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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 9 and 15 are amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
Response to Remarks
Claim Rejections – 25 USC § 112
In light of the Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 09/03/2026 (REMARKS, 10-11), the Examiner withdraws the previous rejection under 112(b) of the phrases “x-ray output portion” and “x-ray detection portion”, whose structure is at least described in the alternative. However, the Examiner notes that the phrases “signal processing portion”, “inspection portion”, and “pixel operation portion” are not clearly linked or associated in the supporting disclosure in such a way that one of ordinary skill in the art would know and understand the corresponding structure to perform the functional limitations, per the requirements of MPEP 2181(III)-(IV). While the Applicant has pointed to support for “x-ray output portion” and “x-ray detection portion”, the Applicant has failed to point to where the “signal processing portion”, “inspection portion”, and “pixel operation portion” are supported. Accordingly, claim rejections of these phrases are maintained under 112(b).
Regarding claim rejections under 112(a) of the phrase “signal processing portion”, the Applicant argues that “the specification clearly discloses ‘acts’ for the claimed elements”. However, it is well understood that ‘acts’, in terms of means-plus-function limitations, pertains to process-plus-function limitations, and not to apparatus claims. Arguendo, the term ‘acts’ is considered sufficient to meet the requirements under MPEP 2181(III), the instant apparatus claims would be defined by the method steps of using the device, leading to further issues under MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). In this scenario, the apparatus claims would include pure limitations drawn to the method of using the device, leading to confusion over both the statutory class of the claim (§ 101), and the scope of the claim (§ 112(b)). Accordingly, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained. Finally, computer-implemented functional limitations such as the instant phrase must be supported in the written disclosure by a supporting algorithm (see MPEP §§ 2181(III) and 2161.01). The supporting disclosure fails to provide the requisite algorithm and is rejected accordingly. See below. The same rationale applies to the other computer-implemented function limitations “inspection portion” and “pixel operation portion”.
Claim Rejections – 25 USC § 103
The Applicant argues that incorporation of a line scanner into the system of KIM would “render Kim’s device unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, which seeks to achieve rapid product inspection by selecting only certain portions, rather than the entire region, of the inspection object (20) as inspection regions” (REMARKS, 14-15). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ability to obtain a 2D image from a 1D scanner such as a line scanner simply by moving the object of interest or the scanner in relation to the other, with the advantage of reducing the complexity and cost of the imaging device. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
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.
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:
“signal processing portion” in claim 1 (page 12, lines 13-18), and
“inspection portion” in claim 1 (page 12, lines 13-18).
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the phrases: “signal processing portion” (page 12, lines 15) and “inspection portion” in claim 1 (page 12, lines 13-18). The supporting disclosure fails to clearly link or associate the disclosure structure, material or acts to the claimed function. While the specification describes a “control portion” which “may control operation of at least one of an X-ray output portion 110, an X-ray detection portion 120, a signal processing portion 130, an inspection portion 140, and a transfer portion 150”, the disclosure is silent regarding the structure of the instant “portion”.
Furthermore, the MPEP 2181(II)(B) explains that computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. The written disclosure fails to provide the corresponding algorithm and is accordingly rejected as indefinite. The same rationale applies to the phrases “inspection portion”. See also MPEP 2161.01(I) for further explanation.
The Applicant argues the supporting disclosure clearly discloses “acts” for the claimed elements (REMARKS, p. 11-12). The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of MPEP 2181(III) and notes that the phrase “acts” pertains to step-plus-function process claims, and not apparatus claims. Arguendo, the written disclosure of “acts” is sufficient to meet the requirements under 112(f) and MPEP 2181(III), the claimed elements would then amount to mere method steps within the apparatus claim, which raises new issues under 112(b). According to MPEP 2173.05(p)(II) explains that claiming both the apparatus and method of using the apparatus are indefinite under § 112(b)(and § 101). For the purpose of rejection, the phrase is interpreted as an apparatus comprising structural features. The balance of claims are rejected based on dependence.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “signal processing portion”, which invokes 35 USC § 112(f) as set forth above under Claim Interpretation. The specification on page 12, lines 15 describes:
“A control portion 160 may control overall operation of an X-ray inspection device 100. In one embodiment, a control portion 160 may control operation of at least one of an X-ray output portion 110, an X-ray detection portion 120, a signal processing portion 130, an inspection portion 140, and a transfer portion 150. In one embodiment, a control portion 160 may perform data communication operation or data calculation processing operation. For example, a control portion 160 may include a single processor or a plurality of processors.”
The Examiner notes the cited passage is directed primarily at the control portion and does not directly address the structure of the “signal processing portion” and none of the other passages in the disclosure appear to address the issue. The supporting disclosure fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure to the claimed function, and appears to fail to provide a written description of the of the “signal processing portion”. The same rationale applies to the limitation “inspection portion”. See MPEP 2181(IV) for further details. The balance of claims are rejected based on dependence.
MPEP 2181(II)(B) explains that computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. The written disclosure fails to provide the corresponding algorithm and is accordingly rejected as lacking written description of the claimed invention. The same rationale applies to the phrases “inspection portion”. See also MPEP 2161.01(I) for further explanation.
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.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASUDA et al. (JP 2018087740 A) in view of KIM et al. (hereafter K1; KR 101351809 B1).
Regarding claims 1, MASUDA discloses an X-ray inspection device and method of using (FIG. 1) comprising:
providing an X-ray output portion irradiating X-rays to a battery including a plurality of electrode layers and a separator interposed between the plurality of electrode layers (x-ray tube 1 irradiates a beam 1a through a battery 4 having electrodes 5 & 6 and a separator (FIG 2) interposed between the plurality of electrodes; para. 0017);
providing an X-ray detection portion acquiring an intensity of the X-rays that have transmitted through the battery among the X-rays (x-ray detector 2 detects transmitted x-ray; para. 0016);
providing a signal processing portion acquiring an X-ray image including the intensity (image processing device 10 acquires an x-ray image); and
providing an inspection portion determining whether the battery is defective based on a comparison result of gray values included in a selected area of the X-ray image and a reference value corresponding to the selected area (para. 0022-0038).
MASUDA does not disclose the x-ray detection portion acquiring a plurality of gray values, a signal processing unit acquiring an imaging including the plurality of gray values, and an inspection unit for determining whether a battery is defective on the basis of a result of comparing gray values included in a selected area of the x-ray image with a reference value corresponding to the selected area. In the same field of endeavor, K1 discloses an object 20 and transmission x-ray detector 140 for detecting x-ray transmitted therethrough, a defect determination unit 150 including an imaging unit 151 forming an image of the object, a partitioning unit 152 for partitioning the image of the object into a plurality of areas, defining the range and specifying an area to be to be inspected, and a determination unit 153 comparing gray scale set in each partitioned area with a reference gray scale at an inspection position within the corresponding area, and determining whether there is a defect (para. 0022-0047; FIG 1), with the benefit of improved failure detection. In light of the teachings of K1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine with the teachings of MASUDA. Furthermore, selecting an average gray value among a plurality of values for a reference comparison determination would have been an obvious step to one of ordinary in the art at the time of filing.
Additionally, K1 discloses wherein the X-ray detection portion includes: a scanner detecting, at different times, transmitted X-rays that have transmitted through a unit area of the battery among the X-rays that have transmitted through the battery, and acquiring each of sensing signals for the transmitted X-rays; and a pixel operation portion processing a value corresponding to a final sensing signal in which the sensing signals are accumulated as a gray value corresponding to the unit area among the plurality of gray values (para. 0017-0018). K1 does not specify the detection portion comprising a plurality of line scanners. However, line scanners are well-known in the art of x-ray battery inspection, as taught by KIM et al. (hereafter K2; WO 2017022890 A1; BEST MODE section), and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine with the teachings of MASUDA and K1, yielding predictable results (the ability to non-invasively inspect electronics such as batteries). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Lastly, duplicating the parts of an invention (K2 discloses a line scanner, and does not appear to explicitly disclose a plurality) is obvious where predictable results are produced (i.e. greater imaging flexibility, greater throughput, etc.).
Regarding claim 2, KIM discloses the inspection portion extracts gray values greater than the reference value corresponding to the selected area from among the gray values included in the selected area as an object and determines whether the battery is defective based on one or more selected from the group consisting of size and shape of the object (area to be inspect is the entire image with inspection performed at a predetermined position to determine a defect based on reference comparison with a corresponding range; para. 0032; FIG 1).
Regarding claim 3, MASUDA discloses the inspection portion determines that the battery is defective when the size of the object is larger than a reference size (determination unit 150 sets upper limit G2 of a normal gray scale value where exceeding values are determined defects; para. 0026-39).
Regarding claim 4, KIM discloses wherein the inspection portion determines that the battery is defective when an average value of the gray values included in the selected area is greater than an upper error limit of the reference value corresponding to the selected area, or when the average value is smaller than a lower error limit of the reference value corresponding to the selected area (determination unit 150 sets upper limit G2 and lower limit G1 wherein values outside the limit ranges are determined defects; para. 29-32; FIG 1), wherein the reference value is a gray value corresponding to a normal battery (determination unit 150 sets upper limit G2 and lower limit G1 wherein values outside the limit ranges are determined defects; para. 56-60; FIG 2-5), wherein the gray value corresponding to a normal battery is a sum of gray values corresponding to two or more selected from the group consisting of at least one cathode layer, at least one anode layer, at least one separator, and at least one exterior material layer included in the normal battery (para. 22-47, 56-60; Fig. 1-5).
Regarding claim 5, MASUDA further discloses a memory storing a plurality of reference values corresponding to each of a plurality of areas, wherein the inspection portion determines one of the plurality of areas as the selected area (memory unit 20; para. 0017-18, 0028; FIG 1-2).
Regarding claim 6, MASUDA further discloses wherein the plurality of electrode layers include at least one cathode layer and at least one anode layer, and the plurality of areas include: a first area corresponding to an area in which the at least one cathode layer, the at least one anode layer, and the separator are stacked together; and a second area corresponding to an area in which the at least one anode layer and the separator are stacked together (para. 0016-0018; FIG 1-2). MASUDA does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of electrode layers include at least one anode layer having a larger size than the cathode layer. However, it would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to a larger anode to maintain safety within the cell.
Regarding claim 7, MASUDA discloses wherein pass/fail judgement determination unit 27 determines the size differences of adjacent cathode/anode tips between protruding sides of the contours 5a and 6a, and determines the pass/fail judgement for the difference in position between the positive electrode plate 5 and the negative electrode plate 6 (para. 0026-0039). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further select among the plurality of reference values, a first reference value corresponding to the first area as a predetermined value based on number of the at least one cathode layer, number of the at least one anode layer, and number of the separator, and among the plurality of reference values, a second reference value corresponding to the second area is a predetermined value based on the number of the at least one anode layer and the number of the separator (para. 0022-47; FIG 1).
Regarding claim 8, KIM discloses wherein the reference value is a predetermined value (determination unit 153 sets a predetermined reference scale value in advance; para. 0057; FIG 5).
Regarding claim 9, KIM discloses a pixel operation portion processing a value corresponding to a final sensing signal in which the sensing signals are accumulated as a gray value corresponding to the unit area among the plurality of gray values ([0017-0018]).
Regarding claim 10, KIM discloses an X-ray detection portion but does not specify a flat panel detector including a plurality of pixels that each detect X-rays. However, flat panel detectors are known in the art of x-ray imaging and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate in the inspection system to improve image resolution and compactness.
Regarding claim 11, KIM does not specify selecting a length of a dimension of the flat panel detector in a specific direction to be longer or short than a length of the battery dimension. However, selecting a detector panel dimension length to be longer or short than a battery dimension would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing in order to optimize for cost (reduced cost or maintenance) and/or performance (image quality, resolution, image throughput).
Regarding claim 12, KIM discloses wherein the signal processing portion acquires an x-ray image and a division unit 152 for dividing the image of the inspection object into a plurality of inspection regions, but does not disclose plurality of X-ray images and then merges the X-ray images to acquire a final X-ray image. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to perform a plurality of x-ray image captures instead of dividing a single image into a plurality inspection regions, in order to increase a resolution of a given inspection region and thereby increase defect detection accuracy. It further would have been obvious to merge the individual region images into a single image in order to consolidate measurement data for review. KIM does not specify a plurality of x-ray of different outputs irradiated from the x-ray portion. However, selecting different x-ray outputs would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill as it is known that different x-ray energies have different degrees of absorption for different densities of materials, thereby providing a more nuanced inspection of the different material layers of the battery.
Regarding claim 13, KIM discloses wherein the inspection portion determines an area of interest in the X-ray image and sets the selected area within the area of interest (para. 0018).
Regarding claim 14, KIM discloses wherein the area of interest is an area corresponding to the battery in the X-ray image (para. 0018; FIG 1), wherein the inspection portion determines the area of interest based on a preset pattern included in the x-ray image or a change in a gray value in a present direction in the x-ray image (defect determination unit 150 including partitioning unit 152 and determination unit 153 for comparing the gray scale set in each partitioned area with the gray scale at the inspection position within the corresponding area to be inspected and determining whether there is a defect; para. 0022-0047; FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 18, MASUDA discloses an x-ray inspection system for a battery comprising binarizing each obtained image (S103) with appropriate luminance and electrode contour lines 5a and 6a are obtained via pattern recognition (para. 0013-0016; FIG 5). In S104, a position line wherein separator separates 5a and 6a is set as the baseline B. In S105, the unit determines a first investigation area S1 and a second area S2 based on the baseline B set as the starting point, and then determined tips P1 of contour lines 5a and 6a corresponding to electrode lengths, as well as length where electrodes protrude beyond investigation areas (FIG 4a-d). Furthermore, KIM discloses converting image information into grey scale values. In light of the combined teachings of MASUDA and KIM, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary at the time of filing to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 19, MASUDA discloses wherein the step of determining whether the battery is defective includes providing a pass/fail determination unit 27 for determining the difference in position between the positive electrode plate 5 and the negative electrode plate 6 and the basis of the dimensions of the high differences of the tip contours adjacent to each other and the dimensions of the gaps between protruding sides of the contours (para. 0026-0039; FIG 1-5). Based on the teachings of MASUDA and KIM, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to perform the step of extracting adjacent pixel values as an object among pixel values and a step of determining whether the battery is defective based on one or more selected from the group consisting of shape and size of the object.
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 CASEY BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)270-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-F // 7-3P 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, UZMA ALAM can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
CASEY BRYANT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/CASEY BRYANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights