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
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 102/103 are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
144
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
358
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
On pages 6 and 7, Applicant argues,
Examiner acknowledges Applicants attempt to advance prosecution by incorporating previously indicated allowable subject matter into independent claims. However, the amended claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
With respect to 112(f), the amendments do not add structure beyond that which was already present. For example, Applicant amended independent claims 1 and 9 to include functions previously recited in the dependent claims. This does not provide a definite structure for performing the recited functions, and the specification still fails to disclose corresponding structure clearly linked to those functions (see MPEP 2181(II)). Applicant merely asserts they provide sufficient structure without explaining where in the specification such structure is disclosed.
Furthermore, while the amendments remedied some of the previously indicated 112(b) rejections, not all were addressed. For example, the term “surrounding” in amended claims 1 and 9 remains indefinite because it has no stated reference point, and “the inspection” as recited in claim 7 and 13 remains indefinite for lack of antecedent basis. Additional 112(b) rejections have been applied in view of the amendments made to the claims. See 112(b) analysis below for additional details.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
lines 3-7 “the comparison analysis unit sets an arbitrary secondary differential reaction value that may distinguish a cleaning solution and remaining solutions from results of secondary differential reaction values for each of the solution, the cleaning solution, and a plurality of mixed solutions as a threshold value before the inspection of the rechargeable battery.” should read “the comparison analysis unit sets an arbitrary secondary differential reaction value that, may distinguish a cleaning solution and remaining solutions from results of secondary differential reaction values for each of the solution, the cleaning solution, and a plurality of mixed solutions, as a threshold value before the inspection of the rechargeable battery.”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 limitations are: “image extractor”, “determination unit”, “transferring unit”, “secondary differentiation performing unit”, “calculator”, and “comparison analysis unit” in claims 1-8.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations 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 limitations recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-2, 4, 7-10, and 13 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 limitations “image extractor”, “determination unit”, “transferring unit”, “secondary differentiation performing unit”, “calculator”, and “comparison analysis unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. For example, the “image extractor is described only as being “electrically connected to the controller” (par. 0051), but no specific structure is disclosed for performing the extraction functions. The “determination unit” is described as including a memory (par. 0066), but no specific structure is disclosed for performing all the recited functions, including those of its sub-units (“secondary differentiation performing unit”, “calculator”, and “comparison analysis unit”). The additional claim limitation “transferring unit” is described only by name (par. 0036) without disclosing structure for performing the recited functions of moving the battery. Therefore, claims 1-8 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, for the following reasons:
Claim 1, lines 15-16 recites “a band ratio of surrounding wavelengths in which a reaction is indistinguishable” and lines 28-29 recites “the surrounding wavelength band in which the reaction is indistinguishable”, which is indefinite. The term “surrounding” is a relative term whose reference point is not defined by the claim. It is unclear what the “surrounding wavelengths” are meant to surround (e.g., the characteristic wavelength, or another reference point). Further, the plural recitation of “surrounding wavelengths” at lines 15-16 does not provide antecedent basis for the singular recitation of “the surrounding wavelength band” at lines 28-29. It is unclear whether the “surrounding wavelength band” is a single band including the previously recited “surrounding wavelengths,” or whether it is a distinct element. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the scope of the claim invention. For examination purposes, the claim limitations will be interpreted to mean any band ratio of wavelengths surrounding (i.e., adjacent to or on either side of) the characteristic wavelength, and the surrounding wavelength band is a band that includes those surrounding wavelengths.
Claims 9 and 10 contain the relative term “surrounding” similar to that of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 1, lines 27-28 recites “the characteristic wavelength band in which the reaction of the measured liquid is distinguished”, which lacks antecedent basis. The claim previously recites “a characteristic wavelength” in lines 9-10 and “the characteristic wavelength” in lines 14-15 but does not recite “a characteristic wavelength band.” It is unclear whether “the characteristic wavelength band” is meant to refer to the previously recited “characteristic wavelength,” or whether it introduces a new claim element. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the scope of the claim invention. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as referring to the previous recited “characteristic wavelength.”
Claim 10 similarly recites “the characteristic wavelength”, while claim 9, of which claim 10 depends on, recites “the characteristic wavelength band”. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 7, line 7 recites “the inspection”, which lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if the limitation is meant to refer to the determination of the presence or absence of a leakage electrolyte solution, or a new inspection. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the scope of the claim and it is indefinite. For examination purposes, “the claim limitation will be interpreted to mean the overall detection process.
Claim 13 contains limitations found analogous to that of claim 7. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 9, line 13 recites “the spectrum curved line of the band ratio image” which lacks antecedent basis. The claim previously recites “secondary differentiation of a spectrum curve of the extracted image” in lines 8-19. It is unclear whether limitation is meant to refer to the spectrum curve of the extracted image, or a different spectrum curve associated with a band ratio image not previously introduced in the claim. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the scope of the claim invention. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted to mean the spectrum curved line of the extracted image which is a band ratio image.
Claims 2, 4, and 8 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b). These claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the above rejections.
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 CONNOR LEVI HANSEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 (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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/CONNOR L HANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
