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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 16 recites a computer program which does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because “computer program” makes it clear that the method steps as claimed can be performed only by software. Software does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. It is understood that software and programs can be implemented by a computer, however, are still non-statutory themselves without being embodied or tied to a non-transitory device (The claimed “computer-readable storage medium” is not claimed as being non-transitory.).
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 1-16 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.
Independent claims 1, 9 and 16 each similarly recite the limitation “plotting…to generate plot data in which at least some of the points are rounded.” It is unclear whether “rounded” is referring to the shape of the points or whether it is referring to the mathematical concept of adjusting the digits of the data [i.e. rounded to a specific decimal place]. The specification does not help resolve the ambiguity as paragraphs [0009], [0017], [0024], [0076] and [00118] merely repeat the claim language, and paragraph [0081] recites “generate the 2D flat image by linearizing the round type of plot data in the form of a straight line” which does not resolve the ambiguity. Thus, it is unclear what the applicant is intending to claim with this limitation since the specification does not describe the meaning of the ambiguous term. Therefore, the claims are indefinite.
Claims 2-8 and 10-15 are rejected due to their dependency from claims 1 and 9, respectively.
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 1-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-16 of copending Application No. 18/651,105 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are merely broader variations of the copending claims.
Below is a comparison of present claim 1 versus copending claim 2:
Present claim 1
Copending claim 2
An apparatus for diagnosing a battery, the apparatus comprising:
An apparatus for diagnosing a battery, the apparatus comprising:
a processor; and
a processor; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed on the processor, cause the processor to perform:
a memory configured to store instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
generating a plurality of cross-sectional images of the battery from a three-dimensional (3D) image of the battery;
wherein the processor is configured to generate a cross-sectional image of the battery from the 3D image of the battery,
plotting a plurality of points according to pixel values of a cross-sectional image of the plurality of cross-sectional images on the cross-sectional image to generate plot data in which at least some of the points are rounded;
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.
generating a two-dimensional (2D) flat image, in which the 3D image of the battery is spread out, by linearizing the generated plot data; and
generate a two-dimensional (2D) flat image in which a three-dimensional (3D) image of the battery is spread out;
divide the 2D flat image into a plurality of zones; and
diagnosing the battery based on the generated 2D flat image.
diagnoses the battery based on changes in pixel values between the plurality of zones.
As shown above, besides wording, the main difference between present claim 1 and copending claim 2 is that copending claim 2 recites “divide the 2D flat image into a plurality of zones” and “diagnoses the battery based on changes in pixel values between the plurality of zones” which is just more specific than present claim 1’s general recitation of “diagnosing the battery based on the generated 2D flat image.” Thus, present claim 1 is merely a broader version of copending claim 2. Therefore, present claim 1 is anticipated by copending claim 2.
Claims 2-16 are similarly rejected over claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 18/651,105 (reference application).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/651,385 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are merely broader variations of the copending claims.
Below is a comparison of present claim 1 versus copending claim 2:
Present claim 1
Copending claim 2
An apparatus for diagnosing a battery, the apparatus comprising:
An apparatus for diagnosing a battery, the apparatus comprising:
a processor; and
a processor; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed on the processor, cause the processor to perform:
a memory configured to store instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
generating a plurality of cross-sectional images of the battery from a three-dimensional (3D) image of the battery;
wherein the processor is configured to generate a cross-sectional image of the battery from the 3D image of the battery,
plotting a plurality of points according to pixel values of a cross-sectional image of the plurality of cross-sectional images on the cross-sectional image to generate plot data in which at least some of the points are rounded;
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.
generating a two-dimensional (2D) flat image, in which the 3D image of the battery is spread out, by linearizing the generated plot data;
generate a two-dimensional (2D) flat image in which a three-dimensional (3D) image of the battery is spread out;
diagnosing the battery based on the generated 2D flat image.
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.
As shown above, besides wording, the main difference between present claim 1 and copending claim 2 is that copending claim 2 recites “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” which is just more specific than present claim 1’s general recitation of “diagnosing the battery based on the generated 2D flat image.” Thus, present claim 1 is merely a broader version of copending claim 2. Therefore, present claim 1 is anticipated by copending claim 2.
Claims 2-16 are similarly rejected over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/651,385 (reference application).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Adams (DE 19604802 C2) discloses an imaging system and method for generating a cross-sectional image of an object, wherein a plurality of cross-sectional images are taken from a 3D object (See Figure 5 and Figures 6a-6d) and combined together to form a slice image (See Figure 7).
Schreckenberg et al. (US 2008/0132788 A1) disclose of transforming a three-dimensional representation of an object (Figure 5) to a two-dimensional representation by spreading out the three-dimensional representation (Figure 6 and paragraph [0041].).
Tran Vu et al. (US 2023/0237634) disclose an apparatus and method for diagnosing a battery comprising using image(s) of the battery (Figure 5 and paragraph [0070].).
Lee et al. (US 2024/0354932) disclose an apparatus and method for diagnosing a battery comprising using image(s) of the battery and an artificial intelligence model (Figures 17-22, for example.).
Hong et al. (US 2024/0351061) disclose an apparatus and method for diagnosing and repairing a battery comprising using image(s) of the battery (Figures 6-7).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN G SHERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm ET.
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, AMR AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/STEPHEN G SHERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
20 February 2026