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 with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot due to new ground of rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, the disclosure does not provide adequate disclosure to perform the claimed functions of subtract the second spatially resolved map from the first spatially resolved map to produce a resulting spatially resolved map.
Pars. [0056-0057] only disclose Turning now to FIG. 5A, a spatially resolved map of a magnetic field associated with a defect-free electrode is depicted. The map demonstrates the magnetic field profile under conditions where the electrode is free of any imperfections. The magnetic field is substantially uniformly distributed, providing a baseline against which anomalies can be compared. In this representation, the uniformity of the field indicates the proper flow of current without interruption or irregularities, thus confirming the electrode's defect-free status.
[0057] FIG. 5B depicts a spatially resolved map of a magnetic field associated with a defective electrode, which in this case was a 1 mm hole in the electrode. Unlike the defect-free electrode depicted in FIG. 5A, the defective electrode shows significant deviations in the magnetic field profile. The map reveals localized inconsistencies in the magnetic field, indicative of disruptions in current flow indicative of defect in the electrode. In particular the appearance of isolated and incongruous closed contours in the central region of the figure are characteristic of an anomalous dipole, which is indicative of a defect in the electrode.
And par. [0067] only disclose In the final step 645, the resulting map is then used to determine whether defects are present in the battery 170. In an embodiment this step involves identification of features in the map of the magnetic field associated with the battery current that are indicative of defects. In an embodiment the control system 450 is programmed to identify anomalous dipoles in this map as compared to a reference map of a defect-free battery 170, such as the anomalous dipoles indicated by the closed contours in the central region of FIG. 5B, which are absent from FIG. 5A.
Applicant’s disclosure does not reasonably demonstrate proper written description for the above claim feature, because applicant’s disclosure does not reasonably explain the manner in which subtract the second spatially resolved map from the first spatially resolved map to produce a resulting spatially resolved map is implemented. The original disclosure is silent as to the manner in which subtract the second spatially resolved map from the first spatially resolved map to produce a resulting spatially resolved map is implemented. The original disclosure fails to provide any reasonable explanation that demonstrate the manner in which applicant implements this feature such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that applicant had possession of this claim feature. As such, this phrase lacks proper written description.
Claims 2-11 and 13-16 are rejected for containing 112 rejections above and for depending on rejected base claim.
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 12-18 and 20 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.
Regarding claim 12, the metes and bounds of subtracting the second spatially resolved map from the first spatially resolved map; and identifying defects in the battery based on characteristics of the spatially resolved map is unclear. It is unclear as to which map the defects are identified and based on.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the surface " in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 17, the metes and bounds of actuating the actuator to change the position of the surface relative to the defect after measuring the fluorescence intensity is unclear. It is unclear as to what surface is being claimed.
Claims 12-16, 18 and 20 are rejected for containing 112 rejections above and for depending on rejected base claim.
Examiner’s Note.
Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 USC 112(a) as outlined above. Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 USC 112(a) as outlined above. No prior art rejection has been applied to these claims because the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fails to teach the following features recited in these claims:
Regarding claim 1, subtract the second spatially resolved map from the first spatially resolved map to produce a resulting spatially resolved map, and identify, based on characteristics of the resulting spatially resolved map, defects in the battery as claimed in combination with all other limitations.
Regarding claim 12, subtracting the second spatially resolved map from the first spatially resolved map; and identifying defects in the battery based on characteristics of the spatially resolved map.
Claims 17-18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as outlined above. No prior art rejection has been applied to these claims because the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fails to teach the following features recited in these claims:
Regarding claim 17, actuating the actuator to change the position of the surface relative to the defect after measuring the fluorescence intensity; and measuring a second fluorescence intensity of the defect after actuating the actuator as claimed in combination with all other limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-3441. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 5:30-1:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JERMELE M HOLLINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights