DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
The present application claims benefit of foreign application JP 2023-149127 filed on 09/14/2023. While the certified copy (WIPO) is received, the translation is not on file. No translation is required at this time unless the status of the case changes.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 09/24/2024, 11/27/2024, 06/18/2025, and 11/05/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wire” detailed in at least paragraph [0037] of the present application specifications and in claims 5 and 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Appropriate amendments to the specifications are required to reflect the corresponding amended “wire” reference number reflected in the amended drawing(s).
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: “an imaging apparatus” and “a determination processing part” in claim 1.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Abstract Idea
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed toward the mental process of identifying the quality of a weld based on observed data.
Regarding claim 1, under step 2A prong 1, the claim is directed towards the mental process of:
imaging a heat sensitive paint, the heat sensitive paint being applied to a conductive member that is electrically connected to a plurality of battery cells by a weld (i.e. observing and collecting information)
determining a quality of the weld based on an image obtained (i.e. analyzing the collected information).
These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an imaging apparatus that” and “a determination processing part that,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a person could compile a mental picture of a heat sensitive paint applied to a conductive member that is electrically connected to a plurality of battery cells by a weld by observing the recited configuration’s physical attributes, including defects or an absence of defects, and mentally determine the quality of the weld based on their mental picture. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, prior art provided (see claim rejections below) discloses a reference using a heat sensitive paint applied to a battery and observing the paint to determine defects, explaining changes in the paint’s color “can be immediately judged visually without using a measuring device, thereby a battery defect can be easily detected” (see Abstract of Yuji (JP 2000277061 A)). Indicating observing heat sensitive paint (i.e. collecting information) and defect determination based on observations (i.e. analysis based on collected information) can be performed mentally.
Under step 2A prong 2, there is no practical application provided beyond taking an image and determining the quality of a weld based on the image and while the instant specification discloses a camera, a RAM, a ROM, a CPU, and an ASIC (based on 112(f) interpretation of “imaging apparatus” and “determination processing part” found in FIG. 1 camera 300 and paragraph [0030] of instant application), in accordance with MPEP 2144 and the April 2018 Berkheimer Memo, the Examiner notes these limitations do not provide “significantly more” because these limitations could simply comprise generic structures or generic computer elements. Further, the prior art provided (see claim rejections below) discloses references with similar structures as the claimed invention (See FIG. 1 thermal imaging camera 400 of Oh (US 20240151589 A1) and camera, processing, and storage hardware provided in paragraphs [0022], and [0129]-[0138] of Lu et al. (US 20230214989 A1).).
Thus, the limitation amounts to data gathering and data analysis and fails to integrate the claim into a practical application. Similarly, under step 2B, the limitations fail to amount to significantly more.
Claim 6 follows the same logic as claim 1 above with the exception of claim 6 being “a weld quality inspection method,” not expressly comprising of an imaging apparatus and a determination processing part. This is a mental process and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Examiner notes, claims 2-5 are normal structured components being observed through the weld quality inspection system of claim 1 and introduce no further specialized components. The limitations found in claims 2-5 merely further describe information being observed and collected in claim 1 for subsequent information analysis. Accordingly, amending claim 1 to include the contents of 2-5 would not overcome claim 1’s 101 rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 20240151589 A1; provided by applicant in IDS) in view of Yuji et al. (JP 2000277061 A; provided by applicant in IDS; translation relied up provided by applicant), and in further view of Lu et al. (US 20230214989 A1).
The examiner would like to point out that the various “imaging apparatus” and “determination processing part” that correspond to components comprised in the weld quality inspection system and identified in the Claim Interpretation section hereinabove are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as described in FIG. 3 camera 300 (i.e. image apparatus), and paragraph [0030] (i.e. determination processing part).
Regarding claim 1,
A weld quality inspection system (Although Oh describes the invention as a “welding inspection apparatus” (see Abstract “welding inspection apparatus…to determine whether the weld portion is defective…”), Oh nevertheless teaches the claimed weld quality inspection system because Oh discloses an apparatus having cooperating functionality configured to inspect weld quality and discloses performing the same determination processing, which further constitutes a determination part under the broadest reasonable interpretation. See further imaging apparatus and determination part taught by Oh below.), comprising:
an imaging apparatus that images a heat sensitive paint, the heat sensitive paint being applied to a conductive member that is electrically connected to a plurality of battery cells by a weld (see FIG. 1 and paragraphs [0043]-[0044] “welding inspection apparatus according to the present invention includes a base unit 200 configured to allow a battery module 100, which is an object to be inspected, to be disposed thereon, a positive electrode connector 310 and a negative electrode connector 320 connected to the battery module 100…a thermal imaging camera 400 configured to photograph a weld portion of the battery module 100…The battery module 100 includes cylindrical battery cells 101.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim and the 112(f) interpretation of “imaging apparatus” identified in the 112(f) section above and in FIG. 1 camera 300 of the instant application specification, the “thermal camera” taught by Oh constitutes an imaging apparatus because it is a type of camera and the instant application fails to explicitly disclose what type of camera is required.);
and a determination processing part that determines a quality of the weld based on an image obtained by the imaging apparatus (Oh teaches “determining whether a weld portion is defective through a method of observing the external appearance of a battery module using a thermal imaging camera, i.e. a nondestructive inspection method” ([0029). Oh further teaches the battery module is placed on a base unit while the thermal imaging camera scans the welded areas and the camera may move over the batter module or use multiple cameras side-by-side ([0021]-[0023]; [0043]). Oh further teaches the battery is charged and discharged while on the base unit for testing and the system monitors how the temperature at each weld changes over time, observing for unusual changes in temperatures, and ultimately determining a weld is defective if a temperature change falls outside a normal range ([0024]-[0027]; [0051]-[0054]). Under the broadest interpretation of the claim, Oh’s welding apparatus and its thermal camera for determining if welds are defective constitute a “determination part”.).
Oh fails to explicitly disclose: a determination processing part as identified in the 112(f) section above and according to the structure provided in paragraph [0030] of the instant application specification (i.e. a part including a CPU, RAM, and ROM, using ASIC or FPGA), and imaging a heat sensitive paint applied to a conductive member.
In a related art, Yuji teaches: a heat sensitive paint applied to a conductive member that is electrically connected to a battery for the purpose of visually indicating abnormalities (see Abstract (excerpt provided below); [0010]-[0012]; [015]-[0016]).
PNG
media_image1.png
188
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oh’s teachings of thermal imaging for weld quality inspection using iterative charge/discharge operations to incorporate Yuji’s teachings of using a heat sensitive paint for the weld inspection of Oh’s conductive member connected to a plurality of battery cells by a weld in order to simplify the weld quality detection process by using a passive visual temperature indicator (i.e. heat sensitive paint), thereby providing an opportunity for visual analysis and reducing reliance on repeated charge/discharge acquisition cycles and subsequent time and/or energy costs associated with repeated charge/discharge cycles. Both inventions aim to solve the problem of detecting the abnormalities in battery related components, with a goal of increasing manufacturing speed through non-contact detection techniques (see Oh [0002] & [0013], and Yuji [0016]).
Oh and Yuji further fail to disclose: a determination processing part identified in the 112(f) section above and according to paragraph [0030] of the instant application specification (i.e. a part including a CPU, RAM, and ROM, using ASIC or FPGA). Although Oh’s thermal camera-based system is capable of detecting thermal indicators from the heat sensitive paint used in Yuji’s teachings, Yuji’s paint techniques for identifying defects in conductive members is optimized through optical color indicators presented by the paint.
In a related art, Lu teaches: a camera-based color defect detection system implemented by an electronic device (Abstract). Lu teaches acquiring “the test sample image by controlling the camera device to capture an image of the sample to be detected” ([0022]) and analyzing the captured image using “pixel difference values” ([0024]), “color difference values” ([0030]), and related image analysis processing to identify defect regions, including determining target regions corresponding to defects according to color difference values and feature connected regions (Abstract; refer to FIG. 2, a flowchart outlining the entire defect detection method). Lu further teaches the defect detection system using a camera device for capturing the images that is connected to an electrical device (FIG. 1; [0011]), while the electrical device includes a determination unit that “determines a detection result of the test sample corresponding to the test sample image” ([0123]; [0134]). The defect detection system and determination unit taught by Lu operate using a processor and a computer program stored in a storage device ([0073]; [0130]; See Lu’s corresponding processing hardware configurations corresponding to the “determination processing part” identified in the 112(f) section above and interpretated to correspond to paragraph [0030] of the instant application specification in paragraphs [0129]-[0138] of Lu.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the non-thermal camera-based color difference defect detection techniques, using well-known processor based systems, taught by Lu to the painted/color-visible defect regions of the combined system of Oh and Yuji in order to: improve detection accuracy for visually identifiable abnormalities found in welds, further reduce manual inspection requirements, and reduce common difficulties associated with using infrared light (Oh previously taught using a thermal camera). Additionally, implementing the well-known processor-based system taught by Lu would provide conventional computerized execution, automation, and processing of the weld quality inspection. While Lu is not in the field of endeavor of battery analysis (like Oh and Yuji), all three inventions aim to improve defect detection techniques using optical detection methods.
Regarding claim 2,
Oh, Yuji, and Lu teach the weld quality inspection system according to claim 1.
Oh further teaches: inspecting at least a periphery of a weld part (Oh teaches inspecting battery welds using images of the entire area of the upper surface of a battery, taken from above the battery and weld, for further inspection and defect detection processing ([0074]; [0021]-[0025]; see FIG. 1, a perspective view showing the schematic form of a welding inspection apparatus). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, Oh’s teachings of inspecting the entirety of the upper surface of batteries and their welds from above corresponds to inspecting “at least a periphery of a weld wall part.”)
As noted in claim 1, Yuji teaches: a heat sensitive paint applied to a conductive member that is electrically connected to a battery for the purpose of visually indicating abnormalities (see Abstract (excerpt provided below); [0007]-[0012]; [015]-[0016]).
Yuji further teaches: the heat sensitive paint’s “position where it is applied on the battery may be selected so that it is easily visible” ([0008]).
Oh, Yuji, and Lu fail to explicitly disclose: wherein the heat sensitive paint is applied to at least a periphery of a weld part.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Oh, Yuji, and Lu’s weld inspection system to apply the heat sensitive paint taught by Yuji to at least a periphery of a weld part in order to increase the accuracy of the upper battery and weld imaging, and inspection processing taught by Oh that emphasizes inspecting and imaging at least a periphery of a weld part because applying the heat sensitive paint to at least the periphery of a weld part would be a more easily visible area for inspection (consistent with Yuji’s teachings), thereby enabling a more consistent monitoring of at least the periphery of a weld part.
Regarding claim 3,
Oh, Yuji, and Lu teach the weld quality inspection system according to claim 1.
Yuji further teaches: the heat sensibility for the heat sensitive paint selected may vary depending on applications and the placement of the paint may vary depending on factors for inspection (e.g. visibility) ([0016]).
While Oh, Yuji, and Lu fail to explicitly disclose wherein the heat sensitive paint has a heat sensibility that varies depending on a distance from a weld part, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Oh, Yuji, and Lu’s framework of applying a heat sensitive paint to a conductive member connected to a plurality of battery cells by a weld (as taught in claim 1), to incorporate Yuji’s further teachings of applying various levels of heat sensible paint to appropriate areas depending on factors for inspection, thereby applying a variable of heat sensitive paints depending on a distance from a weld part in order to account for variations in heat commonly experienced at different distances from the weld when testing for defects. Doing so would provide a visual indication of a defect when a part hits a high temperature that is abnormal for one area and not an abnormal for another area or distance from a weld part, thereby increasing the accuracy and reliability of the inspection results.
Regarding claim 4,
Oh, Yuji, and Lu teach: The weld quality inspection system according to claim 1.
In claim 1, Oh and Yuji taught a conductive member and a heat sensitive paint being applied to a conductive member (refer back to Oh and Yuji’s teaching in claim 1 and the motivation to combine statements, including Yuji’s Abstract and Yuji [0015]-[0016]).
Oh’s background section teaches: electrode terminals of battery cells in contact with busbars exhibiting voltage (Oh [0009]), meaning a busbar is a conductive member and can be connected to electrode terminals.
Oh, Yuji, and Lu fail to explicitly disclose: the conductive member is a bus bar, and the heat sensitive paint is applied to at least the bus bar.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Oh, Yuji, and Lu, to incorporate the well-known bus bar teachings exhibited by Oh’s background section in order to more equally distribute voltage and make the system more robust by enabling the weld quality inspection of systems and batteries using bus bars, with applied heat sensitive paint, as conductive members.
Regarding claim 6,
Oh teaches: A weld quality inspection method (Abstract: “a welding inspection apparatus including…wherein it is possible to determine whether the weld portion is defective using a nondestructive inspection method.”).
With the exception of the “imaging apparatus,” and “determination processing part,” of the “weld quality inspection apparatus,”, the remaining limitations found in claim 6 equally mirror the limitations taught by Oh, Yuji, and Lu in claim 1. For sake of brevity, refer back to claim 1’s 103 rejection hereinabove for corresponding teachings. Thus, claim 6 is rejected based on the prior art of Oh, Yuji, and Lu in claim 1 of the present office action and the weld quality inspection method of Oh detailed in the previous paragraph of the present office action. Accordingly, the corresponding motivation to combine references found in the claim 1 rejection above is also applicable.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 20240151589 A1; provided by applicant in IDS) in view of Yuji et al. (JP 2000277061 A; provided by applicant in IDS; translation relied up provided by applicant), in view of Lu et al. (US 20230214989 A1), and in further view of Jan et al. (US 20210249736 A1).
Regarding claim 5,
Oh, Yuji, and Lu teach the weld quality inspection system according to claim 1.
In claim 1, Oh and Yuji teach a conductive member and heat sensitive paint being applied to a conductive member that is electronically connected to a plurality of battery cells. The teachings of Oh in claim 1 also used electrodes as a conductive member (refer back to claim 1, and Oh [0043]-[0044]).
Oh’s background section teaches: electrode terminals of battery cells in contact with busbars exhibiting voltage (Oh [0009]), meaning a busbar is a conductive member and can be connected to electrode terminals.
Oh, Yuji, and Lu fail to explicitly disclose: the conductive member includes a bus bar and a wire that connects the plurality of battery cells to the bus bar, and the heat sensitive paint is applied to the bus bar and the plurality of battery cells.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the previous teachings of Oh, Yuji, and Lu to incorporate the well-known use of a bus bar, as taught by Oh’s background section, in order to provide a more robust conductive member that is more equally distributes voltage. Further, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the heat sensitive paint teachings of Oh and Yuji (detailed in claim 1, also refer to Yuji Abstract and paragraph [0015]) to the bus bar (provided by the modification found earlier in this paragraph) and the plurality of battery cells in order to provide a more robust and accurate weld inspection quality system that inspects for defects that may occur in the bus bar and battery cells.
While the modified teachings of Oh, Yuji, and Lu teach: the conductive member includes a bus bar and a
Oh, Yuji, and Lu fail to explicitly disclose: a wire connection that connects a bus bar to a plurality of battery cells.
In a related art, Jan teaches: a wire connecting a battery cell to a bus bar shared by multiple battery cells ([0023] “Each of the bus bars is coupled to the respective battery cells with one or more wires…”; [0024] “the first group of battery cells 102, 104 is in a parallel connection…bus bar 214 is connected to the negative terminals of the first group of battery cells…at a top end… of each of the battery cells”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Oh, Yuji, and Lu to incorporate the wiring configuration of Jan in order to provide a better current distribution and decrease material required within the system. All references are in the field of multiple batteries electrically connected through conductive structures.
Claim(s) 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 20240151589 A1; provided by applicant in IDS) in view of Yuji et al. (JP 2000277061 A; provided by applicant in IDS; translation relied up provided by applicant).
Regarding claim 7,
Oh and Yuji teach: A battery (Yuji Abstract & FIG. (a) battery 100; Oh Abstract and [0018]), comprising: a battery cell (Oh [0018] “The battery module may include cylindrical battery cells.”).
The remaining limitations of claim 7 correspond to the features of the battery used for imaging taught by Oh and Yuji in claim 1. Thus, the Lu reference is not required to teach the limitations for claim 7 and its dependent claims. Lu is solely used in independent claim 1 and its dependent claims to teach a modification relating to the imaging apparatus and determination processing part, which is not applicable in these sets of claims. The same applies to dependent claims 8-11. For sake of brevity, refer back to claim 1’s 103 rejection hereinabove for corresponding teachings. Thus, claim 7 is rejected based on the prior art of Oh and Yuji in claim 1 of the present office action and the battery comprising a battery cell taught by Oh and Yuji in the previous paragraph of the present office action. Accordingly, the corresponding motivation to combine references found in the claim 1 rejection above is also applicable.
Regarding claim 8,
Oh and Yuji teach the battery according to claim 7.
The remaining limitations of claim 8 correspond to the features of the battery used for imaging taught by Oh and Yuji in claim 2. For sake of brevity, refer back to claim 2’s 103 rejection hereinabove for corresponding teachings. Thus, claim 8 is rejected based on the prior art of Oh and Yuji in claim 1 of the present office action. Accordingly, the corresponding motivation to combine references found in the claim 1 rejection above is also applicable.
Regarding claim 9,
Oh and Yuji teach the battery according to claim 7.
The remaining limitations of claim 9 correspond to the features of the battery used for imaging taught by Oh and Yuji in claim 3. For sake of brevity, refer back to claim 3’s 103 rejection hereinabove for corresponding teachings. Thus, claim 9 is rejected based on the prior art of Oh and Yuji in claim 3 of the present office action. Accordingly, the corresponding motivation to combine references found in the claim 1 rejection above is also applicable.
Regarding claim 10,
Oh and Yuji teach the battery according to claim 7.
The remaining limitations of 10 correspond to the features of the battery used for imaging taught by Oh and Yuji in claim 4. For sake of brevity, refer back to claim 4’s 103 rejection hereinabove for corresponding teachings. Thus, claim 10 is rejected based on the prior art of Oh and Yuji in claim 4 of the present office action. Accordingly, the corresponding motivation to combine references found in the claim 1 rejection above is also applicable.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 20240151589 A1; provided by applicant in IDS) in view of Yuji et al. (JP 2000277061 A; provided by applicant in IDS; translation relied up provided by applicant), and in further view of Jan et al. (US 20210249736 A1).
Regarding claim 11,
Oh and Yuji teach the battery according to claim 7.
The remaining limitations of 11 correspond to the features of the battery used for imaging taught by Yuji, Oh, and Jan in claim 5. For sake of brevity, refer back to claim 5’s 103 rejection hereinabove for corresponding teachings. Examiner note, the teachings of Lu are not relevant to the battery being taught for imaging in corresponding claim 5 and its independent claim. Lu is solely used in corresponding claim 5 and its independent claim (claim 1) to teach a modification relating to the imaging apparatus and determination processing part, which is not applicable in these sets of claims. Thus, claim 11 is rejected based on the prior art of Oh, Yuji, and Jan in claim 5 of the present office action. The corresponding motivation to combine references found in the claim 5 rejection above is also applicable.
Relevant Art Not Relied Upon
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon, but is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Joung (US 20220357294 A1) aims to improve battery weld inspection using imaging. Background section, further discloses a bus bar is a well-known conductive member (paragraphs [0005]-[0006] “A busbar is used for electrical connection between the battery cells. The busbar and leads of the battery cells are generally connected to each other by welding, since each of the busbar and the leads is an electrically conductive metal.”).
.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL DAVID BAYNES whose telephone number is (571)272-0607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Stephen R Koziol can be reached at (408)918-7630. 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.
/S.D.B./
Samuel Baynes
Examiner | Art Unit 2665
/Stephen R Koziol/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights