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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a non-Final office action on merit. Claims 1-20, as originally filed, are presently pending and have been considered below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2024-0052371, filed on 04/18/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/10/2024 and 8/7/2025 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 16 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 16 recites: “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of regions comprises a first region and a second region, and wherein performing the electrode tab folding inspection comprises: determining an average length of widths of the electrode tab region measured in the first region as a width of the electrode tab in the first region; and determining an average length of widths of the electrode tab region measured in the second region as a width of the electrode tab in the second region.” in which “an average length of widths of the electrode tab region” is unclear and ambiguous. In the filed of electrode plate and electrode tab, the size, dimension, or platform is often defined as height, length, width, and/or thickness, according to the context of description. However, a length of a width is ambiguous and therefore renders indefinite. The portion of indefinite in claim 15 is therefore not weighted in merit rejection.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9-10, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0035559 A1, Zhao et al. (hereinafter Zhao) in view of US 2025/0095135 A1, Li et al. (hereinafter Li).
As to claim 1, Zhao discloses a method of inspecting electrode tab folding performed by at least one processor, comprising:
obtaining an image that has captured an electrode plate on which an electrode tab is formed, wherein the image comprises an electrode plate region and an electrode tab region (Figs 4, 8; pars 0006, 0008-0009, 0016, capture a continuous image in the region of electrode strip/plate and electrode tab);
dividing the electrode tab region in the image into a plurality of regions (Figs 4, 6; pars 0083, electrode tab region being divided into a plurality of tab protruding regions, a tab-separator overlapping region, etc.); and
performing an electrode tab folding inspection based on a width of the electrode tab region in each of the plurality of regions (Figs 3, 8; pars 0005-0007, 0013-0016, 0028, 0048, 0061, 0063-0066, detect suspected defect/damage in electrode tab regions).
Zhao does not expressly disclose the electrode tab folding inspection being based on a width of electrode tab region.
Nevertheless, Li, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches electrode tab folding inspection is based on preset parameters including a width or a range of the width of the electrode tab regions (Figs 6, 8a; pars 0018, 0111, 0140, 0144).
Therefore, consider Zhao and Li’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Li’s teachings in Zhao’s method to detect potential detect in the folding regions with respect to the width of the folding area.
As to claim 2, Zhao as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of regions comprises a first region, a second region, and a third region (Zhao: pars 0008, a plurality of tab protruding regions, a separator region, and a background region adjacent to the separator region), and wherein performing the electrode tab folding inspection comprises: determining that the electrode plate is defective 6, in response to determining that a width of the electrode tab region in the first region is less than a predetermined first width (Zhao: Fig 8, determine a minimum rectangular region as a detection region for defect and an area of the abnormal pixel subset greater than an area threshold as a suspected defect region; pars 0011-0016, determine the suspected defect region and defect types; Li: Fig 6, 8a; pars 0139), that a width of the electrode tab region in the second region is less than a predetermined second width, or that a width of the electrode tab region in the third region is less than a predetermined third width (Zhao: Fig 8; pars 0005-0007, 0018, 0116; Li: pars 0140, 0144, 0160).
As to claim 3, Zhao as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the predetermined first width, the predetermined second width, and the predetermined third width are different from one another (Zhao: Fig 8; pars 0008-0009, 0018-0019, note the regions being divided based on functions and characteristics, their size including height and width are inherently different; Li: Fig 6-9, preset regions and associated widths are based on electrode tab contour and difference between an anode tab region and a background image, which are inherently different).
As to claim 4, Zhao as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the first region is connected to the electrode plate region, the second region is disposed between the first region and the third region (Zhao: Figs 4, 6; Li: Fig 3), the predetermined second width is smaller than the predetermined first width, and the predetermined third width is smaller than the predetermined second width (Zhao: Figs 4, 6; Li: Fig 3).
As to claim 5, Zhao as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein dividing into the plurality of regions comprises: determining a plurality of straight lines associated with an outline of the electrode tab region (Zhao: pars 0012, 0049, 0098-0099, 0102-0103, a plurality of straight lines being determined from four straight edges and rectangular region circumscribed about the edges); and dividing the electrode tab region into a predetermined number of regions based on the plurality of straight lines (Zhao: pars 0008-0009, 0018-0019, segmenting the electrode tab into different regions).
As to claim 6, Zhao as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 5, wherein determining the plurality of straight lines comprises: determining a first straight line associated with one side of the electrode plate region; determining a second straight line and a third straight line associated with a height of the electrode tab region; and determining a fourth straight line that is parallel to the first straight line and is associated with an uppermost point of the electrode tab region (Zhao: Figs 1, 4, 6, four straight lines being identified corresponding to height/width of different regions corresponding to the electrode plate and the electrode tab).
As to claim 7, Zhao as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 6, wherein determining the first straight line comprises: identifying a first point and a second point on the one side of the electrode plate region; and determining the first straight line by connecting the first point and the second point, and wherein the electrode tab region is connected to the electrode plate region on the one side (Zhao: Figs 1, 4, 6).
As to claim 9, Zhao as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 6, wherein determining the fourth straight line comprises: identifying the uppermost point of the electrode tab region that is tangent to the second straight line or the third straight line (Zhao: pars 0024, 0074); and determining the fourth straight line that passes through the uppermost point and is parallel to the first straight line (Zhao: Figs 1, 4, 6; par 0070).
As to claim 10, Zhao as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 6, wherein dividing the electrode tab region into the predetermined number of regions based on the plurality of straight lines comprises: dividing the electrode tab region into N+1 regions by placing N predetermined dividing lines between the first straight line and the fourth straight line, wherein the N is a natural number (Zhao: Figs 1, 4, 6; Li: Figs 3, 6, 8; pars 0018-0020. note: N can be greater than or equal to 1, rejection in claim 1 for number of regions being divided).
As to claim 13, Zhao as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 6, further comprising: determining that the electrode plate is defective if a distance between the third straight line and the electrode tab region exceeds a predetermined threshold (Zhao: Fig 8, defect region being determined if the area is greater than an area threshold, note the area includes the boundary distance; pars 0014, 0016, 0086; Li: Figs 11-12; par 0136, no defect below the threshold).
As to claim 14, Zhao as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 13, wherein the third straight line is located downstream of the second straight line in a process direction (Zhao: pars 0102-0103).
As to claim 15, Zhao as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: determining the electrode plate as a target for an electrode tab folding inspection in response to determining that the width of the electrode tab region in the electrode tab region is less than a predetermined reference standard, after obtaining the image and before dividing (Li: pars 0136, 0140, 0144, 0160, the electrode plate can be inspected before segmenting and/or dividing in regions).
As to claim 16, Zhao as modified discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of regions comprises a first region and a second region (see rejection in claim 1), and wherein performing the electrode tab folding inspection comprises: determining an average length of widths of the electrode tab region measured in the first region as a width of the electrode tab in the first region; and determining an average length of widths of the electrode tab region measured in the second region as a width of the electrode tab in the second region (not weighted, see 35 USC 112 (b) rejection).
As to claim 17, it recites a non-transitory CRM storing instructions executed to perform functions and features of claim 1. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein.
As to claim 18, it is a system claim encompassed claim 1. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein.
As to claim 19, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
As to claim 20, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8, 11-12 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.
Reasons for Allowance
Prior art of record (Zhao, Xiao) neither discloses alone nor teaches in combination functions and features recited in claims 8 and 11, respectively. Claim 12 depends from claim 11.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular column, line number, paragraphs and/or figure(s) in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the reference(s) in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Qun Shen whose telephone number is (571) 270-7927. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Friday from 9:00-5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's Supervisor, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571) 272-3382. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/QUN SHEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights