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 .
Response to Amendment
In the Reply filed 15 June 2026 Applicant:
Amended the abstract in a manner that overcomes the abstract objection;
Added structure including processor and imaging device to claim 15 that are sufficient to perform the recited functions thereby overcoming the 112f claim interpretation;
Amended nearly all of the claims in a manner which resolves the double patenting rejection and some of the 112b rejections while also raising new issues under 112b; and
Amended claim 1 to add meaningful steps that integrate the previously recited abstract idea of calculating a radius of curvature to solving the problem of pouch-type secondary batter defect determination including determining whether the pouch-type secondary battery is defective (based on the N radii of curvature) and outputting a result of the determination regarding whether the pouch-type secondary batter is defective. But no such amendments have been added to the other independent claim (15). Thus, claim 1 is considered to recite a statutory method while claim 15 does not. See also the revised 101 rejection below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the 35 USC 101 rejection Applicant argues that the human mind cannot practically perform the claimed invention because amended claim 1 recites a physical hardware-constrained configuration, does not recite a mental process and is integrated into a practical application that “improves physical computer hardware”.
In response, claim 15 continues to recite hardware a very high “apply-it” level such that the “hardware-constrained configuration” merely includes a generalized processor and an imaging device performing mere data gathering. Moreover, Applicant has not identified a specific step for which the human mind is not capable of performing. Moreover, the claims were characterized as reciting mathematical algorithms and not mental processes.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim falls within at least one statutory category (machine) thus passing Step 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite abstract mathematical concepts identified in bold as follows:
15. (Currently Amended) An apparatus for inspecting a folding portion of a pouch-type secondary battery, wherein the folding portion is formed by folding an outer portion of a secondary battery case {mere field of use/context}, the apparatus comprising:
an imaging device comprising a camera for configured to acquire an image of a target inspection portion of a pouch-type secondary battery cell {mere data gathering};
at least one processor extractor for configured to {high level, apply-it}
extract 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
the at least one processor being further configured to {high level, apply-it}
calculate a radius of curvature around the folding vertex;
wherein the at least one processor {high level, apply-it}:
(i) respectively obtains coordinates of a first point P1 where a slope (S) between measurement points starts to decrease sharply after a gentle decrease and a second point P2 where the slope (S) starts to decrease gently again;(ii) verifies appropriacy of the first point P1 and the second point P2 using approximating straight lines; and (iii) calculates the radius of curvature by inducing an equation of a circle approximating the curve profile between the verified first point P1 and second point P2.
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 (processor). Still further, the recited structure (processor) is merely a generalized computer which does not provide a basis of distinction for this analysis and amounts to generalized, high-level “apply it” language.
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.
Claim 15 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 as has been done successfully in the amendments to claim 1 which now defines a statutory method.
In contrast, the pending claim 15 seeks to preempt all applications of the abstract concept and fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claim 15 is non-statutory.
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 1-5 and 12-15 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.
Amended claim 1 recites several indefinite limitations as follows:
“respectively obtaining coordinates of a first point P1 where the slope (S) starts to decrease sharply after a gentle decrease and a second point P2 where the slope (S) starts to decrease gently again”,
“verifying appropriacy of the first point P1 and the second point P2 using a straight line (m) approximating a section before P1 and a straight line (n) approximating a section after P2”, and
“calculating the radius of curvature using an equation of a circle induced from points between the verified first point P1 and second point P2”.
The terms “gentle decrease” and “decrease gently again” in claim 1 are relative terms each of which renders the claim indefinite. These terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Furthermore, verifying appropriacy using straight lines lacks necessary context and does not make logical sense. The specification discloses using distances d0 and d1 from straight lines n, m and the points P1 and P2 in [0067]-[0068] but the claim recitation is so obtuse and abstract as to lose necessary meaning.
Claim 15 parallels claim 1 and suffers from the same problems outlined above. Claims 2-5 and 12-14 are indefinite due to their dependency upon claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights