1 and the second point P2.
10. The method for inspecting a folding portion of a pouch-type secondary battery of claim 9, wherein the verification operation verifies whether decision conditions are satisfied, wherein the decision conditions are conditions using a straight line (m) approximating a section from a calculation start point (i1) of the curve profile to the first point P1 and using a straight line (n) approximating a section from the second point P2 to a calculation end point (in) of the curve profile.
11. The method for inspecting a folding portion of a pouch-type secondary battery of claim 10, further comprising: an operation of resetting a size of the point determination section (a), when the decision conditions of the verification operation are not satisfied.
12. The method for inspecting a folding portion of a pouch-type secondary battery of claim 1, further comprising: a comparison decision operation of comparing the sizes of the N radii of curvature with a reference value (Ro).
13. The method for inspecting a folding portion of a pouch-type secondary battery of claim 12, wherein the operation of calculating the radius of curvature comprises obtaining an average value (Ravg) of the N radii of curvature; and the comparison decision operation includes comparing the average value (Ravg) of the radius of curvature with the reference value (Ro).
14. The method for inspecting a folding portion of a pouch-type secondary battery of claim 12, wherein the operation of calculating the radius of curvature comprises obtaining a median value (Rmedi) of the N radii of curvature; and the comparison decision operation includes comparing the median value (Rmedi) of the radius of curvature with the reference value (Ro).
15. An apparatus for inspecting a folding portion of a pouch-type secondary battery, comprising: an image acquisitor for acquiring an image of a target inspection portion of a pouch-type secondary battery cell {mere data gathering}; a curve extractor for extracting N curve profiles including a folding portion, formed by folding an outer portion of the secondary battery cell and a folding vertex of the folding portion from an inside of the target inspection portion; and a calculator for calculating a radius of curvature around the folding vertex.
16. The apparatus for inspecting a folding portion of a pouch-type secondary battery of claim 15, wherein the calculator extracts points for obtaining the radius of curvature using a plurality of n measurement points and a slope of straight lines between two adjacent points of the plurality of n measurement points from the curve profiles.
17. The apparatus for inspecting a folding portion of a pouch-type secondary battery of claim 16, wherein the calculator obtains an equation of a circle approximating the curve profiles using the extracted points for obtaining the radius of curvature, and calculates a radius of the equation of the circle to obtain the radius of curvature.
Each of the elements identified in bold are mathematical calculations that fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas because the BRI of these claim elements encompasses and is otherwise consistent with mathematical concepts. See for example [0048]-[0064] of the instant application disclosing the claimed functions in mathematical terms. As to the groupings of abstract ideas and the procedural and legal basis of this rejection generally see Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, additional elements that extend beyond the judicial exception are identified above in normal font (not bold) and may be summarized as acquiring an image of a target inspection portion which is recited at a high level of generality, is considered mere data gathering.
Under Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because each of the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Furthermore, there is no extra-solution activity recited in the claims. Indeed, no output is explicitly claimed. Instead, the claims “calculate a radius of curvature” by [doing math] such that the claimed inventive result is merely the numerical result of the equations.
Nor do the claims recite any function whatsoever following the calculation of a radius of curvature value which contrasts sharply with the Anomaly Detection Example 47 (from the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including On Artificial Intelligence) in which the claim elements of detection, dropping, and blocking integrated the abstract idea of anomaly detection into a practical application.
Claims 12-14 could be further amended to recite a statutory method by including the improved result of the comparison decision that utilizes the math, e.g., determining that the pouch-type secondary battery is defective based on the recited comparison steps would, depending upon the exact claim language utilized, likely apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way. In other words, determine whether a pouch-type secondary battery is defective by applying the math may achieve integration. Furthermore and in contrast, context alone such as that recited in claims 3-5 is not integration but applying the recited math to solve the problem of pouch-type secondary battery defectiveness could achieve such integration and pass muster under 35 USC 101 depending upon the claim language chosen by Applicant.
In contrast, the pending claims seek to preempt all applications of the abstract concept and fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claims 1-17 are non-statutory.
It is noted that claims 15-17 are highly parallel claim sets for the purposes of 101 and recite essentially the same language but that the elements are recited using means-plus-function/112f language. Nevertheless, the corresponding structure is merely a generalized computer which does not provide a basis of distinction for this analysis and amounts to same generalized, high-level “apply it” language as method claims thus offering essentially the same grist for the substantially more test.
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 1-17 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.
The claims, including the independent claims 1 and 15 refer to “a folding portion of a pouch-type secondary battery” but it is unclear to what this “folding portion” refers. Initially, it is noted that the claims and specification suffer from a poor translation and “folding portion” is one of many examples. The remaining claims also refer to this indefinite term.
Moreover, this term is indefinitely introduced by the phrase “method for inspecting a folding portion of a pouch-type secondary battery, formed by folding an outer portion of a secondary battery case”. It is unclear if ”formed by folding an outer portion of a … case” refers to the pouch-type secondary battery or the folding portion. In other words, does the “folding portion” refer to any portion whatsoever of the battery? Or is the “folding portion” formed by the folding the outer portion of the battery? If so, then is the outer portion part of the folding portion? In sum, the nature and location of the “folding portion” is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the first point P1 and the second point P2 are set by a size of a point determination section (a)”. This phrase is not understood, lacks context and is indefinite particularly “set by a size”. It is not understood how points may be “set by a size”. A similar issue exists in claim 11.
Claim 10 recites “verification operation verifies whether decision conditions are satisfied, wherein the decision conditions are conditions using a straight line (m) approximating a section from a calculation start point (i1) of the curve profile to the first point P1 and using a straight line (n) approximating a section from the second point P2 to a calculation end point (in) of the curve profile.” The recited “decision conditions” are wholly unclear, confusing and lack context. It is also unclear how and when these “decision conditions” are satisfied.
Claims 13 and 14 refer to median and average calculations operating upon a single value and are therefore indefinite. In other words, average and median value calculations require at least N>2 values to be considered a valid calculation.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,155,045 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader recitations of the patented claims including the data obtaining unit of Kim teaching the image acquisitor, bend vale determining unit of Kim teaching the now-claimed curve extractor and calculator for calculating a radius of curvature (bend value).
Claims 1 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/066384 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims are broader recitations of the reference application claims. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Kim (US 2022/0320606 A1 patented as US 12,155,045 B2). See Figs. 1, 3 wherein the data obtaining unit 210A of Kim corresponds to the image acquisitor, bend vale determining unit of Kim corresponds to now-claimed curve extractor and calculator for calculating a radius of curvature (bend value) around the folding vertex particularly as broadly and indefinitely recited in the instant claims.
The applied reference has a common Applicant (SK On Co., Ltd.) with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
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.
Claims 1, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stacy (US 2015/0364739 A1) and Morin (US 2023/0369638 A1).
Claim 1
In regards to claim 1, Stacy discloses as a method for inspecting a folding portion of a pouch-type secondary battery,
acquiring an image of a target inspection portion, which is a portion
extracting N curve profiles including a folding vertex of the folding portion from an inside of the target inspection portion {see [0059] image analysis extracts curve profiles to determine radius of curvature}; and
calculating a radius of curvature around the folding vertex from the N curve profiles {see Figs. 3, 4, [0015]-[0016], [0059]}.
Although Stacy discloses the importance of examining the bending degree of folded/bent materials in a pouch type (Lithium polymer) battery, Stacy is not relied upon to apply these techniques to a folding portion of a pouch-type secondary battery, formed by folding an outer portion of a secondary battery case.
Morin is analogous art teaching the conventional nature and importance of inspecting folded structures of pouch-type batteries as per [0002], [0004], [0006], [0056], [0110] including pouch cells and wound pouch cells and including the radius of curvature as per [0024], [0033], [0048], Fig. 12-13, [0100]-[0102], [0110]-[0111].
It 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 to have modified Stacy which already discloses the importance of examining the bending degree of folded/bent materials in a pouch type (Lithium polymer) battery such that acquiring, extracting, and calculating steps are applied to a folding portion of a pouch-type secondary battery, formed by folding an outer portion of a secondary battery case as taught by Morin because Morin motivates conducting such measurements to examine bending/folding portions for quality testing of pouch type (Lithium polymer) batteries including the criticality of wound and folded structures in terms of curvature measurements and their relationship to high cycle time measurements, effective power transfer and reduced thermal runaway potential as per [0110]-[0111], because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 12
In regards to claim 12, Stacy discloses a comparison decision operation of comparing the sizes of the N radii of curvature with a reference value (Ro) {Stacy establishes a radius of curvature value that should not be exceeded in [0055] but does not disclose a comparison decision operation}.
Morin teaches a comparison decision operation of comparing the sizes of the N radii of curvature with a reference value (Ro) in [0024], [0048], [0100]-[0101], [0110]-[0111]}.
It 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 to have modified Stacy which already discloses the importance of examining the bending degree of folded/bent materials in a pouch type (Lithium polymer) battery such that acquiring, extracting, and calculating steps are applied to a folding portion of a pouch-type secondary battery, formed by folding an outer portion of a secondary battery case as taught by Morin and to further include a comparison decision operation of comparing the sizes of the N radii of curvature with a reference value (Ro) because Morin motivates conducting such measurements to examine bending/folding portions for quality testing of pouch type (Lithium polymer) batteries including the criticality of wound and folded structures in terms of curvature measurements and their relationship to high cycle time measurements, effective power transfer and reduced thermal runaway potential as per [0110]-[0111], because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 15
The rejection of method claim 1 above applies mutatis mutandis to the corresponding limitations of apparatus claim 15 while noting that the rejection above cites to both device and method disclosures.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stacy and Morin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20240128552 A1) and Official Notice
Claims 13 and 14
Stacy is not relied upon to disclose but Morin teaches (claim 13) wherein the operation of calculating the radius of curvature comprises obtaining the comparison decision operation includes comparing the
Kim is analogous reference teaching that average value Ravg for the radii of curvature is a conventional measure in pouch-type secondary batteries {see [0090]-[0092]} and Official Notice is taken that median and average values are considered equivalents for summarizing measured values for comparison with a standard.
It 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 to have modified Stacy which already discloses the importance of examining the bending degree of folded/bent materials in a pouch type (Lithium polymer) battery such that acquiring, extracting, and calculating steps are applied to a folding portion of a pouch-type secondary battery, formed by folding an outer portion of a secondary battery case as taught by Morin and to further include a comparison decision operation of comparing the sizes of the N radii of curvature with a reference value (Ro) and further
wherein the operation of calculating the radius of curvature comprises obtaining an average value (Ravg) of the N radii of curvature; and the comparison decision operation includes comparing the average value (Ravg) of the radius of curvature with the reference value (Ro) and (claim 14) obtaining a median value (Rmedi) of the N radii of curvature; and the comparison decision operation includes comparing the median value (Rmedi) of the radius of curvature with the reference value (Ro) as taught by Morin, Kim and Official Notice because Morin motivates conducting such measurements to examine bending/folding portions for quality testing of pouch type (Lithium polymer) batteries including the criticality of wound and folded structures in terms of curvature measurements and their relationship to high cycle time measurements, effective power transfer and reduced thermal runaway potential as per [0110]-[0111], because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 2, 6-9, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stacy and Morin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jo (US 2024/0112588).
Claim 2
In regards to claim 2, Stacy is not relied upon to disclose wherein the operation of acquiring the image comprises setting the target inspection portion.
Jo is an analogous reference from the same field of battery inspection. See abstract, title, [0002] and cites below
Jo also teaches wherein the operation of acquiring the image comprises setting the target inspection portion {see [0012], [0022], [0068], [0089], [0103]}.
It 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 to have modified Stacy which already discloses the importance of examining the bending degree of folded/bent materials in a pouch type (Lithium polymer) battery such that acquiring, extracting, and calculating steps are applied to a folding portion of a pouch-type secondary battery, formed by folding an outer portion of a secondary battery case as taught by Morin and to further include a comparison decision operation of comparing the sizes of the N radii of curvature with a reference value (Ro) as taught by Morin and wherein the operation of acquiring the image comprises setting the target inspection portion as taught by Jo because Morin motivates conducting such measurements to examine bending/folding portions for quality testing of pouch type (Lithium polymer) batteries including the criticality of wound and folded structures in terms of curvature measurements and their relationship to high cycle time measurements, effective power transfer and reduced thermal runaway potential as per [0110]-[0111], because limiting the inspection area reduces processing time and resources by focusing the image processing on a subset of the entire image, because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 6
In regards to claim 6, Stacy discloses wherein the operation of calculating the radius of curvature comprises
acquiring a plurality of n measurement points, in respective curve profiles {see above mapping of claim 1};
Jo teaches obtaining a slope between two adjacent points of the plurality of n measurement points; and respectively obtaining coordinates of a first point P1 in which a measurement section of the radius of curvature starts and a second point P2 in which the measurement section of the radius of curvature ends {see [0012], [0022], [0068], [0089], [0103] while noting that setting the inspection region that encompasses the measurement points also “obtains” the slope between those points and obtains the starting ending points P1/P2 within that inspection region}.
It 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 to have modified Stacy which already discloses the importance of examining the bending degree of folded/bent materials in a pouch type (Lithium polymer) battery and acquires a plurality of n measurement points, in respective curve profiles such that acquiring, extracting, and calculating steps are applied to a folding portion of a pouch-type secondary battery, formed by folding an outer portion of a secondary battery case as taught by Morin and to further include a comparison decision operation of comparing the sizes of the N radii of curvature with a reference value (Ro) as taught by Morin and to further include obtaining a slope between two adjacent points of the plurality of n measurement points; and respectively obtaining coordinates of a first point P1 in which a measurement section of the radius of curvature starts and a second point P2 in which the measurement section of the radius of curvature ends as taught by Jo because Morin motivates conducting such measurements to examine bending/folding portions for quality testing of pouch type (Lithium polymer) batteries including the criticality of wound and folded structures in terms of curvature measurements and their relationship to high cycle time measurements, effective power transfer and reduced thermal runaway potential as per [0110]-[0111], because limiting the inspection area reduces processing time and resources by focusing the image processing on a subset of the entire image, because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 7
In regards to claim 7, Stacy is not relied upon to disclose but Jo teaches wherein the first point P1 and the second point P2 are set by a size of a point determination section (a) {see 112(b). To the limited extent understood, see [0012], [0022], [0068], [0089], [0103] while noting that setting the inspection region that encompasses the measurement points also discloses wherein the first point P1 and the second point P2 are set by a size of a point determination section}.
It 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 to have modified Stacy which already discloses the importance of examining the bending degree of folded/bent materials in a pouch type (Lithium polymer) battery and acquires a plurality of n measurement points, in respective curve profiles such that acquiring, extracting, and calculating steps are applied to a folding portion of a pouch-type secondary battery, formed by folding an outer portion of a secondary battery case as taught by Morin and to further include a comparison decision operation of comparing the sizes of the N radii of curvature with a reference value (Ro) as taught by Morin and to further include wherein the first point P1 and the second point P2 are set by a size of a point determination section (a) as taught by Jo because Morin motivates conducting such measurements to examine bending/folding portions for quality testing of pouch type (Lithium polymer) batteries including the criticality of wound and folded structures in terms of curvature measurements and their relationship to high cycle time measurements, effective power transfer and reduced thermal runaway potential as per [0110]-[0111], because limiting the inspection area reduces processing time and resources by focusing the image processing on a subset of the entire image, because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 8
In regards to claim 8, Stacy is not relied upon to disclose but Morin teaches wherein the radius of curvature is calculated using points of the curve profiles between the first point P1 and the second point P2 {see [0024], [0033], [0048], Fig. 12-13, [0100]-[0102], [0110]-[0111]}.
It 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 to have modified Stacy which already discloses the importance of examining the bending degree of folded/bent materials in a pouch type (Lithium polymer) battery and acquires a plurality of n measurement points, in respective curve profiles such that acquiring, extracting, and calculating steps are applied to a folding portion of a pouch-type secondary battery, formed by folding an outer portion of a secondary battery case as taught by Morin and to further include a comparison decision operation of comparing the sizes of the N radii of curvature with a reference value (Ro) as taught by Morin and to further include wherein the first point P1 and the second point P2 are set by a size of a point determination section (a) as taught by Jo and wherein the radius of curvature is calculated using points of the curve profiles between the first point P1 and the second point P2 as taught by Morin because Morin motivates conducting such measurements to examine bending/folding portions for quality testing of pouch type (Lithium polymer) batteries including the criticality of wound and folded structures in terms of curvature measurements and their relationship to high cycle time measurements, effective power transfer and reduced thermal runaway potential as per [0110]-[0111], because limiting the inspection area reduces processing time and resources by focusing the image processing on a subset of the entire image, because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 9
In regards to claim 9, Stacy discloses is not relied upon to disclose but Jo teaches a verification operation of verifying appropriacy of the first point P1 and the second point P2 {see [0012], [0022], [0068], [0089], [0103] wherein setting the inspection region also verifies the appropriacy of the points P1 and P2 by including them within/verifying their presence in the selected target region}.
It 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 to have modified Stacy which already discloses the importance of examining the bending degree of folded/bent materials in a pouch type (Lithium polymer) battery and acquires a plurality of n measurement points, in respective curve profiles such that acquiring, extracting, and calculating steps are applied to a folding portion of a pouch-type secondary battery, formed by folding an outer portion of a secondary battery case as taught by Morin and to further include a comparison decision operation of comparing the sizes of the N radii of curvature with a reference value (Ro) as taught by Morin and to further include wherein the first point P1 and the second point P2 are set by a size of a point determination section (a) and a verification operation of verifying appropriacy of the first point P1 and the second point P2 as taught by Jo and wherein the radius of curvature is calculated using points of the curve profiles between the first point P1 and the second point P2 as taught by Morin because Morin motivates conducting such measurements to examine bending/folding portions for quality testing of pouch type (Lithium polymer) batteries including the criticality of wound and folded structures in terms of curvature measurements and their relationship to high cycle time measurements, effective power transfer and reduced thermal runaway potential as per [0110]-[0111], because limiting the inspection area reduces processing time and resources by focusing the image processing on a subset of the entire image, because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 16
In regards to claim 16, Stacy is not relied upon but Jo discloses wherein the calculator extracts points for obtaining the radius of curvature using a plurality of n measurement points and a slope of straight lines between two adjacent points of the plurality of n measurement points from the curve profiles {see [0012], [0022], [0068], [0089], [0103] while noting that setting the inspection region that encompasses the measurement points also “obtains” the radius of curvature using the encompassed
plurality of n measurement points and a slope of straight lines between two adjacent points of the plurality of n measurement points from the curve profiles}.
It 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 to have modified Stacy which already discloses the importance of examining the bending degree of folded/bent materials in a pouch type (Lithium polymer) battery and acquires a plurality of n measurement points, in respective curve profiles such that acquiring, extracting, and calculating steps are applied to a folding portion of a pouch-type secondary battery, formed by folding an outer portion of a secondary battery case as taught by Morin and to further include a comparison decision operation of comparing the sizes of the N radii of curvature with a reference value (Ro) as taught by Morin and to further include wherein the calculator extracts points for obtaining the radius of curvature using a plurality of n measurement points and a slope of straight lines between two adjacent points of the plurality of n measurement points from the curve profiles as taught by Jo because Morin motivates conducting such measurements to examine bending/folding portions for quality testing of pouch type (Lithium polymer) batteries including the criticality of wound and folded structures in terms of curvature measurements and their relationship to high cycle time measurements, effective power transfer and reduced thermal runaway potential as per [0110]-[0111], because limiting the inspection area reduces processing time and resources by focusing the image processing on a subset of the entire image, because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 17
In regards to claim 17, Stacy discloses wherein the calculator obtains an equation of a circle approximating the curve profiles using the extracted points for obtaining the radius of curvature, and calculates a radius of the equation of the circle to obtain the radius of curvature {see Figs. 3, 4, [0015]-[0016], [0059]}.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stacy and Morin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (KR-20220091203-A)
Claim 3
In regards to claim 3, Stacy is not relied upon to disclose wherein the outer portion of the secondary battery case comprises a sealing portion formed by being sealed, and the target inspection portion comprises at least one of both ends of the sealing portion.
Lee is an analogous reference from the same field of battery inspection. See abstract, title and cites below. Lee also teaches that wherein the outer portion of the secondary battery case comprises a sealing portion formed by being sealed, and the target inspection portion comprises at least one of both ends of the sealing portion {see abstract, Figs. 1, pgs. 2-5 teaching measuring the 3D shape of a sealing part of a pouch-type secondary battery cell by acquiring an image with a 3D sensor 110}.
It 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 to have modified Stacy which already discloses the importance of examining the bending degree of folded/bent materials in a pouch type (Lithium polymer) battery such that acquiring, extracting, and calculating steps are applied to a the outer portion of the secondary battery case comprises a sealing portion formed by being sealed, and the target inspection portion comprises at least one of both ends of the sealing portion as taught by Lee because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 4
In regards to claim 4, Stacy is not relied upon to disclose but Lee teaches wherein the sealing portion comprises a first sealing portion formed in a longitudinal direction of the secondary battery case and including the folding portion; and a second sealing portion formed in a direction intersecting the first sealing portion, wherein the target inspection portion includes a portion in which the first sealing portion and the second sealing portion meet {see Figs. 1, pgs. 2-5 teaching measuring the 3D shape of a sealing part of a pouch-type secondary battery cell including first and second sealing portions and such that the inspection encompasses their junction/meeting point}
It 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 to have modified Stacy which already discloses the importance of examining the bending degree of folded/bent materials in a pouch type (Lithium polymer) battery such that acquiring, extracting, and calculating steps are applied to the sealing portion comprising a first sealing portion formed in a longitudinal direction of the secondary battery case and including the folding portion; and a second sealing portion formed in a direction intersecting the first sealing portion, wherein the target inspection portion includes a portion in which the first sealing portion and the second sealing portion meet as taught by Lee because sealing areas represent failure points that benefit from defect detect, because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 5
In regards to claim 5, Stacy is not relied upon to disclose but Lee teaches wherein the target inspection portion is 4.5 mm or more and less than 5.5 mm from an end of the secondary battery case in the longitudinal direction of the secondary battery case {see abstract, Figs. 1, pgs. 2-5 teaching measuring the 3D shape of a sealing part of a pouch-type secondary battery cell by acquiring an image with a 3D sensor 110 which encompasses this target inspection portion range being claimed or at least recognizes that the result effective variable for inspection is to inspect the sealing portion where failure is likely to occur}.
It 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 to have modified Stacy which already discloses the importance of examining the bending degree of folded/bent materials in a pouch type (Lithium polymer) battery such that acquiring, extracting, and calculating steps are applied to the sealing portion as taught by Morin and wherein the target inspection portion is 4.5 mm or more and less than 5.5 mm from an end of the secondary battery case in the longitudinal direction of the secondary battery case as taught by Lee because sealing areas including the specified range represent failure points that benefit from defect detect, because Lee’s in inspection portion range overlaps and encompasses a range of areas or at least recognizes that the result effective variable for inspection is to inspect the sealing portion where failure is likely to occur such that the recited target inspection portion is 4.5 mm or more and less than 5.5 mm from an end of the secondary battery case in the longitudinal direction of the secondary battery case is a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen, Zhong, et al. "Visual inspection for laser welding joints of electrodes in lithium-ion battery packing." 2020 IEEE International Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference (I2MTC). IEEE, 2020 disclosing shape-based (e.g. bend radius) template matching for inspecting seams of pouch-type secondary batteries.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Cammarata whose telephone number is (571)272-0113. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm 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, Matthew Bella can be reached at 571-272-7778. 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.
/MICHAEL ROBERT CAMMARATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667