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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS(s) has/have been considered and placed in the application file.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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:
"stacking mechanism configured to stack battery cells into a battery cell group" (claims 1 and 9); function: stacking battery cells into a group; corresponding structure: stacking mechanism 30 of Fig. 1 (spec’s PG Pub US 20250237618 A1 ¶¶ 0035, 0045).
"angle adjustment mechanism configured to rotate the battery cell group" (claims 6 and 10); function: rotating the battery cell group; corresponding structure: angle adjustment mechanism 60 (spec ¶¶ 0062-0069).
"first screening module configured to transfer an unqualified battery cell" (claims 7 and 12); function: transferring an unqualified cell to a waste region; corresponding structure: first screening module 71 (spec ¶¶ 0070-0074).
"second screening module configured to transfer the unqualified battery cell" (claims 8 and 13); function: transferring an unqualified cell to a waste region after radiographic inspection; corresponding structure: second screening module 72 (spec ¶¶ 0071-0074).
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 § 112
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.
Claim 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, and 13 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 “first/second screening module(s)” and “angle adjustment mechanism” invokes 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. The specification fails to set forth corresponding structure that performs the recited transfer function with sufficient definiteness. Specification ¶¶ 0079-0080 describes only the input/output of the screening modules. Similarly, ¶¶ 0071-0078 describes the angle adjustment mechanism in terms of its function and the optimial positions it may be placed. The specification does not disclose a robotic arm, pusher, diverter, gripper, gate, conveyor branch, or other physical actuator that performs the recited transfer of cells to the waste region and that performs the recited rotation. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1352; MPEP 2181(III). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is 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.
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, 7-9, 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").
Claims 1 and 9.
Pemtron in view of Heo teaches an inspection device, comprising:
a first conveying mechanism configured to convey a battery cell (PEMTRON: "the secondary battery 10 is moved from the first conveyor belt 270 to the battery seating unit 210 by a component such as a gripper or a picker" (¶ 72).);
a radiographic imaging inspection mechanism configured to inspect the battery cell (PEMTRON: "The X-ray imaging unit 230 includes X-ray tubes 231a and 231b and detectors 232a and 232b" (¶ 73) and "a detector disposed to face the X-ray tube with the secondary battery interposed therebetween to detect X-rays passing through the secondary battery" (¶ 15).);
(300);
a second conveying mechanism configured to convey (PEMTRON: "the secondary battery 10 is moved from the battery seating part 210 to the second conveyor belt 280 by components 260a and 260b such as grippers or pickers"(¶ 72). The limitation of a battery cell group is taught by Heo as set forth below.);
a
Pemtron discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching a stacking mechanism that stacks battery cells into a battery cell group or a tomographic imaging inspection mechanism that inspects the battery cell group. However, Heo in the same field of endeavor teaches a stacking mechanism configured to stack battery cells into a battery cell group and a tomographic imaging inspection mechanism configured to inspect the battery cell group (HEO: "Battery cells BC, which are the test objects, are loaded from the outside into the test object casing 230 through an input conveyor belt IC and then stacked sequentially" (¶ 60) and "performs the CT inspection while rotating the N stacked battery cells about the rotation axis" (¶ 70); see also "the N battery cells are stacked in the first step, X-ray CT (computerized tomography) is performed in the second step"(¶ 67). Heo's sequential stacking of battery cells onto the casing reads on a stacking mechanism that aggregates individual battery cells into a battery cell group, and Heo's X-ray CT performed while rotating the stacked battery cells reads on a tomographic imaging inspection mechanism inspecting the battery cell group.).
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 teachings of Heo with Pemtron to arrive at the claimed inspection device. Pemtron acknowledges that conventional rotational CT in which "the large secondary battery rotates 360 degrees" results in "problems in structure complexity and high manufacturing cost"(¶ 10) and addresses that problem on the individual-cell side by performing linear-motion side-imaging with CT image processing. Heo solves the complementary inspection throughput problem by aggregating multiple cells into a stacked group for batch CT inspection, stating that prior full-CT of one battery "takes at least about two minutes" so that "the total inspection cannot be performed by the above-mentioned battery inspection apparatus in the related art"(¶ 14), and curing that problem by stacking N cells and performing "the CT inspection while rotating the N stacked battery cells about the rotation axis"(¶ 70). A person of ordinary skill would have combined Heo's batch stacking and CT stage with Pemtron's in-line individual cell conveyor and X-ray stage to obtain a two-stage pipeline that retains Pemtron's per-cell throughput while adding the higher-coverage stacked battery CT inspection of Heo, with a reasonable expectation of success because both references operate on the same workpiece (a secondary battery cell) using X-ray inspection. The combination is not discouraged by Pemtron's statement (¶ 10) that rotating a single large cell 360 degrees for CT causes "structure complexity and high manufacturing cost." Heo resolves Pemtron's throughput and cost concern by deferring rotation to a stacked group of cells so that the CT time is shared across N cells, and Pemtron itself employs "CT image processing." A reference that merely expresses a preference for one approach does not teach away from a combination that cures the very concern the reference identifies. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). MPEP § 2145(X)(D)(1).
Claim 2.
Pemtron in view of Heo 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: "an X-ray tube irradiating X-rays to the secondary battery ... a detector disposed to face the X-ray tube with the secondary battery interposed therebetween to detect X-rays passing through the secondary battery" (¶ 15, FIG. 12).).
Claim 3.
Pemtron in view of Heo 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 X-ray imaging unit 230 includes X-ray tubes 231a and 231b" (¶ 73) 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.).
Claims 7 and 12.
Pemtron in view of Heo teaches the inspection device of claim 1, further comprising a screening mechanism, wherein the screening mechanism comprises a first screening module configured to transfer an unqualified battery cell in the battery cell group to a waste region if the unqualified battery cell is inspected by the tomography imaging inspection mechanism (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).
Claims 8 and 13.
Pemtron in view of Heo teaches the inspection device of claim 7, 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, 6, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pemtron in view of Heo, and further in view of Ichihara et al. (US 2005/0074088 A1, hereinafter "Ichihara").
Claim 4.
Pemtron in view of Heo 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 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 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).).
Claims 6 and 10.
The inspection device of claim 1, further comprising an angle adjustment mechanism configured to rotate the battery cell group, so that the battery cell group tilts at a predetermined angle with respect to a conveying direction of the second conveying mechanism; 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).).
Claim 11.
Pemtron in view of Heo and Ichihara 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
The prior art made of record but not relied, yet considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, is listed on the PTO-892 form.
KR 10-2022-0149024 A (Nov. 8, 2022) discloses a multi-direction X-ray investigation of battery cell electrode arrangement.
KR 10-1673544 B1 (Nov. 7, 2016) discloses an apparatus for inspecting batteries automatically in succession with conveying modules.
CN 114602818 A (June 10, 2022) discloses an X-ray detection with multi-stage sorting of battery cells.
US 5,594,768 (Granted Jan. 14, 1997) discloses a laminograph and inspection/repair device using tomographic image displacement.
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