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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Examiner’s Note: The examiner has cited particular passages including column and line numbers, paragraphs as designated numerically and/or figures as designated numerically in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages, paragraphs and figures of any and all cited prior art references may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing an eventual response, to fully consider the context of the passages, paragraphs and figures as taught by the prior art and/or cited by the examiner while including in such consideration the cited prior art references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. MPEP 2141.02 VI: “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS."
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/31/2024, 07/09/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
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 limitation(s) is/are: “an electrode plate transfer unit”, “a wrinkle measurement unit” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) 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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recite(s) an apparatus for measuring wrinkles in an uncoated portion of an electrode plate, which is a mechanical and/or electrical device. Thus, the claim is to manufacture or a machine, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong one: The claim recites “to acquire wrinkle measurement data of the dried electrode plate through the wrinkle measurement unit; to perform preprocessing to remove a coated portion, which is a coated region, from the acquired wrinkle measurement data based on the preset preprocessing algorithm; and to derive a grade of the preprocessed wrinkle measurement data based on the preset wrinkle level determination algorithm.” These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, “acquire wrinkle measurement data”, “perform preprocessing’, “derive a grade of the preprocessed wrinkle” in context of this claim encompasses collecting data, manipulating the data by selecting data from an uncoated region according to rule, and evaluating the data according to a rule to generate a classification output (i.e., a grade).
Accordingly, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, the claim is directed to a judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites the additional element of a memory configured to store a preset preprocessing algorithm, preset wrinkle determinations algorithm. This additional element merely storing rules necessary for use of recited judicial exception (select and evaluate wrinkle measurement data). The processor is also an additional element which is configured to carry out the steps to acquire, perform, and derive, it is merely a tool that is used to collecting data, manipulate the data, and evaluating the data according to a rule. The processor is recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. A wrinkle measurement unit is an additional element to measure wrinkles in the dried electrode plate in a width direction during transfer of the dried electrode plate. It represents mere data gathering (obtaining the wrinkle data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, as the obtained information is used in the abstract mental process of manipulating and evaluating the data. The wrinkle measurement unit is recited at a high level of generality and therefore insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The electrode plate transfer unit configured to transfer a dried electrode plate in a longitudinal direction is an additional element. However, it is recited at a high level of generality merely performing their ordinary functions of transporting an object.
The claim does not recite any particular improvement to sensor technology, image processing techniques, data acquisition methods, or control of the electrode plate transfer process. Instead, it applied generic data processing steps to measure data obtained from a physical object, evaluation, and provide grading. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception. The electrode plate transfer unit, wrinkle measurement unit, memory, and processor are cited generically and perform conventional functions of transporting a workpiece, collecting measurement data, storing instructions, and executing those instructions. The use of “preset preprocessing algorithms” and “preset wrinkle level determination algorithms” merely reflects implementation of abstract data processing logic using generic computer components. The claim does not recite any unconventional hardware arrangements, specialized signal processing techniques, or technical improvement in wrinkle detection or electrode plate handling. The ordered combination of elements merely implements the abstract idea using routing and conventional components. Accordingly, the claim does not include an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claims 2-10, they depend on claim 1 and recite the same abstract idea.
Claim 2 adds wrinkle height value data and image data converted form height value. The additional element is still directed to abstract ideas (data manipulation and representation conversion).
Claim 3 adds first sensor and second sensor merely directed to gather data using conventional multi-view.
Claim 4 adds specific sensor type. Selecting a known sensor type is generally conventional implementation choice does not change algorithmic nature of claim.
Claim 5 adds tilt correction using wrinkle data, preprocessing adjustment before coating removal. It is merely directed to mathematical correction of measurement data which covers performance of the limitation in the mind.
Claim 6 adds linear regression model, deriving minimum points, constructing correction equation. It is merely directed to mathematical operation of data which covers performance of the limitation in the mind.
Claim 7 adds averaging, threshold/boundary derivation. It is merely directed to mathematical operation of data which covers performance of the limitation in the mind.
Claim 8 adds converting length to number of points, indexing start/end boundary position. It is merely directed to data manipulation which covers performance of the limitation in the mind.
Claim 9 adds absolute value calculation and ratio based grading. It is merely directed to mathematical formula for classification which covers performance of the limitation in the mind.
Claim 10 adds aggregation rule: worst-case grade selection. It is merely directed to grade wrinkle level based on rules which covers performance of the limitation in the mind.
In summary, claims 2-10 remain directed to data acquisition, mathematical processing, and classification of wrinkle measurement data. The claims do not include an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, the claims are not eligible.
Regarding claims 11-20, they are substantially similar to claims 1-10 that merely directed to the method to implement the system of claims 1-10, and do not correct the issues set forth above. The claims are likewise not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hyun Ki Woong KR 102548125 (“Woong”).
Regarding claim 1, Woong discloses an apparatus [Fig. 1, 2 and 4] for measuring wrinkles in an uncoated portion [S30] of an electrode plate [S], the apparatus comprising:
FIGS. 1 to 3 to detect wrinkles formed on an electrode sheet for a secondary battery as an example. 5 shows an electrode sheet supported by the support roller 110 and transported. Referring to FIG. 5, an electrode sheet S, which is a sheet to be detected, includes an electrode current collector S10 and a plurality of coating layers S20 formed by coating an active material on the electrode current collector S10. The plurality of coating layers S20 are formed to be sequentially spaced apart along the width direction on the roller non-contact surface of the electrode current collector S10. Accordingly, a plurality of uncoated portions S30 on which the coating layer S20 is not formed are spaced apart from each other in the width direction on the roller ground contact surface of the electrode current collector S10. Wrinkles (W) are easily formed in the uncoated portion (S30).
an electrode plate transfer unit configured to transfer a dried electrode plate in a longitudinal direction [See fig. 2 and 4];
a wrinkle measurement unit [130 + 140] configured to measure wrinkles in the dried electrode plate in a width direction during transfer of the dried electrode plate in the longitudinal direction [See fig. 2 and 6];
In the template matching step (S110), a template image is detected from an input image obtained from the vision camera 130. In the template matching step (S110), the ROI determination unit (142 in FIG. 3) of the wrinkle detection module (140 in FIG. 2) matches the input image obtained from the vision camera 130 with the registered template image to set the detection area. is carried out 6 is a photograph showing an example in which the template image is detected by performing the template matching step (S110). In FIG. 6, the entire image is an input image obtained from the vision camera 130 and is a template image in which the inside of the red line is detected. After the template matching step (S110) is performed and the template image is detected, the image segmentation and binarization step (S120) is performed.
a memory configured to store a preset preprocessing algorithm and a preset wrinkle level determination algorithm based on pre-coating measurement data of the dried electrode plate [See fig. 4]; and
at least one processor connected to the memory, the at least one processor being configured to execute computer-readable instructions included in the memory, wherein the at least one processor is set:
to acquire wrinkle measurement data of the dried electrode plate through the wrinkle measurement unit;
to perform preprocessing to remove a coated portion, which is a coated region, from the acquired wrinkle measurement data based on the preset preprocessing algorithm [SEE fig. 6-12]; and
In the image segmentation and binarization step (S120), the object in the region to be detected for wrinkles is separated from the template image detected through the template matching step (S110), and the image of the separated region is binarized to form a binary image is converted to The image segmentation and binarization step (S120) is performed by the ROI determining unit (142 in FIG. 3 ) of the wrinkle detection module ( 140 in FIG. 2 ). FIG. 7 is a photograph showing an example in which an image segmentation and binarization step (S120) is performed on the template image of FIG. 6. In FIG. 7, the inside of the red line is a region separated from the template image, and the picture below is a binary image of the separated region created correspondingly. After the image segmentation and binarization step (S120) is performed to generate the binary image of the separated area, the edge detection step (S130) is performed. [page 4]
In the edge detection step S130, an edge pixel is extracted from the binary image of the separated area generated through the image segmentation and binarization step S120. The edge detection step (S130) may be performed by the ROI determination unit (142 in FIG. 3) of the wrinkle detection module (140 in FIG. 2) using a hysteresis thresholding technique, which is an image processing algorithm. FIG. 8 is a photograph showing an example in which an edge pixel is extracted by performing the edge detection step (S130) in the binary image of the separation area shown in FIG. 7. The lower two pictures of FIG. 8 are edge detection images generated through the edge detection step (S130), and the white lines of the edge detection images represent the extracted edges. After edge pixels are extracted through the edge detection step (S130), a vertical component straight line detection step (S140) is performed. [pages 4-5]
In the analysis step (S170), the ROI binarized image generated by the ROI image binarization step (S160) is analyzed. The ROI image binarization step (S160) is performed by the analysis unit (145 in FIG. 3) of the wrinkle detection module (140 in FIG. 2). In the analysis step S170, the white pixel count and shape of the ROI binarized image are analyzed. 14 shows an example in which an ROI binary image is analyzed through an analysis step (S170). After analyzing the ROI binarized image through the analysis step (S170), a digitization step (S180) is performed. [pages 5-6]
to derive a grade of the preprocessed wrinkle measurement data based on the preset wrinkle level determination algorithm.
In the digitization step (S180), wrinkles are digitized based on information (number and size of wrinkles, etc.) on the ROI binarized image analyzed through the analysis step (S170). The digitization step (S180) is performed by the digitization unit (148 in FIG. 3) of the wrinkle detection module (140 in FIG. 2). In this embodiment, wrinkles are classified into 10 levels as shown in FIG. 15 using the digitization result value obtained through the digitization step (S180). [page 6]
In summary, Woong discloses that the processor is configured to acquire wrinkle measurement data of the dried electrode plate though the wrinkle measurement unit, as evidence by vison camera 130 acquiring an input image of the transported electrode sheet and transmitting the input image to wrinkle detection module 140. The processor is configured to perform preprocessing to remove a coated portion, which is a coated region, from the acquired winkle measurement data based on the preset preprocessing algorithm, as evidenced by the ROI determination unit detecting a template image, generating a separated image including the uncoated region, performing image segmentation and binarization extracting edge pixels, generating vertical component straight lines, determining an ROI corresponding to the uncoated portion, and generating the final ROI image for subsequent wrinkle analysis. Because the generated separated image and ROI isolate the uncoated portion for wrinkle analysis while excluding the coated portions, the preprocessing removes the coated region from the wrinkle measurement data before wrinkle analysis. Woong further discloses that the processor is configured to derive a grade of the preprocessed wrinkle measurement data based on the preset wrinkle level determination algorithm, as evidenced by the analysis unit analyzing the ROI image to obtain wrinkle information including white pixel count and wrinkle shape, followed by digitization unit 148 digitizing the wrinkle level and classifying the wrinkles into ten predetermined levels using the digitization result value.
[Note: READ further page 8-9]
Regarding claim 11, it is directed to the method of steps to implement the system as set forth in claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 4-5, 9, 12, 14-15, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Methodology for the characterization and understanding of longitudinal wrinkling during calendaring of lithium-ion and sodium-ion battery electrodes,” Ann-Kathrin Wurba, 2023 (“Wurba”).
Regarding claim 2, Woong teaches wherein the wrinkle measurement data comprises position-specific number and size of wrinkles (number and size of wrinkles, etc. on the ROI binarized image) of the dried electrode plate and image data converted based on position-specific wrinkle based on position-specific shape of the dried electrode plate [see page 5-6; step S130].
Wurba teaches another apparatus for measuring wrinkles in an uncoated portion of an electro plate. Specifically, Wurba teaches the wrinkle measurement data comprises position-specific wrinkle height value data of the dried electrode plate and image data converted based on position-specific wrinkle height values of the dried electrode plate [See fig. 5-8].
Therefore, this paper presents a first material and machine independent methodology to describe and understand the defect type longitudinal wrinkle, which mostly appears at the uncoated current collector edge of an electrode and in running direction. The aim is to systematically characterize the longitudinal wrinkles according to their geometry. The automatic data acquisition is carried out with a laser triangulation system and a 3D scanning system. The geometry values are calculated from the raw data and correlated to selected process parameters. [page 314]
The data acquisition was exclusively done with the laser system. Fig. 3 shows a schematic profile of a longitudinal wrinkle with the points needed to calculate its geometry values height (ℎ), width (𝑤𝑤) and distance (𝑑𝑑) to the coating edge. [page 316]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Woong with the wrinkle measurement data comprises position-specific wrinkle height value data of the dried electrode plate of Wurba. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a quantitative three-dimensional characterization of wrinkles, rather than merely detecting their presence. Thus, improve accurate wrinkle quantification, subtle defects, objective grading of wrinkle severity.
Regarding claim 4, Wurba teaches the wrinkle measurement unit comprises a two-dimensional and/or three-dimensional laser displacement sensor. [page 315 - Data is
collected experimentally during calendaring using a laser triangulation sensor and a 3D scanning system].
Regarding claim 5, Wurba teaches the at least one processor is set: to correct a tilt of the dried electrode plate based on the acquired wrinkle measurement data in order to perform the preprocessing; and to remove the coated portion based on the tilt-corrected wrinkle measurement data. [page 317 - The filter for the laser data utilizes, that the slopes of the peaks are higher compared to slopes from the longitudinal wrinkle or the coating edge. Noise in the profiles caused by the uneven electrode is smoothed using the Matlab moving average filter. From the second derivatives of all smoothed profiles the maximum difference of the value range is extracted and plotted in a histogram. The user selects the threshold that separates natural from unnatural high slopes that indicate a reflection error. Further processing is done with the unsmoothed profiles that are free from errors.]
Regarding claim 9, Woong teaches the preset wrinkle level determination algorithm is set to determine the grade of the preprocessed wrinkle measurement data based on a preset shape data and Wurba teaches the wrinkle measurement included height data absolute value [page 317 - This 3D mesh of the wrapped electrode surface from the 3D scanning is compared to a CAD model of an ideally even wrapped electrode and the height differences are calculated automatically in GOM Inspect. Approximately 15 to 20 profiles with valid data transverse to the running direction are selected by the user and the height differences are also exported to a CSV file].
Therefore, it is obvious to one ordinary skill in the art that Woong in view of Wurba teaches the preset wrinkle level determination algorithm is set to determine the grade of the preprocessed wrinkle measurement data based on a preset height data absolute value and ratio.
Regarding claims 12, 14-15, 19, See discussion in claims 2, 4-5, 9
Claim(s) 3, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woong as applied to claim 1 or 11 above, and further in view of Gao Jinhuo et al. EP 4332555 (“Gao”).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Woong teaches wherein the wrinkle measurement unit comprises: a first wrinkle measurement unit [130] located above an A side of the dried electrode plate to measure wrinkles in the A side, the first wrinkle measurement unit being configured to continuously acquire position-specific wrinkle measurement data within a reference length of the A side in the longitudinal direction. Woong does not teach a second wrinkle measurement unit located above a B side of the dried electrode plate to measure wrinkles in the B side, the second wrinkle measurement unit being configured to continuously acquire position-specific wrinkle measurement data within a reference length of the B side in the longitudinal direction.
Gao teaches another apparatus [Fig. 8] for measuring wrinkles in a portion of an electrode plate. Specifically, Gao teaches the wrinkle measurement unit comprises: a first wrinkle measurement unit located above an A side of the dried electrode plate to measure wrinkles in the A side, the first wrinkle measurement unit being configured to continuously acquire position-specific wrinkle measurement data within a reference length of the A side in the longitudinal direction; and a second wrinkle measurement unit located above a B side of the dried electrode plate to measure wrinkles in the B side, the second wrinkle measurement unit being configured to continuously acquire position-specific wrinkle measurement data within a reference length of the B side in the longitudinal direction.
In this embodiment, one electrode plate wrinkling detection apparatus is provided on each of the left and right sides of the winding machine 7, where the shooting direction of the CCD camera in one of the electrode plate wrinkling detection apparatuses is oriented towards the winding mandrel 73, and the shooting direction of the CCD camera in the other electrode plate wrinkling detection apparatus is oriented towards the electrode plate that is tangent to the winding mandrel 73.
The left and right sides of the winding machine 7 are each provided with an electrode plate wrinkling detection apparatus, and thus pictures of the cell 8 are obtained on both the left and right sides of the winding mandrel 73 of the winding machine 7. Through experiments, a correspondence between the grayscale values and the wrinkling of the electrode plate is determined, and respective grayscale value thresholds are ultimately established for the two.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Woong with a second wrinkle measurement unit located above a B side of the dried electrode plate to measure wrinkles in the B side, the second wrinkle measurement unit being configured to continuously acquire position-specific wrinkle measurement data within a reference length of the B side in the longitudinal direction of Gao. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve measurement completeness and reliability of wrinkle detection across both surfaces of the electrode sheet.
Claim(s) 10, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woong as applied to claim 1 or 11 above.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Woong does not expressly teach the at least one processor is set to determine, if another grade is determined within a set length of the dried electrode plate in the longitudinal direction, the other grade to be a lowest grade. Woong teaches acquiring wrinkle-related image data from a region of interest, performing binarization and analysis to extract quantitative wrinkle features such as number and size of wrinkles, and then digitizing those extracted feature values into a discrete multi-level classification (e.g., a 10 level wrinkle grade). This type of workflow – feature extraction from inspection images followed by conversion of continuous or simi-continuous defect metrics into discrete severity levels – is a well-known and conventional technique in automated industrial inspection and statistical quality control systems. The use of predefined grading scales to represent defect severity is a routine design choice that provides a standardized output for downstream evaluation and does not, by itself, impart technical novelty.
In view of Woong’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to implement alternative or additional grading aggregations rules, including assigning an overall grade for a longitudinal segment based on the most severe (i.e., lowest-quality) detected grade within that segment, because such worst-case selection logic is a predictable variation commonly used in defect inspection systems to ensure that localized defects are not obscured by averaging or non-conservative aggregation methods. Accordingly, the claimed modification merely applies a known defect classification framework in predictable manner and would have been obvious over Woong in view of the general knowledge in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office Action and to include all the limitation of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 6-8, 16-18 are considered allowable since, when reading the claims in light of the specification, none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of subject matter specified in the dependent claim(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP 2017129427 to MIYAMOTO KEIICHI teaches a defect inspection apparatus 1 according to the present embodiment includes a plurality of rollers 2 that convey a sheet material A that is an inspection object, and one selected from the plurality of rollers 2. A dark side reference brightness detecting member 3 attached near one end of the book roller 2, a light side reference brightness detecting member 4 attached near the other end of the roller 2, a sheet material A conveyed by the roller 2, dark The side reference lightness detection member 3 and the light side reference lightness detection member 4 are output from the illumination device 5, the line sensor camera 6 that images the illumination portion of the illumination device 5 for each scan, and the line sensor camera 6. The image processing is mainly composed of a defect detection processing unit 7 that performs image processing on image data to detect the presence or absence of defects on the surface of the sheet material A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT HUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7210. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00.
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, Kamini S Shah can be reached at 571-272-2279. 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.
VINCENT H TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2115
/VINCENT H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights