DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-14 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SHIMIZU (2021/0096089). In regards to claim 1, 19 and 20, SHIMIZU teaches a method for defect detection of a cathode electrode plate of a composite material strip, comprising: obtaining a continuous image of the composite material strip (See; Fig. 3 and p[0019] for scanning the electrode structural body to obtain a continuous transmission image); intercepting at least one image segment from the continuous image of the composite material strip, wherein the image segment comprises a cathode electrode plate body region (See; Fig. 2 and p[0033]-p[0034] for determining an inspection region 100 where the cathode electrode layer 91 exists) and performing detection on the cathode electrode plate body region (See; Fig. 4, abstract and p[0049] where defects are detected on the cathode electrode layer). Claims 19 and 20 are a computer readable storage medium and apparatus embodiments which would be read on by the rejection above. In regards to claim 2, SHIMIZU teaches wherein the image segment further comprises a separator region surrounding the cathode electrode plate body region (See; Fig. 2 for inspection region 100 which includes the cathode electrode plate region), a plurality of tab protruding regions (See; Fig. 2 where the edges of the cathode create a protruding region down to the anode electrode), and a background region adjacent to the separator region; the method further comprising: extracting the cathode electrode plate body region from the image segment (See; Fig. 3 and p[0053] for S6 which extracts boundaries between edge regions and the inspection region (which could be considered a background region) and the inspection region remains).
In regards to claim 3, SHIMIZU teaches wherein extracting the cathode electrode plate body region from the image segment comprises: removing the background region from the image segment based on a maximum grayscale threshold of the background region to obtain an intermediate image; and removing the separator region and the plurality of tab protruding regions from the intermediate image based on a maximum grayscale threshold of the cathode electrode plate body region to obtain the cathode electrode plate body region (See; Fig. 3, p[0019], p[0024], p[0043]- p[0044]).
In regards to claim 4, SHIMIZU teaches wherein performing detection on the cathode electrode plate body region comprises: determining, based on the cathode electrode plate body region, a detection region corresponding to the cathode electrode plate body region (See; Fig. 2 and p[0033]-p[0034] for determining an inspection region 100 where the cathode electrode layer 91 exists)
In regards to claim 5, SHIMIZU teaches wherein determining the detection region corresponding to the cathode electrode plate body region comprises: determining a minimum rectangular region circumscribed about edges of the cathode electrode plate body region, and taking the minimum rectangular region as the detection region corresponding to the cathode electrode plate body region (See; Figs. 2 and 4 where the inspection region 100, including the cathode electrode layer 91, is a rectangular region).
In regards to claim 6, SHIMIZU teaches wherein determining the minimum rectangular region circumscribed about edges of the cathode electrode plate body region comprises: extracting a first straight edge and a second straight edge of the cathode electrode plate body region that have the same extension direction as the composite material strip and a third straight edge and a fourth straight edge that are orthogonal to the extension direction of the composite material strip; and determining the minimum rectangular region circumscribed about the edges of the cathode electrode plate body region based on intersections of the first straight edge, the second straight edge, the third straight edge, and the fourth straight edge (See; Figs. 2 and 4 where the inspection region 100, including the cathode electrode layer 91, is a rectangular region having marked edges where 95b and 96b abut the inspection region. See Figs. 1, 6 and 7 where a third and fourth edge is inherently found at the opposite edges of the electrode structural body 9).
In regards to claim 7, SHIMIZU teaches wherein performing detection on the cathode electrode plate body region comprises: determining whether the detection region comprises a suspected defect region (See; Abstract, Figs. 3 and 4).
In regards to claim 8, SHIMIZU teaches wherein determining whether the detection region comprises the suspected defect region comprises: in response to determining that the detection region comprises an abnormal pixel set, obtaining at least one independently connected abnormal pixel subset based on the abnormal pixel set, wherein a grayscale of each pixel in the abnormal pixel set is greater than the maximum grayscale threshold of the cathode electrode plate body region or less than a minimum grayscale threshold of the cathode electrode plate body region; and for each such abnormal pixel subset, in response to determining that an area of the abnormal pixel subset is greater than an area threshold, determining that the detection region comprises the suspected defect region (See; Abstract, Figs. 3, 4, p[0019], p[0024] and p[0043]- p[0044] where a defect is determined based on the grayscale of pixels in the determined defect being a different grayscale than normal pixels).
In regards to claim 9, SHIMIZU teaches wherein performing detection on the cathode electrode plate body region comprises: determining a suspected defect type corresponding to the suspected defect region based on geometrical characteristic information and/or grayscale of the suspected defect region, wherein the suspected defect type comprises suspected damage or suspected wrinkle (See; Abstract and p[0024] where the defect is determined based off the grayscale where the defect comprises suspected damage to the electrode).
In regards to claim 10, SHIMIZU teaches wherein performing detection on the cathode electrode plate body region comprises: determining a confidence coefficient of the suspected defect region based on image information of the suspected defect region and image information of at least one electrode plate defect sample in an electrode plate defect sample library; and in response to determining that the confidence coefficient is greater than a confidence threshold, determining that the suspected defect region is a defect region (See; Fig. 3 and p[0051]-p[0055] for setting a determination threshold value and determining a defect in the electrode layer based on a comparison performed between the difference values and the determination threshold value).
In regards to claim 11, SHIMIZU teaches wherein obtaining a continuous image of the composite material strip comprises: obtaining a continuous image shot by a line scan camera for each side surface of the composite material strip (See; Figs. 1, 3 and p[0019] for scanning the electrode structural body to obtain a continuous transmission image). In regards to claim 12, SHIMIZU teaches further comprising: outputting a detection result; wherein the detection result comprises at least one of the following: positioning information of the defect region in the image segment, geometrical characteristic information of the defect region, positioning information of the image segment corresponding to the composite material strip, alarm information indicating that the cathode electrode plate is defective, and a defect type, wherein the defect type comprises damage or wrinkle (See; Fig. 3 S8, 6, 7 and p[0056]-p[0064] for outputting a report detailing the position of the defect, geometric characteristics, etc.)
In regards to claim 13, SHIMIZU teaches an electronic device, comprising at least one processor and a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor, wherein: the memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor, and when the instructions are executed by the at least one processor, the at least one processor is caused to execute the method according to claim 1 (See; Fig. 1 and p[0019] for image processor 5 having inherent memory).
In regards to claim 14, SHIMIZU teaches a system for defect detection of a cathode electrode plate of a composite material strip, comprising: a first image acquisition unit, configured to acquire a continuous image of one side surface of the composite material strip; a second image acquisition unit, configured to acquire a continuous image of another side surface of the composite material strip; and the electronic device according to claim 13, connected to the first image acquisition unit and the second image acquisition unit (See; Fig. 1 for a plurality of acquisition units 31a-31d and 32a-32d acquiring images of the entirety of the strip).
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) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIMIZU (2021/0096089) in view of Kagawa (2010/0110173) In regards to claim 15, SHIMIZU fails to explicitly teach wherein: the first image acquisition unit is a first line scan camera, and the second image acquisition unit is a second line scan camera; and the system further comprises a first line light source for illuminating an acquisition region of the first line scan camera and a second line light source for illuminating an acquisition region of the second line scan camera. However, Kagawa teaches wherein: the first image acquisition unit is a first line scan camera, and the second image acquisition unit is a second line scan camera; and the system further comprises a first line light source for illuminating an acquisition region of the first line scan camera and a second line light source for illuminating an acquisition region of the second line scan camera (See; Fig. 1 for an inspection method of detecting defects on sheet like products having camera 1 and illumination devices 2). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify SHIMIZU to use different imaging technologies that required light sources such as in Kagawa as a lower cost alternative with higher resolution and/or to detect different types of defects. In regards to claim 16, Kagawa teaches further comprising: a first support roller and a first encoder connected to the first support roller, wherein the first support roller abuts against one side surface of the composite material strip, and the first encoder is configured to send a pulse signal to the first line scan camera to trigger the first line scan camera to acquire images line by line; and a second support roller and a second encoder connected to the second support roller, wherein the second support roller abuts against another side surface of the composite material strip, and the second encoder is configured to send a pulse signal to the second line scan camera to trigger the second line scan camera to acquire images line by line (See; Fig. 1 and p[0099]-p[0102] for various rollers for manipulating the sheet material through the device and including an input unit for receiving a signal from the rotation sensor (included in what appears to be a roller) to start the camera). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a sensor in the roller to save space within the device.
In regards to claim 17, SHIMIZU and Kagawa fail to explicitly teaches the acquisition region of the first line scan camera is arranged at a tangent position of the composite material strip and the first support roller; and the acquisition region of the second line scan camera is arranged at a tangent position of the composite material strip and the second support roller. However a tangent position is not clearly defined in the art and since the specification offers no criticality and no unexpected results from having said tangent position then it is deemed a design choice.. Therefore it would have been obvious to place the cameras at any number of different locations as a mere design choice based on the constraints of the system’s size.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIMIZU (2021/0096089) in view of KIM et al (2022/0006161) (herein “KIM”). In regards to claim 18, SHIMIZU fails to explicitly teach a lamination machine, comprising the system according to claim 14. However, KIM teaches a lamination machine (See; Fig. 1, abstract and p[0064] for a lamination device for battery manufacturing including defect detection on an electrode assembly). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the inspection device of SHIMIZU to operate in a lamination machine such as in KIM so as to inspect for defects at all stages in the manufacturing process of the battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN A BOYD whose telephone number is (571)270-7503. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at (571) 272-7776. 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.
/JONATHAN A BOYD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights