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.
Response to Arguments
This final office action is in response to the amendment filed August 21, 2026. Claims 1-5 and 9-13 are pending in this application and have been considered below. Claims 6-8 are canceled by the applicant.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 and 9-13 have been considered but are unpersuasive in view of new ground(s) of rejection because of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Pemtron is unpersuasive because it addresses Pemtron’s second embodiment, whereas the rejection now relied on Pemtron’s first embodiment, where the battery seating unit 110 I the conveyor belt and the x0ray imagin g unit 130 images the cell on that belt (¶¶ 33, 37). Applicant’s arguments regarding Heo are unpersuasive because the rejection relies on Cai for the stacking mechanism located between the two conveying mechanisms, on Pemtron for imaging on the first conveying mechanism, and on Heo for the CT of the stacked group on the main stage 210, which the applicant describes as a ”conveyor belt” (Remarks filed 8/21/2026, p. 4).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 9, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (KR 20220086871 A, hereinafter “Pemtron”) in view of Heo et al. (US 2020/0363344 A1, hereinafter “Heo”) further in view of Cai et al. (CN 109148930 A, hereinafter “Cai”).
Claims 1 and 9.
Pemtron in view of Heo and Cai teaches an inspection device, comprising:
a first conveying mechanism configured to convey a battery cell (PEMTRON: “seating unit 110 may be a conveyor belt that transports the secondary batteries 10 before and after the inspection.” (¶ 33, Fig. 5).);
a radiographic imaging inspection mechanism configured to inspect the battery cell located on the first conveying mechanism (PEMTRON: the X-ray imaging unit 130 images at reference position P on the belt (¶ 33, ¶¶ 37-38, Fig. 5).);
(The limitation of stacking mechanism is taught by Heo and the Cai shows the mechanism located between two belts, as shown below.)
(Heo ¶¶ 59, 89-90: mounting stage 200, main stage 210 with sub-stages 220 moves the loaded casing to the inspection unit);
(Heo ¶¶ 67 and 70: CT of the N stacked cells by inspection unit 300).
Pemtron discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching “a stacking mechanism located between the first conveying mechanism and a second conveying mechanism, wherein the stacking mechanism is configured to stack and transfer battery cells located on the first conveying mechanism into a battery cell group located on the second conveying mechanism; the second conveying mechanism configured to convey the battery cell group; a tomographic imaging inspection mechanism configured to inspect the battery cell group located on the second conveying mechanism.” However, Heo and Cai in the same field of endeavor teaches a stacking mechanism located between the first conveying mechanism and a second conveying mechanism, wherein the stacking mechanism is configured to stack and transfer battery cells located on the first conveying mechanism into a battery cell group located on the second conveying mechanism; (Heo ¶60, Fig. 2: Cells from the input belt IC are stacked in a casing 230 on the mounting stage. Cai p. 3: “may be connected by a robot, a draw tape, or both;” p. 4: “The cache detecting device 02 is connected in front of the stacking device 03 and behind the transport docking device 01 … the loading robot 021 and The discharge robots 026 are respectively disposed at the front end and the rear end of the buffer draw tape 022 … the cells that are normally tested are sent to the stacking device 03 via the discharging robot 026.” p. 4, paragraph starting with “Referring to FIG. 4, the stacking device 03 includes …” Thus, the robots 026 and 031 sit at the junction of the caching line 022 and stacking line 032, and stacking robot 033 stacks the cells (Fig. 4).); the second conveying mechanism configured to convey the battery cell group (Heo ¶¶ 59, 89-90: mounting stage 200, main stage 210 with sub-stages 220 moves the loaded casing to the inspection unit); a tomographic imaging inspection mechanism configured to inspect the battery cell group located on the second conveying mechanism (Heo ¶¶ 67 and 70: CT of the N stacked cells by inspection unit 300).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the per-cell x-ray inspection of Pemtron with the stacking manipulators of Cai and the group CT inspection of Heo. Pemtron inspects each cell by x-ray on conveyor belt 110 but notes that rotating a large cell 360 degrees for CT causes “problems in structure complexity and high manufacturing cost” (¶10). Heo teaches that full CT of one battery “takes at least about two minutes” (¶14), so per-cell CT cannot keep up with the line, and Heo instead performs “the CT inspection while rotating the N stacked battery cells about the rotation axis” (¶70), sharing CT time across a stacked group. Cai shows that “the cells that are normally tested are sent to the stacking device 03 via the discharging robot 026” (p. 4), and Cai links its stations to avoid low production efficiency with separate equipment. Fast per-cell x-ray screening on the belt removes defective cell before stackgin, keeps them out to the slower group CT stage, and spreads CT cost over the stacked group, with each element performing its known function for a predictable result and a reasonable expectation of success. KSR Int’l Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007); MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 2.
Pemtron in view of Heo and Cai teaches the inspection device of claim 1, wherein the radiographic imaging inspection mechanism comprises a first transmitting device and a first receiving device disposed opposite to the first transmitting device (PEMTRON: “the detectors 132a and 132b are disposed to face the X-ray tubes 131a and 131b with the secondary battery 10 interposed therebetween.” (¶ 41, FIG. 6).).
Claim 3.
Pemtron in view of Heo and Cai teaches the inspection device of claim 2, wherein the inspection device comprises a plurality of first transmitting devices arranged in an extension direction of the first conveying mechanism (PEMTRON: “The first X-ray imaging unit 130a and the second X-ray imaging unit 130b are arranged in two rows with respect to the secondary battery 10” (¶ 45, Fig. 7) and "a plurality of X-ray imaging units are arranged at a quadrangle with respect to the secondary battery, and each X-ray imaging unit irradiates X-rays obliquely toward the four corners provided in the secondary battery" (¶ 20). Pemtron's plurality of X-ray tubes arranged in two rows along the conveyance/elevation axis reads on a plurality of first transmitting devices arranged in an extension direction.).
Claim 12.
Pemtron in view of Heo and Cai teaches the inspection method of claim 9, further comprising: after inspecting the battery cell group by a tomographic imaging inspection mechanism, determining whether the battery cell is a qualified battery cell or an unqualified battery cell; and transferring the battery cell to a waste region if the battery cell is an unqualified battery cell (HEO: "CT reconstruction and analysis are performed in the third step while periodic ejection is performed on the individual battery cell" (¶ 67). “it is possible to accurately inspect whether the battery cell has a defect” (¶ 68). Heo performs per-cell ejection following inspection and analysis, consistent with dividing inspected cells by result. PEMTRON: ¶¶ 35, 54 good/bad; HEO: ¶67 per-cell ejection of “bad” cells to waste).
Claim 13.
Pemtron in view of Heo and Cai teaches the inspection device of claim 12, wherein the screening mechanism further comprises a second screening module configured to transfer the unqualified battery cell to the waste region if the unqualified battery cell is inspected by the radiographic imaging inspection mechanism (HEO: ¶ 67. PEMTRON: ¶¶ 35, 54.). It would have been obvious to provide a second screening point that removes the cell determined to be bad a the radiographic stage before stacking so that known defective cells are not carried into the downstream stacking and tomographic group inspection stages, thereby reducing the number of cells processed by the tomographic stage.
Claims 4, 5, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pemtron in view of Heo and Cai, and further in view of Ichihara et al. (US 2005/0074088 A1, hereinafter "Ichihara").
Claim 4.
Pemtron in view of Heo and Cai teaches the inspection device of claim 1. The combination does not teach that the tomographic imaging inspection mechanism comprises a second transmitting device and a second receiving device disposed opposite to the second transmitting device that swing around the battery cell group.
However, Ichihara teaches a second transmitting device and a second receiving device disposed opposite to the second transmitting device, and the second transmitting device and the second receiving device (ICHIHARA: "the X-ray is radiated from the X-ray irradiation device 3 and the X-ray that passes through the object to be inspected 102 is captured in the X-ray detection device 1... while the swinging device 2 varies the tilt direction T by 360 degrees ... and prepares and displays X-ray tomographic images" (¶ 95), and "a swinging device 20 for X-ray detection for swinging the X-ray detection device 1 is provided" (¶ 109). lchihara's X-ray irradiation device 3 and the opposed X-ray detection device 1 mounted on a swinging device, read on a second transmitting device and a second receiving device disposed opposite that swing relative to the object being inspected to produce tomographic images.).
It would have been obvious to incorporate lchihara's swinging X-ray source/detector pair as the tomographic imaging mechanism of Pemtron in view of Heo and Cai in order to obtain three-dimensional cross-section data of a stacked group without the throughput penalty of full 360-degree object rotation that Pemtron identifies as unsuitable for in-line use.
Claim 5.
Pemtron in view of Heo, Cai, and lchihara teaches the inspection device of claim 4, wherein the second transmitting device and the second receiving device are configured to swing around the battery cell group to be inspected at a swinging angle in a range of 10 degrees to 240 degrees (ICHIHARA: "the angle defining the tilt direction T is varied from zero degree to 360 degrees" (¶ 93), and the swinging device "varies the tilt direction T by 360 degrees, that is, while the swinging motion performs one rotation, and prepares and displays X-ray tomographic images" (¶ 95).).
Claim 10.
Pemtron in view of Heo, Cai, and lchihara teaches the inspection method of claim 9, further comprising: after stacking a plurality of battery cells into a battery cell group by a stacking mechanism,rotating the battery cell group to a predetermined angle, wherein the predetermined angle is in a range of 15 degrees to 75 degrees (ICHIHARA: "the tilt angle ... is configured so as to be set within the range from zero degree to 75 degrees. However, it is possible to obtain a relatively good image within the range from 30 degrees to 75 degrees" (¶ 94).). The motivation to combine lchihara is as set forth for claim 4.
Claim 11.
Pemtron in view of Heo, Cai, and lchihara teaches the inspection method of claim 10, wherein two battery cell groups are simultaneously inspected by the tomographic imaging inspection mechanism, wherein one of the two battery cell groups has a corner close to a corner of the other of the two battery cell groups (HEO: "the test objects BC may be aligned and stacked in two rows so that the corners of the test objects BC stacked at one side face the corners of the test objects BC stacked at the other side" (¶ 75) and "the battery cells may be aligned in two rows and then simultaneously inspected by the CT imaging ... it is possible to inspect, simultaneously, at one time, the battery cells loaded in two rows" (¶ 76). Heo's two rows of stacked battery cells read on two battery cell groups, the facing corners of the two rows read on one group having a corner close to a corner of the other, and Heo's simultaneous CT imaging of the two rows reads on simultaneous inspection of the two battery cell groups by the tomographic imaging inspection mechanism.). The motivation to combine is as set forth for claim 1; Heo states (¶ 76) that arranging the cells in two rows and inspecting them simultaneously addresses the case in which the number of cells loadable in one row is limited by cell thickness, providing increased inspection throughput.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Ross Varndell whose telephone number is (571)270-1922. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 EST.
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, O’Neal Mistry can be reached at (313)446-4912. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ross Varndell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Prosecution Insights