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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9 of the response, filed 19 May 2026, with respect to the amendments in view of the 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the Double Patenting rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8 of the response the applicant states that since the final scope of the claims in the present application and cited applications has not been determined that the nonstatutory double patenting rejection be withdrawn
The present applicant and both of the copending application have the same filing date of 30 April 2024. MPEP 804 I.B.1.b.ii states:
(ii) Application under examination has the same patent term filing date
If both the application under examination and the reference application have the same patent term filing date, the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection made in each application should be maintained until it is overcome. Provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections are subject to the requirements of 37 CFR 1.111(b). Thus, applicant can overcome a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection by filing a reply that either shows that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the claims of the reference application, or includes a compliant terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321 that obviates the rejection.
Therefore, since the applicant has not shown that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the claims of the reference applications and also has not filed a terminal disclaimer, the rejections are maintained.
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 1-15 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 along a rounded curve;
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 2-15 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 1-15 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 along a rounded curve;
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 2-15 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the Double Patenting rejection(s) set forth in this Office action, or by filing Terminal Disclaimer(s).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In the closest prior art:
Ziesche et al. (“4D imaging of lithium-batteries”) disclose of a virtual unrolling technique in which a 2D flat image is generated in which a 3D image of the battery is spread out. However, Ziesche et al. fail to teach of “plotting a plurality of points…on the cross-sectional image to generate plot data in which at least some of the points are along a rounded curve” and thus also fails to teach that the generating of the 2D flat image is by spreading out the battery “by linearizing the generated plot data” as claimed.
Kim et al. (US 2026/0011796) disclose generally of plotting points on a cross-sectional image of a battery (Figure 4A), however, fails to teach about a 2D flat image being generated in which a 3D image of the battery is spread out, and thus further fails to teach or suggest of “generating a two-dimensional (2D) flat image, in which the 3D image of the battery is spread out, by linearizing the generated plot data” as claimed.
Wegner et al. (US 2024/0097215) disclose generally of diagnosing a battery.
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).
Thus, even in a combination, the closest prior art fails to at least specifically teach “generating a two-dimensional (2D) flat image, in which the 3D image of the battery is spread out, by linearizing the generated plot data” as claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
4 June 2026
Prosecution Insights