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 .
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: evaluation and computing unit; engraving unit; in claim 1-9.
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 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 1-13 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. Firstly with regards to claim 1. The examiner fails to find any description that the “evaluation and computing unit” performs the newly amended limitation. As such this limitation is found to be new matter. However, in addition the limitation invokes 112(f) and the only support for any actual algorithmic details are limited in such a manner to not be found to be sufficient. Applicant defines in the “unsupervised machine learning” description on page 17 of the instant disclosure how one could recognize local inhomogeneities, which then can be considered as a variance. However, the written description fails to disclose how one actually preprocesses the data to free the coating foreground from the substrate foil. The examiner further finds the description insufficient in describing whether this preprocessing is actually a physical act of separating a coating from a substrate foil, or a digital image processing step of attempting to do so from an image previously obtained. There is no disclosure at all as to how one would “increase a contrast” of firstly what specifically, and second how algorithmically this would be done. As such there is found to be a plurality of issues the result in a lack of sufficient written description in both claims 1 and 10. Claims 2-9 and 11-13 are rejected for their dependency on instant claims 1 and 10. Lastly applicant added in the limitation “and/or”, of which one interpretation of is “and”. The disclosure of page 18 merely provides support for “or”, not the use of both variance and contrast together to determine a freeing of a coating foreground from a substrate foil.
Claims 1-13 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 and 10 recites the limitation "explained variance" in line 15 in each respective claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that “explained” implies some previously detailed explanation of some type of variance. The claim fails to in any manner define any variance, or how said variance would be determined. This limitation appears to be supported on page 17 of applicant’s instant specification. This is evidenced by the limitation being present on page 18 from applicant’s instant disclosure which calls back to description from page 17. As such the claim clearly fails to have any clear antecedent basis for what is or could not be interpreted as an “explained variance”. As such the examiner is interpreting the limitation as essentially non-limiting as any image from a camera has at least some variance. Even calibration frames are taken due to their slight variance in detected inhomogeneities. Claims 2-9 and 11-13 are rejected for their dependency on instant claim 1 and 10.
Claim limitation “wherein the evaluation and computing unit further operates to free a coating foreground form a substrate foil of an electrode web” 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. Specifically the examiner is unclear what particular algorithmic operations are actually performed to achieve the noted result “to free a coating foreground from a substrate foil of the electrode web” 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takefumi et al. (JP 5492528 B2, where the examiner has provided a machine translation hereinwith for citations) in view of Mound (U.S. PGPub No. 2007/0265783 A1) in view of Fang et al. (TW 202140995 A, where the examiner has provided a machine translation hereinwith for citations) in view of Osawa et al. (JP 4090781 B2, where the examiner has provide a machine translation hereinwith for citations) further in view of Warkentin et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2023/0401665 A1).
As to claims 1 and 10, Takefumi discloses and shows in figure 16 an apparatus for imaging of electrode web during electrode manufacturing for battery cells, the apparatus comprising ([0001]):
a deflection roller (300, 6000 or 900) over which the electrode web is guided ([0108]; [0110]);
Takefumi does disclose the use of an inspection apparatus (700) that takes images of the electrode under test ([0112]).
Takefumi does not explicitly disclose where the imaging camera is a hyperspectral spectroscopy unit with: a line scan camera to capture hyperspectral images of the forward-moving electrode web at a predefined location of the electrode manufacturing, and an evaluation and computing unit to ascertain inhomogeneities of the electrode web from the images, wherein an inhomogeneity is a deviation of the chemical composition of the layers or of the particle size distribution from predefined target variables, and to ascertain and save a local position of the inhomogeneities in the longitudinal direction of the electrode web.
However, Mound does disclose and show in figures 1, 2 and 4 and in ([0034]; [0035], ll. 1-18; [0038]; [0047]-[0049]) the use of a line scan camera (as cited Mound both sends down line light as shown in figure 2, and measures return line light as shown in figure 4 via camera 25. Further, the imaging in Mound is disclosed as being a function of a hyperspectral imaging spectrometer, which images bulk material forward-moving as a slurry similar to that of Takefumi along a conveyor 10 at a predefined location (i.e. location shown in figure 1). Mound uses the spectral signature of the sample under test to compare it to that of a calibration/known material to determine/identify the sample under test at each location along the material under test. The “inhomogeneity” of the sample under test is inherently measured in the method of Mound as that is the fundamental result of the spectra responding to any material imaged. Likewise if layers are present which is both case when providing a sample under test in Takefumi, or clearly the bulk material of Mound which is not comprised of a single particle (explicitly shown in figure 1), the deviation of chemical composition (i.e. variation measured) would similarly be measured. The examiner takes Office notice that the computer 60, that has the stored library/calibration standards also stores the result from the sample under test at the very least temporarily while under measurement/analysis. Fang, discloses on (page 8, ll. 36-42) further evidence of using hyperspectral spectrometry to measure not only the top surface, but the “sub-surface profile” or layers, in a comprehensive and high resolution manner.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takefumi where the imaging camera is a hyperspectral spectroscopy unit with: a line scan camera to capture hyperspectral images of the forward-moving electrode web at a predefined location of the electrode manufacturing, and an evaluation and computing unit to ascertain inhomogeneities of the electrode web from the images, wherein an inhomogeneity is a deviation of the chemical composition of the layers or of the particle size distribution from predefined target variables, and to ascertain and save a local position of the inhomogeneities in the longitudinal direction of the electrode web in order to provide the advantage of reduction in cost and robust build quality among other advantages explicitly disclose in Mound ([0021]-[0027]) in using a hyperspectral system for detailed analysis of the sample under test.
Takefumi in view of Mound further in view of Fang does not explicitly disclose wherein the line scan camera captures the images of the contact surface approximate a position between the deflection roll and the electrode web.
However, Osawa does disclose and show in figure 4 and in ([0021]; [0022]) the basic concept of positioning a sensor (7) directly over a deflection roll (3). It is additionally found obvious that the sensors of Takefumi or Mound could be rearranged to be over the deflection roller, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Lastly, the examiner find further evidence in applicant’s own Figure 4, which does not actually show the sensor 22, taking a picture of the position of the contact surface between the deflection roll and the electrode web, thus providing evidence that the noted feature is not critical.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takefumi in view of Mound further in view of Fang disclose wherein the line scan camera captures the images of the contact surface approximate a position between the deflection roll and the electrode web in order to provide the advantage of expected results in placing the sensors in one of many known predictable places so that one can precisely measure the sample under test.
Takefumi in view of Mound in view of Fang further in view of Osawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the evaluation and computing unit further operates to free a coating foreground from a substrate foil of the electrode web, filter out sensor information according to a respective degree of explained variance, and/or increase a contrast.
However, Warkentin does disclose in ([0127], ll. 1-12; [0137], ll. 1-10) the basic concept of using a processing algorithm to filter and or improve contrast in a hyperspectral image in order to analyze a coating in a “more effective and/or more correct” manner. Obviously this computation can be done to achieve the result of freeing “a coating foreground from a substrate foil of the electrode web”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takefumi in view of Mound in view of Fang further in view of Osawa wherein the evaluation and computing unit further operates to free a coating foreground from a substrate foil of the electrode web, filter out sensor information according to a respective degree of explained variance, and/or increase a contrast in order to provide the advantage of increased accuracy as explicitly noted by Warkentin in the citation above increasing contrast and filtering in a hyperspectral environment makes the images and decisions related to them “more effective and/or more correct”.
The subject matter of claims 1 and 10 relate in that the technical features of apparatus claim 1 are in each case suitable for implementing the method of claim 10, therefore the method is obvious in view of the above apparatus rejection.
As to claims 2 and 11, Takefumi discloses an apparatus, wherein saving the local position of the inhomogeneity includes marking the electrode web (via marking device 800) ([0109]).
As to claim 3, Takefumi discloses an apparatus, further comprising an engraving unit (800, where the examiner is interpreting the structure of Takefumi as a structural equivalent for performing the same function) to implement the marking with an engraving (where the examiner is interpreting a mark as disclosed by Takefumi as a form of engraving) at a longitudinal edge of the electrode web (where this intended result is being found as implicit in the teaching of Takefumi, as any error in the dispersion layer near the “longitudinal edge” would be marked as such as disclosed) ([0109]).
As to claims 4 and 12, Takefumi in view of Mound in view of Fang further in view of Osawa does not explicitly disclose an apparatus, further comprising a storage unit to store spectral characteristics of the inhomogeneity as spatial encoding along the electrode web so the position of the inhomogeneity is able to be found on the basis of the spectral characteristics.
However, Takefumi does disclose in ([0109]) marking the position of the dispersion layer that is judge to be defective. Further Mound discloses in ([0047]) the basic concept of having stored calibration standards for comparison with the measured value, and as already noted above obviously can store the measured spectral characteristics of the sample under test as desired. As such obviously one could store the measured values as disclosed by the combination of Takefumi and Mound to allow the marking device of Takefumi to precisely mark where a defect is present subsequently as the web flows.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takefumi in view of Mound in view of Fang further in view of Osawa with an apparatus, further comprising a storage unit to store spectral characteristics of the inhomogeneity as spatial encoding along the electrode web so the position of the inhomogeneity is able to be found on the basis of the spectral characteristics in order to provide the advantage of expected results and increased accuracy, as obviously storing the output from the measurement system to provide a location to the marking system obviously results in a more precise location determination relative to randomly guessing where defects are present.
As to claim 5, Takefumi discloses an apparatus, further comprising a manufacturing control system (104) connected to the spectroscopy unit (102) and configured to trigger the spectroscopy unit for measurement ([0094]).
As to claim 7, Takefumi as modified by Mound discloses an apparatus, wherein the line scan camera comprises an SWIR line scan camera ([0041] from Mound, for the same modification and motivation listed above the SWIR wavelength band used in the line scan spectroscopy measurement system would be advantageous to that of Takefumi, but briefly to provide a detailed analysis of the sample under test with such a wide wavelength range).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takefumi et al. in view of Mound in view of Fang et al. in view of Osawa et al. in view of Warkentin further in view of Hollinger et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,546,146 B1).
As to claim 6, Takefumi in view of Mound in view of Fang in view of Osawa further in view of Warkentin does not explicitly disclose an apparatus, wherein the evaluation and computing unit operates to compress data of the spectroscopic imaging in a vector and to assign the compressed data to the local position.
However, Hollinger does disclose in (col. 1, ll. 16-18; col. 7, ll. 42-63; col. 8, ll. 6-11) the use of hyperspectral data compression with the use of vectors. Obviously this data is a function of local position within the image gathered. Doing so with a hyperspectral computer processing system (Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takefumi in view of Mound in view of Fang in view of Osawa further in view of Warkentin does with an apparatus, wherein the evaluation and computing unit operates to compress data of the spectroscopic imaging in a vector and to assign the compressed data to the local position in order to provide the advantage of increased efficiency, as obviously compressing the data into vector form yields a more simplistic data set that can be more rapidly analyzed and stored if desired.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takefumi et al. in view of Mound in view of Fang et al. in view of Osawa et al. in view of Warkentin further in view of LeCun et al. (NPL: Deep Learning).
As to claims 8-9 and 13, Takefumi in view of Mound in view of Fang in view of Osawa further in view of Warkentin does not explicitly disclose an apparatus, wherein the spectroscopy unit comprises an AI engine to ascertain the inhomogeneities in a computer-aided manner or wherein the AI engine is trained to ascertain the inhomogeneities from the spectra using deep learning methods.
However, LeCun does disclose in (Abstract) the use of Deep Learning (i.e. AI engine based analysis) methods for analysis of “intricate structure in large data sets”. Obviously this could be applied to the images taught by the references above in order to rapidly process the image output and make the required determination (i.e. defective or not).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takefumi in view of Mound in view of Fang in view of Osawa further in view of Warkentin with an apparatus, wherein the spectroscopy unit comprises an AI engine to ascertain the inhomogeneities in a computer-aided manner or wherein the AI engine is trained to ascertain the inhomogeneities from the spectra using deep learning methods in order to provide the advantage of increased efficiency in using common deep learning AI based methods one can rapidly analyze large amounts of image data and make rapid decisions on intricate structures within said data (i.e. whether or not defects are present) in a highly accurate manner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MICHAEL P LAPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/Michael P LaPage/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights