DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 is a processor with a memory that is “configured to store” certain instructions; the dependent claims are recited as configurations of a processor. This is understood to be a memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the linked processor to assume a series of configurations. It is not seen to cover a processor with a memory capable of being loaded with a program; that would be every computer. It is also not seen to be a processor that simultaneously is configured to assume all of the states in Claims 2-8.
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.
2. Claims 4, 8, 14, and 18 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.
Claim 4 recites “(N is a natural number of 2 or more)”, and should instead recite “, where N is a natural number of 2 or more”.
Claim 14 recites “(N is a natural number of 2 or more)”, and should instead recite “, where N is a natural number of 2 or more”.
Claim 8 recites “(M and K being natural numbers less than or equal to N, M>K)”, and should instead recite “, where M and K are natural numbers less than or equal to N, and where M is greater than K”.
Claim 18 recites “(M and K being natural numbers less than or equal to N, M>K)”, and should instead recite “, where M and K are natural numbers less than or equal to N, and where M is greater than K”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-4, 9-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “4D imaging of lithium-batteries using correlative neutron and X-ray tomography with a virtual unrolling technique” by Ralf Ziesche et al., (herein after “Ziesche”).
Regarding claim 1, An apparatus for diagnosing a battery, the apparatus comprising:
a processor (Ziesche, §Abstract: “high-throughput X-ray computed tomography has enabled the identification of mechanical degradation processes”); and
a memory configured to store instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (Ziesche, §Abstract: “Here, high-throughput X-ray computed tomography has enabled the identification of mechanical degradation processes”, where computed tomography would be understood to include a computer which has processors and a memory that stores instrucitons.):
generate a two-dimensional (2D) flat image in which a three-dimensional (3D) image of the battery is spread out (Ziesche, Fig. 1, “Virtual unrolling”, discloses taking a 3D CT image of a battery and unfolding it to generate a spread out 2D flat image of the battery. Furthermore, see Fig. 6, which discloses the unrolled sections of the battery which are the 2D flat images, where the present Application’s Fig. 5 is described in the Specification dated 30 April, 2024 in P[0030]: “FIG. 5 shows an example of a 2D flat image finally generated in a battery diagnosis apparatus”. ); and
diagnose the battery by analyzing a pattern of pixel values on the 2D flat image and distinguishing between intrinsic noise reflected in the 2D flat image and an abnormality of the battery (Ziesche, Fig. 6: “The analysis of the lithium intercalation in the LixMnO2 electrode is divided in four sections, the top, middle, bottom and overall part … Over the electrode length, a sinusoidal intensity profile with increasing period is observed, with maxima at the tab side. This structure is caused by a higher lithium content on that side.”).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to
generate a cross-sectional image of the battery from the 3D image of the battery, to plot a plurality of points according to pixel values of the generated cross-sectional image on the cross-sectional image to generate plot data in which at least some of the points are rounded, and to generate the 2D flat image by linearizing the generated plot data, where this process is described in the present Specification dated 30 April, 2024 in P[0029]: “FIGS. 4A-4G illustrate a set of diagrams of a process for generating a two-dimensional (2D) flat image from a three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) image in a battery diagnosis apparatus”, which is disclosed by Ziesche in Fig. 1, Virtual unrolling, where it shows a plurality of cross sections taken from the 3D image of the battery, where the cross sections have points relating to pixel values to separate layers on them to serve as data points for linearization to perform the unrolling, which generates the 2D image.
Regarding claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to divide the 2D flat image into a plurality of zones, and to distinguish between the intrinsic noise and the abnormality of the battery by identifying regularity of the pattern of the pixel values in the plurality of zones (Ziesche, Fig. 6, “Top, Middle, and Bottom” slices/zones are all unrolled and analyzed for defects, where defects are presented as irregularities in the 2D images, see Fig. 5: “The lithium content or cracking increases much more on the outer electrode side (blue) compared to the inner side and the electrode outer ending, as indicated by the reduced grey values.”).
Regarding claim 4, wherein parts of the 2D flat image for first to Nth zones, which are the plurality of zones, are respectively defined as first to Nth flat images (Ziesche, Fig. 6, shows the unrolled “CR2-00” which shows the top, middle, and bottom zones, which are the N flat images and greater than or equal to two.), and areas where peaks of pixel values of the first to Nth flat images appear are respectively defined as first to Nth peak areas (N is a natural number of 2 or more) (Ziesche, Fig. 5, shows peaks of pixel values where the peaks are greater than or equal to two.), and
wherein the processor is configured to distinguish between the intrinsic noise and the abnormality of the battery by comparing and analyzing the first to Nth peak areas (Ziesche, Fig. 5, shows peaks which are analyzed and labeled “Strong lithiation/cracking of the outer electrode ending”, which are peaks that represent abnormalities of the battery, and intrinsic noise is taken into account and disclosed in §Virtual unrolling of tomography, P[006]: “In Fig. 5 the intensity of the X-ray data is averaged over the electrode height and for a better signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) every nine slices through the electrode thickness were combined, starting from the inner electrode side. The intensities of the electrode along the electrode length are then plotted in Fig. 5b”, where the intrinsic noise is represented by the small, unlabeled peaks of Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 9, wherein the 3D image of the battery comprises a computed tomography (CT) image (Ziesche, Fig. 1 shows the CT images in greyscale.), and the pixel values are greyscale intensities of the CT image (Ziesche, Fig. 5: “The lithium content or cracking increases much more on the outer electrode side (blue) compared to the inner side and the electrode outer ending, as indicated by the reduced grey values.”).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the processor is configured to diagnose deformation of an internal structure of the battery based on the abnormality of the battery (Ziesche, Fig 5, where the peaks show the abnormalities.).
Claims 11, 12, 13, 14, and 20 recite features nearly identical to those recited in claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1, respectively. Claims 11, 12, 13, 14, and 20 are rejected for reasons analogous to those discussed above in conjunction with claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1, respectively.
Claim 19 recites features nearly identical to those recited in claim 10. Claim 19 is rejected for reasons analogous to those discussed above in conjunction with claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 5-8 and 15-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and rewritten to overcome any present §112(b) issues presented by the Examiner.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TY M BEATTY whose telephone number is (703)756-5370. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8AM-4PM 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, Gregory Morse can be reached at (571) 272 - 3838. 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.
/TY MITCHELL BEATTY/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698
Prosecution Insights