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 Amendments
Claims 20 and 22 are cancelled.
The amendments to claims 1-19 and 21 are accepted and entered.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending regarding this application.
Priority
The present application claims foreign priority benefits from KR10-2022-0109760 filed on
08/31/2022 and KR10-2023-0077509 filed on 06/16/2023. The certified copies of the priority documents were electronically retrieved on 10/09/2024.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/09/2024, 10/17/2025, 12/18/2025, and 06/18/2025 are considered and attached.
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 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation "the third image" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Corresponding claim 16 recites “a third image in which the first image and the second image are overlapped”. However, it is unclear if applicant intended for the third image in claim 5 to be equivalent to the third image as claimed in claim 16. If so, examiner suggests amending claim 5 in order to match the language in claim 16 in order to overcome the lack of antecedent basis issue of claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaginuma (JP 2010014670 A, see attached English translation for citations) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0245784 A1), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Yaginuma teaches a data processing apparatus for visual inspection of a (Yaginuma teaches “appearance inspection apparatus” in para. [0128]) comprising:
generate a first image which represents a visually modified image of an outer surface of a (Yaginuma teaches “In the image reconstruction unit 33A, a plurality of image data for one or more rounds of the cylindrical body 1 (see FIG. 1) stored in the image storage unit 32 is reconstructed, and a plurality of developed image data is obtained” in para. [0052]. Here, at least one of the plurality of image data is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed originally captured image, and the developed image data is interpreted as equivalent to the visually modified image);
generate a second image visually representing depth information of the outer surface of the (Yaginuma teaches “each developed image data is matched with the cylindrical surface position of each developed image data, and is detected from each developed image data with different illumination and imaging angle conditions from bright field to dark field under each detection condition. The positions of the different image portions are hierarchically mapped to the developed virtual screen array around the cylindrical surface” in para. [0053], wherein “the depth of the unevenness of the outer circumferential development surface of the cylindrical body 1 is also one of the layers of the developed virtual screen arrangement” as shown in para. [0054]. Here, the developed image data (first image) is matched with the cylindrical surface position (interpreted as equivalent to the three-dimensional shape data associated with the outer surface of the cylindrical body) and used to generate a “virtual screen array around the cylindrical surface” (interpreted as equivalent to at least the claimed second image)); and
output at least one of the first image and the second image through a predefined graphical user interface (GUI) (Yaginuma teaches a monitor which can display “development image data reconstructed in a hierarchical development virtual screen array”, wherein “various images and lists are output and displayed” as shown in para. [0062]. Here, the reconstructed image data is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed second image as shown above).
While Yaginuma teaches an image processing unit 33 and an image store unit 32 (see para. [0048]), Yaginuma fails to teach the above claim in the context of a battery, and at least one processor; and a memory having programmed thereon instructions that, when executed, are configured to cause the at least one processor to….
However, Kim teaches an apparatus and method for secondary battery appearance inspection (Kim, see para. [0041] and FIG. 1), wherein (Kim teaches that “the image processor can inspect the appearance of each secondary battery” in para. [0076], wherein the processor stores information in memory (see para. [0067] and inherently has instructions stored that cause the processor to carry out the function as described in para. [0065]-[0068] and FIGs. 13-16).
Yaginuma and Kim are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using image analysis to analyze an outer surface of a cylindrical object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yaginuma to incorporate the teachings of Kim and include “the above claim in the context of a battery, and at least one processor; and a memory having programmed thereon instructions that, when executed, are configured to cause the at least one processor to…”. The motivation for doing so would have been that “inspecting the appearance of the secondary battery according to the disclosure [involves] obtain[ing] images of the plurality of secondary batteries through the area camera 20, and generat[ing] the inspection images based on the illumination pattern to perform appearance inspection, thereby significantly improving inspection speed. Further, as shown in FIG. 1, a plurality of appearance inspection modules are arranged to maximize the inspection speed”, as suggested by Kim in para. [0077]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Yaginuma with Kim to obtain the invention specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Yaginuma and Kim teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the at least one processor to:
receive a two-dimensional image of an outer lateral surface of the battery (Yaginuma teaches “the reflected light reaching the camera 14 is collected by the imaging lens 14A and imaged by the two-dimensional imaging device 14B (bright field)”, wherein “the camera 14 can image the cylindrical circumferential surface 1A of the cylindrical body 1 through the opening 12” in para. [0041], while Kim specifically teaches receiving an image of the outer lateral surface of a battery wherein “the individual image sections of each secondary battery are extracted from the photographed image, and combined to obtain the completed inspection image of the entire lateral surface” in para. [0075]); and
flatten the outer lateral surface of a cylindrical shape by applying a predefined distortion correction algorithm to the received two-dimensional image to generate the first image (Kim teaches “generating an inspection image of the single secondary battery by combining the plurality of individual image sections refers to operation of classifying photographed images according to the secondary batteries, the illumination patterns and the rotated angles, and sorting and combining the photographed images in sequence corresponding to the same secondary battery, the same illumination pattern and the rotated angle” in para. [0087]. Here, this process of combining the above images is interpreted as equivalent to the predefined distortion correction algorithm, and the inspection image as taught by Kim is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed first image and can be combined with Yaginuma’s teaching of the first image to teach the above claim limitation).
Similar motivations as applied to claim 1 can be applied here to claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Yaginuma and Kim teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the at least one processor to:
calculate respective depth information for each plane coordinate of a plurality of plane coordinates of the first image using 3D shape data (Yaginuma teaches “each developed image data is matched with the cylindrical surface position of each developed image data” in para. [0053], wherein “outer peripheral three-dimensional information mapped as one of the layers of the development virtual screen arrangement described above” as shown in para. [0054] is determined based on the developed image data (first image), which inherently involves determining depth information for each plane coordinate of a plurality of plane coordinates) and generate the second image by mapping the calculated respective depth information to each plane coordinate of the plurality of plane coordinates (Yaginuma teaches “the positions of the different image portions are hierarchically mapped to the developed virtual screen array around the cylindrical surface” in para. [0053], wherein “the depth of the unevenness of the outer circumferential development surface of the cylindrical body 1 is also one of the layers of the developed virtual screen arrangement” as shown in para. [0054]. The layer defining the depth within the developed virtual screen arrangement is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed second image).
Regarding claim 12, Yaginuma teaches a data processing method for visual inspection of batteries, the method (Yaginuma teaches “the configuration and the inspection method of the one cylindrical end surface inspection device 20” in para. [0097]) comprising:
generating a first image which represents a visually modified image of an outer surface of a [cylindrical body] (Yaginuma teaches “In the image reconstruction unit 33A, a plurality of image data for one or more rounds of the cylindrical body 1 (see FIG. 1) stored in the image storage unit 32 is reconstructed, and a plurality of developed image data is obtained” in para. [0052]. Here, at least one of the plurality of image data is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed originally captured image, and the developed image data is interpreted as equivalent to the visually modified image);
generating a second image visually representing depth information of the outer surface of the (Yaginuma teaches “each developed image data is matched with the cylindrical surface position of each developed image data, and is detected from each developed image data with different illumination and imaging angle conditions from bright field to dark field under each detection condition. The positions of the different image portions are hierarchically mapped to the developed virtual screen array around the cylindrical surface” in para. [0053], wherein “the depth of the unevenness of the outer circumferential development surface of the cylindrical body 1 is also one of the layers of the developed virtual screen arrangement” as shown in para. [0054]. Here, the developed image data (first image) is matched with the cylindrical surface position (interpreted as equivalent to the three-dimensional shape data associated with the outer surface of the cylindrical body) and used to generate a “virtual screen array around the cylindrical surface” (interpreted as equivalent to at least the claimed second image)); and
outputting at least one of the first image and the second image through a predefined graphical user interface (GUI) (Yaginuma teaches a monitor which can display “development image data reconstructed in a hierarchical development virtual screen array”, wherein “various images and lists are output and displayed” as shown in para. [0062]. Here, the reconstructed image data is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed second image as shown above).
Yaginuma fails to teach the above claim in the context of a battery.
However, Kim teaches an apparatus and method for secondary battery appearance inspection (Kim, see para. [0041] and FIG. 1).
Yaginuma and Kim are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using image analysis to analyze an outer surface of a cylindrical object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yaginuma to incorporate the teachings of Kim and include “the above claim in the context of a battery”. The motivation for doing so would have been that “inspecting the appearance of the secondary battery according to the disclosure [involves] obtain[ing] images of the plurality of secondary batteries through the area camera 20, and generat[ing] the inspection images based on the illumination pattern to perform appearance inspection, thereby significantly improving inspection speed. Further, as shown in FIG. 1, a plurality of appearance inspection modules are arranged to maximize the inspection speed”, as suggested by Kim in para. [0077]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Yaginuma with Kim to obtain the invention specified in claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Yaginuma and Kim teach the method of claim 12, wherein generating the first image includes:
receiving a two-dimensional image of an outer lateral surface of the battery (Yaginuma teaches “the reflected light reaching the camera 14 is collected by the imaging lens 14A and imaged by the two-dimensional imaging device 14B (bright field)”, wherein “the camera 14 can image the cylindrical circumferential surface 1A of the cylindrical body 1 through the opening 12” in para. [0041], while Kim specifically teaches receiving an image of the outer lateral surface of a battery wherein “the individual image sections of each secondary battery are extracted from the photographed image, and combined to obtain the completed inspection image of the entire lateral surface” in para. [0075]); and
flattening the outer lateral surface of a cylindrical shape by applying a predefined distortion correction algorithm to the received two-dimensional image to generate the first image (Kim teaches “generating an inspection image of the single secondary battery by combining the plurality of individual image sections refers to operation of classifying photographed images according to the secondary batteries, the illumination patterns and the rotated angles, and sorting and combining the photographed images in sequence corresponding to the same secondary battery, the same illumination pattern and the rotated angle” in para. [0087]. Here, this process of combining the above images is interpreted as equivalent to the predefined distortion correction algorithm, and the inspection image as taught by Kim is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed first image and can be combined with Yaginuma’s teaching of the first image to teach the above claim limitation).
Similar motivations as applied to claim 12 can be applied here to claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Yaginuma and Kim teach method of claim 12, wherein generating the second image includes:
calculating respective depth information for each plane coordinate of a plurality of plane coordinates of the first image using 3D shape data (Yaginuma teaches “each developed image data is matched with the cylindrical surface position of each developed image data” in para. [0053], wherein “outer peripheral three-dimensional information mapped as one of the layers of the development virtual screen arrangement described above” as shown in para. [0054] is determined based on the developed image data (first image), which inherently involves determining depth information for each plane coordinate of a plurality of plane coordinates); and
generating the second image by mapping the calculated respective depth information to each plane coordinate of the plurality of plane coordinates (Yaginuma teaches “the positions of the different image portions are hierarchically mapped to the developed virtual screen array around the cylindrical surface” in para. [0053], wherein “the depth of the unevenness of the outer circumferential development surface of the cylindrical body 1 is also one of the layers of the developed virtual screen arrangement” as shown in para. [0054]. The layer defining the depth within the developed virtual screen arrangement is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed second image).
Claims 4, 7, 15, and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaginuma (JP 2010-14670 A, see attached English translation for citations) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0245784 A1), hereinafter Kim and Bendall (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0019305 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Yaginuma and Kim teach the apparatus of claim 1.
While Yaginuma teaches capturing two-dimensional images in para. [0041] and Kim teaches determining images of a battery (see claim 1), Yaginuma and Kim fail to teach wherein the second image is a two-dimensional image, and wherein the depth information of the outer surface of the battery is represented using one or more colors.
However, Bendall teaches wherein the second image is a two-dimensional image, and wherein the depth information of the outer surface of the battery is represented using one or more colors (Bendall teaches “the use of a depth plane graphic overlay 1750 and depth color gradient overlay 1760 on two-dimensional 1702 and three-dimensional (point cloud) 1703 views used to measure the depth” in para. [0196] and FIGs. 26-27, wherein “The relatively large area of the depth color gradient overlay 1760 in FIG. 26 indicates that there are several surface points that are deeper than the measurement point 1724 associated with the measurement cursor 1734” as shown in para. [0197]. Bendall’s teaching of utilizing “a visual indication, such as a semi-transparent graphic overlay 1240 , 1280 , [which] can be placed on pixels in the two-dimensional image with associated surface points” (which may have a structure similar to a battery as shown in para. [0104] wherein “the region of interest is in the form of a cylinder”) and using “pixel color corresponding to the depth of that surface point” can be combined with Yaginuma in view of Kim’s teaching of analyzing the outer surface of a battery to teach the above claim limitations. Here, the graphical overlay is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed second image, wherein it is inherent that the graphical overlay of a 2d image is two-dimensional).
Yaginuma, Kim, and Bendall are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using image analysis to analyze an outer surface of a cylindrical object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yaginuma (as modified by Kim) to incorporate the teachings of Bendall and include “wherein the second image is a two-dimensional image, and wherein the depth information of the outer surface of the battery is represented using one or more colors”. The motivation for doing so would have been to “show that there are several surface points that are deeper than the measurement point 1724 , indicating that the measurement cursor 1734 should be moved toward the deepest points (e.g., shown in a first color 1762 (e.g., red) in the depth color gradient overlay 1760 )” wherein the method “permits any depth map color scale to indicate the height or depth of a surface point from the reference surface 550”, as suggested by Bendall in para. [0196] and para. [0097], respectively. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Yaginuma and Kim with Bendall to obtain the invention specified in claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, Yaginuma and Kim teach the apparatus of claim 1.
Yaginuma and Kim fail to teach wherein the at least one of the first image and the second image is output through the GUI based on a selection signal for a specific point in the first image or the second image, wherein the instructions are configured to cause the at least one processor to output a depth value for the specific point through the GUI.
However, Bendall teaches wherein the at least one of the first image and the second image is output through the GUI based on a selection signal for a specific point in the first image or the second image (Bendall teaches “the inventive method creates a subset of the three-dimensional data in the region of interest”, wherein the region of interest is defined based on a selection of specific points, and the subset (first image) is displayed to the user as shown in para. [0088] and para. [0106]), wherein the instructions are configured to cause the at least one processor to output a depth value for the specific point through the GUI (Bendall teaches “the user can select that point to take and save a depth measurement. The user can also move the cursor 234 within the region of interest 270 , 280 to determine the depth of other surface points in the region of interest 270 , 280” in para. [0077]. See FIG.s 23-27 wherein the depth measurement of a specific point is displayed within the user interface. This depth measurement can also be a measurement associated with the overlay as shown in FIGs. 26 and 27).
Yaginuma, Kim, and Bendall are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using image analysis to analyze an outer surface of a cylindrical object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yaginuma (as modified by Kim) to incorporate the teachings of Bendall and include “wherein the at least one of the first image and the second image is output through the GUI based on a selection signal for a specific point in the first image or the second image, wherein the instructions are configured to cause the at least one processor to output a depth value for the specific point through the GUI”. The motivation for doing so would have been that “in order to provide a more meaningful view of the object surface 510 in the area around the measurement points 521 , 522 , 523 , 524 than offered by a point cloud view of the three-dimensional data of the entire image 500 , the inventive method creates a subset of the three-dimensional data in the region of interest”, as suggested by Bendall in para. [0088]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Yaginuma and Kim with Bendall to obtain the invention specified in claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, Yaginuma and Kim teach the method of claim 12.
While Yaginuma teaches capturing two-dimensional images in para. [0041] and Kim teaches determining images of a battery (see claim 1), Yaginuma and Kim fail to teach wherein the second image is a two-dimensional image, and wherein the depth information of the outer surface of the battery is represented using one or more colors.
However, Bendall teaches wherein the second image is a two-dimensional image, and wherein the depth information of the outer surface of the battery is represented using one or more colors (Bendall teaches “the use of a depth plane graphic overlay 1750 and depth color gradient overlay 1760 on two-dimensional 1702 and three-dimensional (point cloud) 1703 views used to measure the depth” in para. [0196] and FIGs. 26-27, wherein “The relatively large area of the depth color gradient overlay 1760 in FIG. 26 indicates that there are several surface points that are deeper than the measurement point 1724 associated with the measurement cursor 1734” as shown in para. [0197]. Bendall’s teaching of utilizing “a visual indication, such as a semi-transparent graphic overlay 1240 , 1280 , [which] can be placed on pixels in the two-dimensional image with associated surface points” (which may have a structure similar to a battery as shown in para. [0104] wherein “the region of interest is in the form of a cylinder”) and using “pixel color corresponding to the depth of that surface point” can be combined with Yaginuma in view of Kim’s teaching of analyzing the outer surface of a battery to teach the above claim limitations. Here, the graphical overlay is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed second image, wherein it is inherent that the graphical overlay of a 2d image is two-dimensional).
Yaginuma, Kim, and Bendall are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using image analysis to analyze an outer surface of a cylindrical object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yaginuma (as modified by Kim) to incorporate the teachings of Bendall and include “wherein the second image is a two-dimensional image, and wherein the depth information of the outer surface of the battery is represented using one or more colors”. The motivation for doing so would have been to “show that there are several surface points that are deeper than the measurement point 1724 , indicating that the measurement cursor 1734 should be moved toward the deepest points (e.g., shown in a first color 1762 (e.g., red) in the depth color gradient overlay 1760 )” wherein the method “permits any depth map color scale to indicate the height or depth of a surface point from the reference surface 550”, as suggested by Bendall in para. [0196] and para. [0097], respectively. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Yaginuma and Kim with Bendall to obtain the invention specified in claim 12.
Regarding claim 18, Yaginuma and Kim teach the method of claim 12.
Yaginuma and Kim fail to teach wherein outputting one or more of the first image and the second image through the GUI includes in response to receiving a selection signal for a specific point in the first image or the second image, outputting a depth value for the specific point through the GUI.
However, Bendall teaches in response to receiving a selection signal for a specific point in the first image or the second image (Bendall teaches “the inventive method creates a subset of the three-dimensional data in the region of interest”, wherein the region of interest is defined based on a selection of specific points, and the subset (first image) is displayed (output) to the user as shown in para. [0088] and para. [0106]), outputting a depth value for the specific point through the GUI (Bendall teaches “the user can select that point to take and save a depth measurement. The user can also move the cursor 234 within the region of interest 270 , 280 to determine the depth of other surface points in the region of interest 270 , 280” in para. [0077]. See FIG.s 23-27 wherein the depth measurement of a specific point is displayed within the user interface. This depth measurement can also be a measurement associated with the overlay as shown in FIGs. 26 and 27. Additionally, this point may be one of the selected points in the first or second image as defined in the previous citation).
Yaginuma, Kim, and Bendall are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using image analysis to analyze an outer surface of a cylindrical object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yaginuma (as modified by Kim) to incorporate the teachings of Bendall and include “in response to receiving a selection signal for a specific point in the first image or the second image, outputting a depth value for the specific point through the GUI”. The motivation for doing so would have been that “in order to provide a more meaningful view of the object surface 510 in the area around the measurement points 521 , 522 , 523 , 524 than offered by a point cloud view of the three-dimensional data of the entire image 500 , the inventive method creates a subset of the three-dimensional data in the region of interest”, as suggested by Bendall in para. [0088]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Yaginuma and Kim with Bendall to obtain the invention specified in claim 18.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaginuma (JP 2010-14670 A, see attached English translation for citations) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0245784 A1), hereinafter Kim, Bendall (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0019305 A1), and Li et al. (CN 114648483 A, see attached English translation for citations), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 5, Yaginuma and Kim teach the apparatus of claim 1.
While Yaginuma teaches displaying the claimed images on a monitor (see para. [0089]), Yaginuma and Kim fail to teach wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the at least one processor to prompt a user to select one or more images from among the first image, the second image and the third image; and output the one or more images selected by the user.
However, Bendall teaches (Bendall teaches that “the color overlays may vary and may be preprogrammed and/or chosen by a user or through other means” in para. [0191], wherein “the graphic overlay may be displayed whenever a reference surface cursor is active and may be hidden if a 4th cursor or the result is active” in para. [0159], and that “the user may select to view either the two-dimensional image 1001 or the three-dimensional point cloud view 1002 individually”, or concurrently as shown in para. [0136]. Here, the color overlays (second image), the two-dimensional/three-dimensional image (without the overlay) (first image), and the color overlays overlaid with the two/three-dimensional image (third image) are all selected by the user and displayed to the user).
Yaginuma, Kim, and Bendall are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using image analysis to analyze an outer surface of a cylindrical object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yaginuma (as modified by Kim) to incorporate the teachings of Bendall and include “a user to select one or more images from among the first image, the second image and the third image; and output the one or more images selected by the user”. The motivation for doing so would have been “to help the user place the second measurement cursor 1932 on the second wall 1906 of the slot 1904 and opposite, for example, directly opposite, the first measurement cursor 1931” and wherein “various two-dimensional and three-dimensional (point cloud) views used to measure the width of a slot”, as suggested by Bendall in para. [0201] and [0199], respectively. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Yaginuma and Kim with Bendall to obtain the invention specified in the above claim limitations.
Yaginuma, Kim and Bendall fail to teach specifically “prompting” a user to select between the claimed images.
However, Li teaches prompting a user to select images to view (Li teaches a prompt message that prompts a user to decide whether to view images in a combined state or a separate state, and displaying the selected image(s) to the user as shown in para. [0179]-[0182]).
Yaginuma, Kim, Bendall, and Li are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using image analysis to analyze different image views. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yaginuma (as modified by Kim and Bendall) to incorporate the teachings of Li and include “prompting a user to select one or more images from among the first image, the second image and the third imager”. The motivation for doing so would have been that “the prompt message also comprises a control which can be selected by the user, and the user set is selected according to the requirement”, as suggested by Li in para. [0180]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Yaginuma, Kim, and Bendall with Li to obtain the invention specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, Yaginuma and Kim teach the method of claim 12.
While Yaginuma teaches displaying the claimed images on a monitor (see para. [0089]), Yaginuma and Kim fail to teach wherein outputting the at least one or more of the first image and the second image through the GUI includes prompting a user to select outputting one or more images from among the first image, the second image and a third image in which the first image and the second image are overlapped.
However, Bendall teaches (Bendall teaches that “the color overlays may vary and may be preprogrammed and/or chosen by a user or through other means” in para. [0191], wherein “the graphic overlay may be displayed whenever a reference surface cursor is active and may be hidden if a 4th cursor or the result is active” in para. [0159], and that “the user may select to view either the two-dimensional image 1001 or the three-dimensional point cloud view 1002 individually”, or concurrently as shown in para. [0136]. Here, the color overlays (second image), the two-dimensional/three-dimensional image (without the overlay) (first image), and the color overlays overlaid with the two/three-dimensional image (third image, see FIGs. 26 and 27) are all selected by the user and displayed to the user).
Yaginuma, Kim, and Bendall are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using image analysis to analyze an outer surface of a cylindrical object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yaginuma (as modified by Kim) to incorporate the teachings of Bendall and include “a user to select outputting one or more images from among the first image, the second image and a third image in which the first image and the second image are overlapped”. The motivation for doing so would have been “to help the user place the second measurement cursor 1932 on the second wall 1906 of the slot 1904 and opposite, for example, directly opposite, the first measurement cursor 1931” and wherein “various two-dimensional and three-dimensional (point cloud) views used to measure the width of a slot”, as suggested by Bendall in para. [0201] and [0199], respectively. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Yaginuma and Kim with Bendall to obtain the invention specified in the above claim limitations.
Yaginuma, Kim and Bendall fail to teach specifically “prompting” a user to select between outputting the claimed images.
However, Li teaches prompting a user to select images to view (Li teaches a prompt message that prompts a user to decide whether to view images in a combined state or a separate state, and displaying the selected image(s) to the user as shown in para. [0179]-[0182]).
Yaginuma, Kim, Bendall, and Li are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using image analysis to analyze different image views. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yaginuma (as modified by Kim and Bendall) to incorporate the teachings of Li and include “prompting a user to select one or more images from among the first image, the second image and the third imager” (emphasis added). The motivation for doing so would have been that “the prompt message also comprises a control which can be selected by the user, and the user set is selected according to the requirement”, as suggested by Li in para. [0180]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Yaginuma, Kim, and Bendall with Li to obtain the invention specified in claim 16.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaginuma (JP 2010-14670 A, see attached English translation for citations) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0245784 A1), hereinafter Kim, Bendall (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0019305 A1), Li et al. (CN 114648483 A, see attached English translation for citations), hereinafter Li, and Hua et al. (CN 109377509 B, see attached English translation for citations), hereinafter Hua.
Regarding claim 6, Yaginuma, Kim, Bendall, and Li teach the apparatus of claim 5.
While Bendall teaches “a semi-transparent graphic overlay 1280 is overlayed on pixels in the two-dimensional image 1241 with associated surface points having three-dimensional surface coordinates less than a predetermined distance from the three-dimensional reference surface 1260” as shown in para. [0158], wherein the overlay is interpreted as equivalent to the second image, the two-dimensional image (or third-dimensional image (see FIGs. 26 and 27)) is interpreted as the first image, and the resulting image with the graphic overlay is interpreted as the third image, Bendall fails to specifically teach using a preset transparency.
However, Hua teaches using a preset transparency (Hua teaches “the system superimposes a preset color mark, for example, a colored target annotation image on the original image, that is, the image to be annotated, with a preset transparency, so that a user can visually compare the original image with the target annotation” in para. [0082]).
Yaginuma, Kim, Bendall, Li, and Hua are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using image analysis to analyze different images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yaginuma (as modified by Kim, Bendall, and Li) to incorporate the teachings of Hua and include “a preset transparency”. The motivation for doing so would have been “so that a user can visually compare the original image with the target annotation”, as suggested by Hua in para. [0082]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Yaginuma, Kim, Bendall, and Li with Hua to obtain the invention specified in claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, Yaginuma, Kim, Bendall, and Li teach the method of claim 16.
While Bendall teaches “a semi-transparent graphic overlay 1280 is overlayed on pixels in the two-dimensional image 1241 with associated surface points having three-dimensional surface coordinates less than a predetermined distance from the three-dimensional reference surface 1260” as shown in para. [0158], wherein the overlay is interpreted as equivalent to the second image, the two-dimensional image (or third-dimensional image (see FIGs. 26 and 27)) is interpreted as the first image, and the resulting image with the graphic overlay is interpreted as the third image, Bendall fails to specifically teach using a preset transparency.
However, Hua teaches using a preset transparency (Hua teaches “the system superimposes a preset color mark, for example, a colored target annotation image on the original image, that is, the image to be annotated, with a preset transparency, so that a user can visually compare the original image with the target annotation” in para. [0082]).
Yaginuma, Kim, Bendall, Li, and Hua are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using image analysis to analyze different images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yaginuma (as modified by Kim, Bendall, and Li) to incorporate the teachings of Hua and include “a preset transparency”. The motivation for doing so would have been “so that a user can visually compare the original image with the target annotation”, as suggested by Hua in para. [0082]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Yaginuma, Kim, Bendall, and Li with Hua to obtain the invention specified in claim 17.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaginuma (JP 2010-14670 A, see attached English translation for citations) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0245784 A1), hereinafter Kim Li et al. (CN 108160509 A, see attached English translation for citations), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 8, Yaginuma and Kim teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are configured to cause the at least one processor to:
generate and output a fourth image in which a (Kim teaches that “the lateral-surface inspection module 10 may be configured to obtain lateral-surface images of the plurality of secondary batteries 2” in para. [0046]. See that “the plurality of secondary batteries 2 may be loaded onto the loader 50 in a longitudinal direction, i.e., vertical direction thereof” as shown in para. [0044], wherein the loader 50 (see FIG. 1) is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed tray); and
in response to receiving a selection signal for one battery of the plurality of batteries in the fourth image, output the first image or the second image corresponding to the one battery of the plurality of batteries (Yaginuma teaches outputting the first and second image corresponding to a cylindrical body as shown in claim 1. Kim additionally teaches generating a picture of a first secondary battery as shown in para. [0068]-[0069], wherein the first secondary battery exists on the tray as taught in the citation for the previous limitation, and is selected based on a signal to generate an image for the first secondary battery based on a first pattern as shown in FIG. 13 and para. [0069]).
While Kim teaches a tray (see above) Kim and Yaginuma fail to specifically teach that the fourth image consists of a plurality of batteries in a tray.
However, Li teaches an image sensor “used to acquire the image of multiple batteries 200 in the battery case 300” in para. [0027]. Here, the battery case 300 is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed tray.
Yaginuma, Kim, and Li are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using image analysis to analyze an outer surface of a cylindrical object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yaginuma (as modified by Kim) to incorporate the teachings of Li and include that “the fourth image consists of a plurality of batteries in a tray”. The motivation for doing so would have been to “improve production efficiency” by detecting battery defects, as suggested by Li in para. [0048]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Yaginuma and Kim with Li to obtain the invention specified in claim 8.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaginuma (JP 2010-14670 A, see attached English translation for citations) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0245784 A1), hereinafter Kim, Li et al. (CN 108160509 A, see attached English translation for citations), hereinafter Li, and N/A (CN 112241699 A, see attached English translation for citations), hereinafter ‘699.
Regarding claim 9, Yaginuma, Kim, and Li teach the apparatus of claim 8.
Kim further teaches wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the at least one processor to: visualize one or more images of defective batteries among the plurality of batteries and one or more images of normal batteries among the plurality of batteries (Kim teaches “generating an inspection image of the single secondary battery by combining the plurality of individual image sections, and operation S700 of identifying whether the appearance is defective based on the inspection image” in para. [0080]. Since it can be determined whether the appearance is defective, it is clear that both defective batteries and normal batteries are visualized of the plurality of batteries as defined in claim 8).
Yaginuma, Kim, and Li fail to teach outputting a fourth image, wherein the images of the normal batteries are distinguishable from the images of the defective batteries.
However, ‘699 teaches outputting a fourth image, wherein the images of the normal batteries are distinguishable from the images of the defective batteries (‘699 teaches outputting images with gray scale intervals to visualize defects in batteries, wherein “for example, under the two defect conditions of a crack and a metal leakage, the crack is generally in a linear shape, the metal leakage is generally in a block shape, the crack is reflected on a pixel point in an image, and the distribution condition of the pixel point corresponding to the defect area has a larger difference” as shown in para. [0101]. Additionally, “the gray value of the pixel point is compared with the standard gray value to obtain the gray deviation data of the gray value of the pixel point and the standard gray value, if the gray deviation data meets the allowed gray deviation threshold, the pixel point is a normal pixel point, if the gray deviation data does not meet the allowed gray deviation threshold, the pixel point is an abnormal pixel point, namely a target pixel point, and the range formed by the target pixel point is the defect area in the gray map” as shown in para. [0092]. Here, the normal batteries are visually distinguishable from the defective batteries).
Yaginuma, Kim, Li, and ‘699 are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using image analysis to analyze an outer surface of an object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yaginuma (as modified by Kim and Li) to incorporate the teachings of ‘699 and include “outputting a fourth image, wherein the images of the normal batteries are distinguishable from the images of the defective batteries”. The motivation for doing so would have been “judging the defect area based on the gray scale value of each pixel point in the image of the target object and based on the gray scale degree of the pixel point, namely the gray scale interval to which the gray scale value belongs, the object defect type of the target object is judged, the data processing amount in the judging process of the object defect type is simplified, the data processing efficiency is improved, and the object defect type of the target object can be quickly obtained”, as suggested by ‘699 in para. [0051]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Yaginuma, Kim, and Li with ‘699 to obtain the invention specified in claim 9.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaginuma (JP 2010-14670 A, see attached English translation for citations) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0245784 A1), hereinafter Kim, Li et al. (CN 108160509 A, see attached English translation for citations), hereinafter Li, and N/A (CN 112241699 A, see attached English translation for citations), hereinafter ‘699.
Regarding claim 19, Yaginuma and Kim teach the method of claim 12, wherein outputting the one or more of the first image and the second image through the GUI includes:
generating and outputting a fourth image in which a (Kim teaches that “the lateral-surface inspection module 10 may be configured to obtain lateral-surface images of the plurality of secondary batteries 2” in para. [0046]. See that “the plurality of secondary batteries 2 may be loaded onto the loader 50 in a longitudinal direction, i.e., vertical direction thereof” as shown in para. [0044], wherein the loader 50 (see FIG. 1) is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed tray);
in response to receiving a selection signal for one battery of the plurality of batteries in the fourth image, outputting the first image or the second image corresponding to the one battery of the plurality of batteries (Yaginuma teaches outputting the first and second image corresponding to a cylindrical body as shown in claim 1. Kim additionally teaches generating a picture of a first secondary battery as shown in para. [0068]-[0069], wherein the first secondary battery exists on the tray as taught in the citation for the previous limitation, and is selected based on a signal to generate an image for the first secondary battery based on a first pattern as shown in FIG. 13 and para. [0069]);
visualizing and outputting one or more images of defective batteries among the plurality of batteries and one or more images of normal batteries among the plurality of batteries (Kim teaches “generating an inspection image of the single secondary battery by combining the plurality of individual image sections, and operation S700 of identifying whether the appearance is defective based on the inspection image” in para. [0080]. Since it can be determined whether the appearance is defective, it is clear that both defective batteries and normal batteries are visualized of the plurality of batteries).
While Kim teaches a tray (see above) Kim and Yaginuma fail to specifically teach that the fourth image consists of a plurality of batteries in a tray and wherein the images of the normal batteries are distinguishable from the images of the defective batteries.
However, Li teaches an image sensor “used to acquire the image of multiple batteries 200 in the battery case 300” in para. [0027]. Here, the battery case 300 is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed tray.
Yaginuma, Kim, and Li are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using image analysis to analyze an outer surface of a cylindrical object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yaginuma (as modified by Kim) to incorporate the teachings of Li and include “generating and outputting a fourth image in which a tray containing a plurality of batteries is visualized”. The motivation for doing so would have been to “improve production efficiency” by detecting battery defects, as suggested by Li in para. [0048]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Yaginuma and Kim with Li to obtain the invention specified in the above claim limitation.
Yaginuma, Kim, and Li fail to teach wherein the images of the normal batteries are distinguishable from the images of the defective batteries.
However, ‘699 teaches outputting a fourth image, wherein the images of the normal batteries are distinguishable from the images of the defective batteries (‘699 teaches outputting images with gray scale intervals to visualize defects in batteries, wherein “for example, under the two defect conditions of a crack and a metal leakage, the crack is generally in a linear shape, the metal leakage is generally in a block shape, the crack is reflected on a pixel point in an image, and the distribution condition of the pixel point corresponding to the defect area has a larger difference” as shown in para. [0101]. Additionally, “the gray value of the pixel point is compared with the standard gray value to obtain the gray deviation data of the gray value of the pixel point and the standard gray value, if the gray deviation data meets the allowed gray deviation threshold, the pixel point is a normal pixel point, if the gray deviation data does not meet the allowed gray deviation threshold, the pixel point is an abnormal pixel point, namely a target pixel point, and the range formed by the target pixel point is the defect area in the gray map” as shown in para. [0092]. Here, the normal batteries are visually distinguishable from the defective batteries).
Yaginuma, Kim, Li, and ‘699 are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using image analysis to analyze an outer surface of an object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yaginuma (as modified by Kim and Li) to incorporate the teachings of ‘699 and include “outputting a fourth image, wherein the images of the normal batteries are distinguishable from the images of the defective batteries”. The motivation for doing so would have been “judging the defect area based on the gray scale value of each pixel point in the image of the target object and based on the gray scale degree of the pixel point, namely the gray scale interval to which the gray scale value belongs, the object defect type of the target object is judged, the data processing amount in the judging process of the object defect type is simplified, the data processing efficiency is improved, and the object defect type of the target object can be quickly obtained”, as suggested by ‘699 in para. [0051]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Yaginuma, Kim, and Li with ‘699 to obtain the invention specified in claim 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The best prior art of record is Yaginuma, Kim, Li ‘509, Li ‘483, Bendall, ‘699, and Hua. Prior art applied alone or in combination with fails to anticipate or render obvious claims 10-11 and 21.
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, Yaginuma and Kim teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are configured to cause the at least one processor to….
Yaginuma further teaches calculate an outer diameter value for the battery using the three-dimensional shape data, capturing a cross-sectional image, and outputting a fifth and sixth image through the GUI.
However, neither Yaginuma, nor Kim, nor Li ‘509, nor Li ‘483, nor Bendall, nor ‘699, nor Hua, nor the combination, teaches at least one of a fifth image that is horizontal cross section of the battery visually representing the calculated outer diameter and a sixth image that is a vertical cross section of the battery visually representing the calculated outer diameter; and output at least one of the fifth image and the sixth image through the GUI, in combination with the other elements of the claim.
Claim 11 includes allowable subject matter by virtue of being dependent upon claim 10.
Claim 21
Regarding claim 21, Yaginuma and Kim teach the method of claim 12.
Yaginuma further teaches calculating an outer diameter value for the battery using the three-dimensional shape data, capturing a cross sectional image, and outputting a fifth and sixth image through the GUI.
Li ‘509 teaches calculating a respective outer diameter value for each battery of a plurality of batteries.
calculating a respective outer diameter value for each battery of a plurality of batteries
However, neither Yaginuma, nor Kim, nor Li ‘509, nor Li ‘483, nor Bendall, nor ‘699, nor Hua, nor the combination, teaches generating at least one of a fifth image that is a horizontal cross section of the battery visually representing the calculated outer diameter and a sixth image that is a vertical cross section of the battery visually representing the calculated outer diameter and wherein at least one of the fifth image and the sixth image is output through the GUI based on visualization of reference information, wherein the reference information includes one or more values among a minimum outer diameter value of the plurality of batteries, the maximum outer diameter value of the plurality of batteries, an average outer diameter value of the plurality of batteries, and the upper specification outer diameter limit and lower specification outer diameter limit of the plurality of batteries; and outputting the reference information based on overlapping the reference information with the at least one of the fifth image and the sixth image, in combination with the other elements of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to KYLA G ALLEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5315. The examiner can
normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 4:30pm 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,
John Villecco can be reached on (571) 272-7319. 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.
/Kyla Guan-Ping Tiao Allen/
Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/XUEMEI G CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights