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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims in the reply filed on 7/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/5/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1 recites the limitation "stack table" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 and 12 recites the limitation "the locations of the cameras" and "the coordinates of the cameras" in lines 4 and 6. The difference between the locations of the cameras and the coordinates of the cameras to global coordinates is not clear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kröger, Ole et al. “An automatic calibration approach for a multi-camera-robot system.” 2019 24th IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA) (2019): 1515-1518.
Regarding claim 1, Kröger et. al. discloses a camera calibration device (Kröger et. al. Figure 1, (automatic multi-camera calibration system); Section II-A, p. 1-2), comprising: a calibration board detachably mounted on an upper surface of a stack table and to which a predefined calibration pattern is applied (Kröger et. al. Figure 1 (ChArUco calibration board mounted on an end-effector of a robot); Section II-A p.1-2) ; a plurality of cameras installed above the stack table (Kröger et. al. Figure 2 (cameras C0, C1, C2 and C3 collecting images over a workspace); Section II-B p. 1); and a processor connected to the plurality of cameras (Kröger et. al. Abstract—the presence of a processor is implicit because of the automated calibration process), wherein, if the calibration board is mounted, the processor performs calibration on each of the plurality of cameras based on calibration patterns of calibration board images obtained from each of the plurality of cameras (Kröger et. al. See the calibration of the intrinsic parameters in Section II-A and the calibration of the cameras’ extrinsic parameters in Section II-B).
Regarding claim 3, Kröger et. al. discloses the camera calibration device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the calibration pattern includes: a first pattern for local calibration for calibrating optical parameters and locations of the plurality of cameras (Kröger et. al. see the calibration of the camera intrinsic and extrinsic parameters in Sections II-A and II-B, Figure 1); and a second pattern for global calibration for setting coordinates of the plurality of cameras to global coordinates (Kröger et. al. see the calibration of the cameras’ extrinsic parameters with respect to a predetermined origin of the world coordinate system using two ArUco markers attached on the base plate of the robot, Figure 2 and 3 (W: world coordinates origin on robot base)).
Regarding claim 4, Kröger et. al. discloses the camera calibration device as claimed in claim 3, wherein the processor: measures optical parameter information including at least one of focus, brightness, and resolution of each of the plurality of cameras based on the calibration pattern, resulting in measured optical parameter information; and calibrates the measured optical parameter information according to a preset target value (Kröger et. al. see the calibration of the camera intrinsic and extrinsic parameters in Sections II-A and II-B, Figure 1). It is implicit that the intrinsic parameters of a camera include the focal length, optical center, and distortion coefficients, and it is also implicit that calibration is performed with respect to reference values of said parameters.
Regarding claim 5, Kröger et. al. discloses the camera calibration device as claimed in claim 3, wherein the processor moves each of the plurality of cameras on the calibration board based on location information of a manufacturing target electrode plate (Kröger et. al. see the calibration of the cameras’ extrinsic parameters with respect to a predetermined origin of the world coordinate system using two ArUco markers attached on the base plate of the robot, Figure 2 and 3 (W: world coordinates origin on robot base, Sections II-A and II-B, Figure 1)).
Regarding claim 6, Kröger et. al. discloses the camera calibration device as claimed in claim 3, wherein the processor performs the global calibration by assigning global coordinate values to the calibration pattern and mapping the locations of the plurality of cameras to the global coordinate values (Kröger et. al. see the calibration of the cameras’ extrinsic parameters with respect to a predetermined origin of the world coordinate system using two ArUco markers attached on the base plate of the robot, Figure 2 and 3 (W: world coordinates origin on robot base)).
Regarding claim 12, Kröger et. al. discloses a method of calibrating a camera, the method comprising: mounting a calibration board to which a predefined calibration pattern has been applied on an upper surface of a stack table; receiving, by a processor, calibration board images from a plurality of cameras; and performing, by the processor, calibration on each of the plurality of cameras based on calibration patterns of the calibration board images (Kröger et. al. see the calibration of the cameras’ extrinsic parameters with respect to a predetermined origin of the world coordinate system using two ArUco markers attached on the base plate of the robot, Figure 2 and 3 (W: world coordinates origin on robot base, Sections II-A and II-B, Figure 1)).
Regarding claim 13, Kröger et. al. discloses the method as claimed in claim 12, wherein the receiving includes the processor: moving each of the plurality of cameras on the calibration board based on location information of a manufacturing target electrode plate; and receiving the calibration board images captured by each of the plurality of cameras (Kröger et. al. see the calibration of the cameras’ extrinsic parameters with respect to a predetermined origin of the world coordinate system using two ArUco markers attached on the base plate of the robot, Figure 2 and 3 (W: world coordinates origin on robot base, Sections II-A and II-B, Figure 1)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kröger, Ole et al. “An automatic calibration approach for a multi-camera-robot system.” 2019 24th IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA) (2019): 1515-1518 in view of Ban (United States Patent Application Publication US 2023/0343986 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kröger et. al. discloses the camera calibration device as claimed in claim 1. However, Kröger et. al. fails to disclose wherein the plurality of cameras are installed at locations around a first end guide member and a second end guide member, the locations being fixed in a front end of a folding part configured to fold a separation membrane on the stack table and which guides the separation membrane to move toward the folding part, the plurality of cameras including: a first camera installed at one side of the first end guide member to capture an edge image of a first electrode plate; a second camera installed at an other side of the first end guide member to capture an edge image of the first electrode plate; a third camera installed at one side of the second end guide member to capture an edge image of a second electrode plate; and a fourth camera installed at an other side of the second end guide member to capture an edge image of the second electrode plate.
Ban teaches wherein the plurality of cameras are installed at locations around a first end guide member and a second end guide member, the locations being fixed in a front end of a folding part configured to fold a separation membrane on the stack table and which guides the separation membrane to move toward the folding part, the plurality of cameras including: a first camera installed at one side of the first end guide member to capture an edge image of a first electrode plate; a second camera installed at an other side of the first end guide member to capture an edge image of the first electrode plate; a third camera installed at one side of the second end guide member to capture an edge image of a second electrode plate; and a fourth camera installed at an other side of the second end guide member to capture an edge image of the second electrode plate (Ban Figure 8-10, [0074]; [0067]).
This is important to the claimed invention because the technical effect of the features is installing a plurality of cameras at predetermined positions with respect to a plurality of electrode plates. The problem to be solved by these features is how to position cameras photographing a plurality of electrode plates. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kröger et. al. and Ban to arrive at the solution of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, Kröger et. al. discloses the method as claimed in claim 12. However, Kröger et. al. fails to disclose wherein the predefined calibration pattern includes: a first pattern for local calibration for calibrating optical parameters and locations of the plurality of cameras; and a second pattern for global calibration for setting coordinates of the plurality of cameras to global coordinates.
Ban teaches wherein the predefined calibration pattern includes: a first pattern for local calibration for calibrating optical parameters and locations of the plurality of cameras; and a second pattern for global calibration for setting coordinates of the plurality of cameras to global coordinates (Ban Figure 15-18; [0067], [0074]; [0094] and [0103]-[0105]).
This is important to the claimed invention because the technical effect of the features is installing a plurality of cameras at predetermined positions with respect to a plurality of electrode plates and then performing local calibration. The problem to be solved by these features is how to position cameras photographing a plurality of electrode plates. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kröger et. al. and Ban to arrive at the solution of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15, Kröger et. al. and Ban discloses the method as claimed in claim 14, and Kröger et. al. further discloses wherein, in performing the calibration, the processor: measures optical parameter information including at least one of focus, brightness, and resolution of each of the plurality of cameras based on the calibration pattern, resulting in measured optical parameter information; and calibrates the measured optical parameter information according to a preset target value (Kröger et. al. see the calibration of the camera intrinsic and extrinsic parameters in Sections II-A and II-B, Figure 1). It is implicit that the intrinsic parameters of a camera include the focal length, optical center, and distortion coefficients, and it is also implicit that calibration is performed with respect to reference values of said parameters.
Regarding claim 16, Kröger et. al. and Ban discloses the method as claimed in claim 14, and Kröger et. al. further discloses wherein in performing the calibration, the processor performs the global calibration by assigning the calibration pattern to global coordinate values and mapping locations of the plurality of cameras to the global coordinate values (Kröger et. al. see the calibration of the cameras’ extrinsic parameters with respect to a predetermined origin of the world coordinate system using two ArUco markers attached on the base plate of the robot, Figure 2 and 3 (W: world coordinates origin on robot base)).
Regarding claim 17, Kröger et. al. discloses the method as claimed in claim 12. However, Kröger et. al. fails to disclose further comprising, after the performing of the calibration, if the calibration board is removed from the stack table and a separation membrane is alternately stacked between a first electrode plate and a second electrode plate on the stack table: receiving, by the processor, edge images of at least one of the first electrode plate, the second electrode plate, and the separation membrane stacked on the stack table from one of the plurality of cameras whenever the at least one of the first electrode plate, the second electrode plate, and the separation membrane is stacked on the stack table; and calculating, by the processor, corner points of a corresponding electrode plate based on the edge images.
Ban teaches further comprising, after the performing of the calibration, if the calibration board is removed from the stack table and a separation membrane is alternately stacked between a first electrode plate and a second electrode plate on the stack table: receiving, by the processor, edge images of at least one of the first electrode plate, the second electrode plate, and the separation membrane stacked on the stack table from one of the plurality of cameras whenever the at least one of the first electrode plate, the second electrode plate, and the separation membrane is stacked on the stack table; and calculating, by the processor, corner points of a corresponding electrode plate based on the edge images (Ban Figure 15 and 16 (35 and 37: intersection points (i.e. corners) of the horizontal and vertical edges of the negative electrode plate 30); [0067]; Figures 17 and 18 (38 and 39: intersection points of the horizontal and vertical edges of the positive electrode plate 40); [0074]; [0018]; [0094]; [0103]-[0105]; [0103]-[0105]).
This is important to the claimed invention because the edges are aligned based on the corner points of the electrode plate. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kröger et. al. and Ban to arrive at the solution of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18, Ban further discloses the method as claimed in claim 17, wherein, in the calculating of the corner points, the processor: generates a first edge line connecting coordinates between the plurality of cameras on a first edge image and a second edge image of the first electrode plate and a third edge image and a fourth edge image of the second electrode plate captured by the plurality of cameras in a straight line and a second edge line being a straight line perpendicular to the first edge line; and calculates an intersecting point at which the first edge line and the second edge line intersect as a corner point of the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate (Ban Figure 15 and 16 (35 and 37: intersection points (i.e. corners) of the horizontal and vertical edges of the negative electrode plate 30); [0067]; Figures 17 and 18 (38 and 39: intersection points of the horizontal and vertical edges of the positive electrode plate 40); [0074]; [0018]; [0094]; [0103]-[0105]; [0103]-[0105]).
Regarding claim 19, Ban further discloses the method as claimed in claim 17, further comprising, after the calculating of the corner points, calculating, by the processor, a distance between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate using the corner points of the first electrode plate and the corner points of the second electrode plate (Ban Figure 15-18; [0067], [0074]; [0094] and [0103]-[0105]).
Regarding claim 20, Ban further discloses the method as claimed in claim 19, wherein, in the calculating of the distance, the processor calculates the distance between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate using coordinates of the corner points of the first electrode plate calculated from the edge images of the first electrode plate and coordinates of the corner points of the second electrode plate calculated from the edge images of the second electrode plate (Ban Figure 15-18; [0067], [0074]; [0094] and [0103]-[0105]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li et. al. (United States Patent Application Publication US 2019/0122388 A1) is pertinent to the claimed invention because it discloses a calibration target with a calibration pattern on at least one surface. The calibration vision system determines the relationship of locations of calibration features on the pattern, which is then encoded.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA YIFANG LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6435. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-6:15pm, with optional day off.
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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/JESSICA YIFANG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2668 August 8, 2026
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights