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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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:
“image acquisition module”
“an extraction module” and
“a detection module” in claim 13;
“an image acquisition unit”
“a first image acquisition unit”
“a second image acquisition unit” of claims 13, 15 and 16.
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. Specifications on paragraphs [0083] recites the structure of the image acquisition unit, may be a first image acquisition unit or a second image acquisition unit, as industrial camera or a line scan camera. The specifications further describe in paragraphs [0087] and [0097] that the structure of extraction module and detection module as image segmentation and edge detection algorithms.
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.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and mathematical concepts and calculations). The claim(s) recite(s) a method, detect a focus of attention. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved .The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory).
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1 and 10 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? YES. Claim(s) 1, 13 and 14 are directed to a method, device and a system.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? YES, the claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e. abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The method in claim 1 (and computer-readable storage in claim(s) 10) comprise a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the method) and, therefore, an abstract idea.
Regarding Claims 1, 13 and 14: the method recites the steps (functions) of:
extracting the electrode plate body zone from the to-be-inspected image (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind; extracting the electrode plate body zone from the image…);
performing corner fold detection on the electrode plate body zone (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind; detection of corner fold…)
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person could mentally analyze an image to extract the electrode plate body zone and detect corner fold mentally or by observation. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a device/in a device (e.g. processing unit) does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1, 13 and 14 does/do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
Claims 1, 13 and 14 recite additional limitation:
acquiring a to-be-inspected image of the composite material strip by using an image acquisition unit, wherein the to-be-inspected image comprises an electrode plate body zone of the cathode electrode plate (insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering);
Claim 14 recites the further limitations of:
at least one processor and a memory in communication connection with the at least one processor, wherein the memory has stored thereon 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 enabled to perform a method for corner fold detection on a cathode electrode plate of a composite material strip (instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claims 1, 13 and 14 does/do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of a computer to “obtaining, extracting, and detection, etc., as claimed in Claims 1, 13 and 14 is a routine, well-understood and conventional process that is performed by computers.
Thus, since Claims 1, 13 and 14 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that Claim(s) 1, 13 and 14 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claims 2 – 12, 15 – 17 and 19 – 20: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. These claims specify processing data: extracting, determining, detecting etc. which are steps that are directed to methods of mental process of the abstract idea that can be performed using a human mind or using a generic computer program. Therefore, claims 2 – 12, 15 – 17 and 19 – 20 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Claim 18: the claim recites additional elements; however, the additional elements does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and do not amount to significantly more to the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 18 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1 – 3, 13 – 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (See Machine Translation for CN113203745A; hereafter referred to as Yao) in view of Shimizu (US 20210096089 A1; hereafter referred to as Shimizu).
Regarding Claim 1, Yao teaches:
A method for corner fold detection on a cathode electrode plate of a composite material strip (Yao, summary, “detection method for pole piece folding”), comprising:
acquiring a to-be-inspected image of the composite material strip by using an image acquisition unit, wherein the to-be-inspected image comprises an electrode plate body zone of the cathode electrode plate (Yao, Page 6, para 1, “The first image acquisition component 40 is used to acquire a first image of the portion of the pole piece 20”; page 6, para 3, “the material area 21 of the pole piece 20 has an active material layer on the surface, and the active material layer covers the foil. The color of the surface of the material area 21 is the color of the active material layer; the lug area 22 of the pole piece 20 includes one or more electrodes”);
extracting the electrode plate body zone from the to-be-inspected image (page 6, para 8, “The first image acquisition component 40 can collect the image of the part of the pole piece 20 exposed from the light-transmitting area 301, which is recorded as the first image”); and
performing corner fold detection on the electrode plate body zone (Yao, page 6, para 2, “The detection component is used to determine whether the pole piece 20 is folded according to the gray change in the first image”).
However, Yao does not explicitly recite:
wherein the to-be-inspected image comprises an electrode plate body zone of the cathode electrode plate;
In the same field of endeavor, Shimizu recites:
wherein the to-be-inspected image comprises an electrode plate body zone of the cathode electrode plate (Shimizu, [0018] “provides an inspection method for an electrode structural body, which can quickly and precisely determine whether there is a defect in an electrode structural body including a cathode electrode layer, an electrolyte layer and an anode electrode layer”);
Yao and Shimizu are considered analogous art as they are reasonably pertinent to the same field of endeavor of image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yao with the invention of Shimizu to make the invention that inspects an electrode structural body including a cathode layer; doing so can efficiently identify defect in an electrode structural body including a cathode layer (Shimizu, [0002]); thus, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references.
Regarding Claim 2, Yao in view of Shimizu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the extracting the electrode plate body zone from the to-be-inspected image comprises:
extracting the electrode plate body zone from the to-be-inspected image at least based on a first pixel value range of the electrode plate body zone (Yao, page 4, para 3, “The color of the surface of the tab area 22 is the color of the foil itself. Due to the color difference between the active material layer and the foil, in the first image, The gray value of each pixel in the material area 21 is different from the gray value of each pixel in the tab area 22, and there is also a clear dividing line 201 between the material area 21 and the tab area 22”; Tao, page 6, last para, “the detection component can also calculate the average gray value and the variance of the gray value according to the gray value of each pixel in the area corresponding to the material area 21 in the first image”).
Regarding Claim 3, Yao in view of Shimizu teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the to-be-inspected image further comprises a separator zone at least partially surrounding the electrode plate body zone, a backup roller zone at least partially surrounding the separator zone, and a plurality of tab protruding zones located at two sides of the separator zone (Yao, page 2, Summary of invention, “A stacking table for stacking pole pieces, the pole piece includes a material area and a tab area, and the image of the material area and the image of the tab area have different gray values respectively”),
wherein the extracting the electrode plate body zone from the to-be-inspected image at least based on a first pixel value range of the electrode plate body zone comprises:
based on a corresponding second pixel threshold range of the backup roller zone, removing the backup roller zone from the to-be-inspected image to obtain a first intermediate image (Shimizu, Fig. 3, [0025] (2) On the two sides of the electrode structural body, there is an edge region …this kind of edge region does not directly contribute to power generation… the scanning is performed to include the edge region which is not required to be inspected, and the difference value is calculated under a configuration that a pixel located in the edge region is set as the specific pixel. As such, since the boundary between the edge region where neither of the cathode electrode layer and the anode electrode layer exists or one of the cathode electrode layer and the anode electrode layer does not exist and the region where both electrode layers exist may be identified, a region to be inspected for the presence or absence of a defect may be specified”; Shimizu, [0043] – [0044]);
extracting, from the first intermediate image, an image of a maximum rectangular region inscribed in an edge of the first intermediate image as a second intermediate image, to remove the plurality of tab protruding zones (Shimizu, [0026] “the threshold value is set based on the difference value including the pixel located in the edge region”; Shimizu, Fig. 3, [0043] “the image processor 5 calculates grayscale of each pixel by digitizing shade of each pixel of the determination target image P. In the following description, the lighter (whiter) the shades of pixels are, the greater the grayscales are. In the third row from the top of FIG. 4, only the grayscales of the pixels located on lines L1, L2, L3 of the determination target image P are illustrated. As shown in FIG. 4, the grayscales of the pixels located in the portion of the cathode electrode layer where the defect exists and the edge regions 95, 96 located outside lines L4, L5 are slightly greater than the grayscales of the pixels located in the other portions”; Shimizu, [0051]); and
extracting the electrode plate body zone from the second intermediate image based on a corresponding first pixel threshold range of the electrode plate body zone (Shimizu, Fig. 1, [0053] “the image processor 5 specifies an inspection target region by extracting the boundaries between the inspection region 100 where both of the electrode layers exist and the edge regions 95, 96 based on the difference values calculated in the change point emphasis process”).
Regarding Claim 13, Yao teaches:
An apparatus for corner fold detection on a cathode electrode plate of a composite material strip (Yao, summary, “lamination device and a detection method for pole piece folding, which is used to solve the problem that the folding of the pole piece is not easy to be detected when the folded part of the pole piece is blocked by the lamination device”), comprising:
an image acquisition module for acquiring a to-be-inspected image of the composite material strip by using an image acquisition unit, wherein the to-be-inspected image comprises an electrode plate body zone of the cathode electrode plate (Yao, Page 4, para 1, “The first image acquisition component 40 is used to acquire a first image of the portion of the pole piece 20 exposed from the light-transmitting area 301”; Yao, page 4, para 3, “the material area 21 of the pole piece 20 has an active material layer on the surface, and the active material layer covers the foil. The color of the surface of the material area 21 is the color of the active material layer; the lug area 22 of the pole piece 20 includes one or more electrodes”);
an extraction module, wherein the extraction module is configured to extract the electrode plate body zone from the to-be-inspected image (Yao, page 4, para 8, “The first image acquisition component 40 can collect the image of the part of the pole piece 20 exposed from the light-transmitting area 301, which is recorded as the first image”); and
a detection module, wherein the detection module is configured to perform corner fold detection on the electrode plate body zone (Yao, page 4, para 2, “The detection component is used to determine whether the pole piece 20 is folded according to the gray change in the first image”).
However, Yao does not explicitly recite:
wherein the to-be-inspected image comprises an electrode plate body zone of the cathode electrode plate;
In the same field of endeavor, Shimizu recites:
wherein the to-be-inspected image comprises an electrode plate body zone of the cathode electrode plate (Shimizu, [0018] “provides an inspection method for an electrode structural body, which can quickly and precisely determine whether there is a defect in an electrode structural body including a cathode electrode layer, an electrolyte layer and an anode electrode layer”);
Yao and Shimizu are considered analogous art as they are reasonably pertinent to the same field of endeavor of image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yao with the invention of Shimizu to make the invention that inspects an electrode structural body including a cathode layer; doing so can efficiently identify defect in an electrode structural body including a cathode layer (Shimizu, [0002]); thus, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references.
Regarding Claim 14, Yao teaches:
An electronic device comprising at least one processor and a memory in communication connection with the at least one processor, wherein the memory has stored thereon instructions executable by the at least one processor, and when the instructions are executed by the at least one processor (Yao, Fig. 1, 40, image collecting component), the at least one processor is enabled to perform a method for corner fold detection on a cathode electrode plate of a composite material strip (Yao, summary, “detection method for pole piece folding”), that comprises:
acquiring a to-be-inspected image of the composite material strip by using an image acquisition unit, wherein the to-be-inspected image comprises an electrode plate body zone of the cathode electrode plate (Yao, Page 6, para 1, “The first image acquisition component 40 is used to acquire a first image of the portion of the pole piece 20”; page 6, para 3, “the material area 21 of the pole piece 20 has an active material layer on the surface, and the active material layer covers the foil. The color of the surface of the material area 21 is the color of the active material layer; the lug area 22 of the pole piece 20 includes one or more electrodes”);
extracting the electrode plate body zone from the to-be-inspected image (page 6, para 8, “The first image acquisition component 40 can collect the image of the part of the pole piece 20 exposed from the light-transmitting area 301, which is recorded as the first image”); and
performing corner fold detection on the electrode plate body zone (Yao, page 6, para 2, “The detection component is used to determine whether the pole piece 20 is folded according to the gray change in the first image”).
However, Yao does not explicitly recite:
wherein the to-be-inspected image comprises an electrode plate body zone of the cathode electrode plate;
In the same field of endeavor, Shimizu recites:
wherein the to-be-inspected image comprises an electrode plate body zone of the cathode electrode plate (Shimizu, [0018] “provides an inspection method for an electrode structural body, which can quickly and precisely determine whether there is a defect in an electrode structural body including a cathode electrode layer, an electrolyte layer and an anode electrode layer”);
Yao and Shimizu are considered analogous art as they are reasonably pertinent to the same field of endeavor of image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yao with the invention of Shimizu to make the invention that inspects an electrode structural body including a cathode layer; doing so can efficiently identify defect in an electrode structural body including a cathode layer (Shimizu, [0002]); thus, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references.
Regarding Claim 15, Yao in view of Shimizu teaches: A system for corner fold detection on a cathode electrode plate of a composite material strip, comprising:
an image acquisition unit for acquiring the to-be-inspected image of the composite material strip (Yao, Fig. 1, image acquisition component 40, page 4, para 1, “The first image acquisition component 40 is used to acquire a first image of the portion of the pole piece 20 exposed from the light-transmitting area 301”); and
the electronic device according to claim 14, wherein the electronic device is connected to the image acquisition unit (Yao, page 3, last para, “As shown in Figure 1, the lamination device includes: The stacking table 10 is used for stacking the pole piece 20, the pole piece 20 includes a material area 21 and a tab area 22, and the image of the material area 21 and the image of the tab area 22 have different gray values respectively”).
Regarding Claim 16, Yao in view of Shimizu teaches the system according to claim 15, wherein the to-be-inspected image comprises a first image of a first surface of the composite material strip and a second image of a second surface of the composite material strip opposite to the first surface, wherein the image acquisition unit comprises:
a first image acquisition unit for acquiring the first image of the first surface of the composite material strip (Yao, page 4, para 1, “The first image acquisition component 40 is used to acquire a first image of the portion of the pole piece 20 exposed from the light-transmitting area 301”; Shimizu, Fig. 1, plurality of acquisition units 31a – 31d and 32a – 32d for acquiring images of the strip on both sides); and
a second image acquisition unit for acquiring the second image of the second surface of the composite material strip (Yao, page 5, para 8, “The lamination device also includes a second image acquisition component (not shown), the second image acquisition component is used to acquire a second image of the part of the pole piece 20 that is not covered by the sheet; the detection component is also used to The gray scale change in the image detects whether the pole piece 20 is folded”; Shimizu, Fig. 1, plurality of acquisition units 31a – 31d and 32a – 32d for acquiring images of the strip on both sides).
Regarding Claim 17, Yao in view of Shimizu teaches the system according to claim 16, wherein the first image acquisition unit is a first line scan camera and the second image acquisition unit is a second line scan camera, wherein the system further comprises a first line light source for providing illumination to an image acquisition region of the first line scan camera and a second line light source for providing illumination to an image acquisition region of the second line scan camera (Yao, page 4, para 1, “The first image acquisition component 40 is used to acquire a first image of the portion of the pole piece 20 exposed from the light-transmitting area 301”; Yao, page 5, para 8, “The lamination device also includes a second image acquisition component, the second image acquisition component is used to acquire a second image of the part of the pole piece 20 that is not covered by the sheet”; Yao, page 5, Step S101:” Collect a first image of a portion of the pole piece 20 exposed from the light -transmitting area 301…The orthographic projection of the light - transmitting area 301 on the surface of the pole piece 20 is at least partially located in the material area 21. 20 can be exposed from the light-transmitting area 301, and at least part of it is the material area 21”).
Regarding Claim 20, Yao in view of Shimizu teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium have stored thereon computer instructions, wherein the computer instructions are configured to enable a computer to perform the method according to claim 1 (Shimizu, [0030] FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram illustrating a configuration of an inspection apparatus 1 to which the inspection method for an electrode structural body... apparatus 3 which captures a transmission image of the electrode structural body 9, and an image processor 5 which is a computer determining whether there is a defect in the electrode structural body 9 according to the transmission image captured”).
Claims 4 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (See Machine Translation for CN113203745A; hereafter referred to as Yao) in view of Shimizu (US 20210096089 A1; hereafter referred to as Shimizu) further in view of Wu et al. (See Machine Translation for CN 113971663 A; hereafter referred to as Wu).
Regarding Claim 4, Yao in view of Shimizu teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly recite:
wherein the performing corner fold detection on the electrode plate body zone comprises:
determining a plurality of corner inspection zones based on the electrode plate body zone, wherein each corner inspection zone comprises a corresponding one of a plurality of corner points of the electrode plate body zone, the plurality of corner points being formed by intersection of every two adjacent ones of a plurality of edge lines of the electrode plate body zone; and
performing corner fold detection on the plurality of corner inspection zones;
In the same field of endeavor, Wu recites:
determining a plurality of corner inspection zones based on the electrode plate body zone, wherein each corner inspection zone comprises a corresponding one of a plurality of corner points of the electrode plate body zone, the plurality of corner points being formed by intersection of every two adjacent ones of a plurality of edge lines of the electrode plate body zone (Wu, page 6, step S101, “an actual pole piece image of the cell electrode group is collected…. the four corners of the cell electrode group can be imaged by the acquisition methods … to obtain the actual pole piece image”); and
performing corner fold detection on the plurality of corner inspection zones (Wu, page 6, step 101, “the pole piece image refers to the image of the pole piece in the electrode group after imaging, and the pole piece image can be divided into the normal pole piece image as shown in Fig. 2 and the image as shown in Fig. 3 shows the image of the folded pole piece… Step S102, input the actual pole piece image into the pre-trained pole piece folding prediction model, obtain a plurality of initial prediction frames in the actual pole piece image, and determine the cell by the non-maximum value suppression score of each initial prediction frame”).
Yao, Shimizu and Wu are considered analogous art as they are reasonably pertinent to the same field of endeavor of image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yao in view of Shimizu with the invention of Wu to make the invention that determines a plurality of corner inspection zones based on the electrode plate body zone; and perform corner fold detection on the plurality of corner inspection zones doing so can accurately detect whether there is a folded pole piece in the electrode group (Wu, background); thus, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references.
Regarding Claim 5, Yao in view of Shimizu further in view of Wu teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein each corner inspection zone is located in a region enclosed by a plurality of edge lines of the electrode plate body zone, and a corresponding one of the plurality of corner points is used as one vertex of the corner inspection zone (Wu, page 8, para 1, “an image intensifier can be used to image the four corners of the electrode group of the cell, and to collect the image of the folded pole piece”).
Regarding Claim 6, Yao in view of Shimizu further in view of Wu teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein the determining a plurality of corner inspection zones based on the electrode plate body zone comprises:
determining the plurality of corner points of the electrode plate body zone (Wu, page 6, step S101, “an actual pole piece image of the cell electrode group is collected…. the four corners of the cell electrode group can be imaged by the acquisition methods … to obtain the actual pole piece image”); and
based on each corner point and its corresponding two adjacent edge lines, determining a corner inspection zone corresponding to the corner point (Wu, page 6, para 8- 9, “Among them, the pole piece image refers to the image of the pole piece in the electrode group after imaging, and the pole piece image can be divided into the normal pole piece image as shown in Fig. 2 and the image as shown in Fig. 3 shows the image of the folded pole piece…obtain a plurality of initial prediction frames in the actual pole piece image, and determine the cell by the non-maximum value suppression score of each initial prediction frame. The final prediction box corresponding to each pole piece of the pole group”).
Regarding Claim 7, Yao in view of Shimizu further in view of Wu teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the determining the plurality of corner points of the electrode plate body zone comprises:
determining a minimum rectangular region circumscribing the electrode plate body zone (Wu, page 7, para 4, “after obtaining the final prediction frame, the embodiment of the present invention adjusts the final prediction frame, including the XY coordinates, width and height, confidence value, and classification category of the prediction frame rectangle”); and
determining four vertices of the minimum rectangular region as the plurality of corner points (Wu, page 7, para 4, “after obtaining the final prediction frame, the embodiment of the present invention adjusts the final prediction frame, including the XY coordinates, width and height, confidence value, and classification category of the prediction frame rectangle”).
Regarding Claim 8, Yao in view of Shimizu further in view of Wu teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the determining the plurality of corner points of the electrode plate body zone comprises:
determining the plurality of edge lines of the electrode plate body zone (Yao, Fig.2 and Fig. 4, page 6, para 5, “In the first image, identify the dividing line 201 between the material area 21 and the tab area 22”; Shimizu, Fig. 2 and Fig. 4, [0043] “FIG. 4, only the grayscales of the pixels located on lines L1, L2, L3 of the determination target image P are illustrated”); and
determining intersection points of every two adjacent ones of the plurality of edge lines as the plurality of corner points (Yao, Fig. 2, page 6, para 6, “Determine a baseline OP according to any two points on the dividing line 201”; Shimizu, Fig. 2 and Fig. 4, [0043] “FIG. 4, only the grayscales of the pixels located on lines L1, L2, L3 of the determination target image P are illustrated”).
Regarding Claim 9, Yao in view of Shimizu further in view of Wu teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein the determining the plurality of edge lines of the electrode plate body zone comprises:
determining position information of a center point of the electrode plate body zone (Shimizu, [0048] Returning to FIG. 4, the image processor 5 calculates the backward difference value shown in FIG. 5B for the pixels (including the pixels located in the front edge region 95) located between a center and a front end of the determination target image P”);
based on the position information of the center point and size information of a standard electrode plate, forming a plurality of edge detection zones in the to-be-inspected image, each edge detection zone corresponding to one of the plurality of edge lines (Shimizu, [0048] “calculates the front difference value for the pixels (including the pixels located in the rear edge region 96) located between the center and a rear end of the determination target image P along the scanning direction. In the second row from the bottom of FIG. 4, only the grayscales of the pixels located on lines L1, L2, L3 of the determination target image P are illustrated”);
based on the plurality of edge detection zones, performing edge detection on the electrode plate body zone to obtain a plurality of sidelines by using an edge detection algorithm (Shimizu, Fig. 2, Fig. 4, “[0043] “third row from the top of FIG. 4, only the grayscales of the pixels located on lines L1, L2, L3 of the determination target image P are illustrated. As shown in FIG. 4, the grayscales of the pixels located in the portion of the cathode electrode layer where the defect exists and the edge regions 95, 96 located outside lines L4, L5 are slightly greater than the grayscales of the pixels located in the other portions”); and
based on the plurality of sidelines, generating the plurality of edge lines of the electrode plate body zone (Shimizu, Fig.2, Fig. 4, the inspection region 100, including the cathode layer 91 is a rectangular region having marked edges 95b and 96b abut the inspection region. See Fig. 1, 6 and 7 where edges are found at the opposite edges of the electrode structural body 9).
Regarding Claim 10, Yao in view of Shimizu further in view of Wu teaches the method according to claim 9, wherein the generating a plurality of edge lines of the electrode plate body zone comprises:
determining an angle of each of the plurality of sidelines with respect to a corresponding edge line of the to-be-inspected image (Shimizu, Fig. 6, 7, shows sidelines corresponding edge line of the electrode structural body 9”); and
determining the sidelines as edge lines in response to the angle of each sideline being within a corresponding angle threshold range (Shimizu, [0026] “the threshold value is set based on the difference value including the pixel located in the edge region”; Fig. 2, Fig. 4, [0051] “ for example, a product of the difference value of the pixel, which is located at the boundaries between the inspection region 100 and the edge regions 95, 96 (i.e., the difference values of the pixels located at the peaks P3, P5), multiplied by a predetermined positive coefficient, which is less than or equal to 1, may be set as the determination threshold value”).
Regarding Claim 11, Yao in view of Shimizu further in view of Wu teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein the performing corner fold detection on the plurality of corner inspection zones comprises:
determining whether a pixel value of each pixel in each corner inspection zone is greater than a first pixel threshold (Yao, page 7, para 2, “the threshold range of the mean gray value and the threshold range of the gray value variance can be set”); and
determining that a corner fold is present in the electrode plate body zone in response to a determination that pixel values of one or more pixels in at least one corner inspection zone are greater than a first pixel threshold (Yao, page 7, para 2, “the threshold range of the mean gray value and the threshold range of the gray value variance can be set. If either of the two falls outside the corresponding threshold range, it is determined that the pole piece 20 is folded”).
Regarding Claim 12, Yao in view of Shimizu further in view of Wu teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein when the to-be-inspected image further comprises a separator zone surrounding the electrode plate body zone, the determining that a corner fold is present in the electrode plate body zone in response to a determination that pixel values of one or more pixels in at least one corner inspection zone are greater than a first pixel threshold comprises:
determining that a suspected corner fold is present in the electrode plate body zone in response to a determination that pixel values of one or more pixels in at least one corner inspection zone are greater than a first pixel threshold (Yao, page 7, para 2, “the threshold range of the mean gray value and the threshold range of the gray value variance can be set. If either of the two falls outside the corresponding threshold range, it is determined that the pole piece 20 is folded”);
extracting pixels with pixel values within a pixel threshold range of the separator zone in at least one corner inspection zone to obtain a set of abnormal pixels (Shimizu, [0024] “ the difference value between the value calculated according to the grayscale of the predetermined specific pixel and the value calculated according to the grayscales of the comparison pixels located in front or rear of the specific pixel along the scanning direction is calculated, and the presence or absence of a defect is determined based on the comparison performed between the difference value and the predetermined threshold value”);
dividing the set of abnormal pixels into at least one independently connected abnormal pixel region (Shimizu, [0024] “when a portion of the electrode layers forming the electrode structural body has a defect, grayscales of pixels located in the portion where the defect exists are lighter than grayscales of pixels located in another portion where there is no defect. Therefore, when there is a defect in the specific pixel and there is no defect in the comparison pixels in front or rear of the specific pixel, the difference value calculated”); and
determining that a corner fold is present in the electrode plate body zone in response to an area of any abnormal pixel region being greater than a preset area threshold (Shimizu, [0024] “when there is a defect in the specific pixel and there is no defect in the comparison pixels in front or rear of the specific pixel, the difference value calculated exceeds the threshold value and becomes large…, by calculating the difference value for each pixel of the transmission image in order by the computer, it is possible to determine whether there is a defect in a shorter time than the case of visually inspecting the transmission image”; Yao, page 4, last para – page 5, first para, “The detection component can determine whether the pole piece 20 is folded according to the grayscale change in the first image. For example, the detection component can determine whether the pole piece 20 is folded in the first image according to the area of the area in the first grayscale range and the area in the second grayscale range. In the area corresponding to 21, if it is detected that the gray value of the pixel in a part of the sub-area is within the second gray-scale range, it means that the sub-area is a folded tab, and it can be judged that the pole piece 20 is flipped”).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (See Machine Translation for CN113203745A; hereafter referred to as Yao) in view of Shimizu (US 20210096089 A1; hereafter referred to as Shimizu) further in view of Kagawa (US 20100110173 A1; hereafter referred to as Kagawa).
Regarding Claim 18, Yao in view of Shimizu teaches the system according to claim 17, but does not explicitly recite:
a first backup roller and a first encoder connected to the first backup roller, wherein the first backup roller abuts against the first surface of the composite material strip, and the first encoder is configured to send a pulse signal to the first line scan camera as the composite material strip moves on the first backup roller, to trigger the first line scan camera to take pictures line by line; and
a second backup roller and a second encoder connected to the second backup roller, wherein the second backup roller abuts against the second surface of the composite material strip, and the second encoder is configured to send a pulse signal to the second line scan camera as the composite material strip moves on the second backup roller, to trigger the second line scan camera to take pictures line by line.
In the same field of endeavor, Kagawa teaches:
a first backup roller and a first encoder connected to the first backup roller, wherein the first backup roller abuts against the first surface of the composite material strip, and the first encoder is configured to send a pulse signal to the first line scan camera as the composite material strip moves on the first backup roller, to trigger the first line scan camera to take pictures line by line (Kagawa, See Fig. 1, [0099] “1) An image sensor unit (color camera (1)) for taking in a color image along a line and converting the color image to an electric signal [0100] 2) A rotation sensor (3) for detecting a moving speed of a work [0101] 3) A defect inspection stand (4) used in picking up an image of the work passing over an inspection plate [0102] 4) An input unit (20) for receiving a signal from the rotation sensor to send an image pickup start signal to the color camera, receiving the electric signal of the line-form image, which has been picked up by the color camera”); and
a second backup roller and a second encoder connected to the second backup roller, wherein the second backup roller abuts against the second surface of the composite material strip, and the second encoder is configured to send a pulse signal to the second line scan camera as the composite material strip moves on the second backup roller, to trigger the second line scan camera to take pictures line by line (Kagawa, See Fig. 1, [0099] “1) An image sensor unit (color camera (1)) for taking in a color image along a line and converting the color image to an electric signal [0100] 2) A rotation sensor (3) for detecting a moving speed of a work [0101] 3) A defect inspection stand (4) used in picking up an image of the work passing over an inspection plate [0102] 4) An input unit (20) for receiving a signal from the rotation sensor to send an image pickup start signal to the color camera, receiving the electric signal of the line-form image, which has been picked up by the color camera”; see Kagawa, [0140]).
Yao, Shimizu and Kagawa are considered analogous art as they are reasonably pertinent to the same field of endeavor of image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yao in view of Shimizu with the invention of Kagawa to make the invention that includes plurality of backup rollers and encoders that is configured to send a pulse signals to the camera as the composite material strip moves on the backup roller (conveyor); doing so can accurately detect the electrode group and reduce cost by incorporating the sensor in the rollers; thus, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references.
Regarding Claim 19, Yao in view of Shimizu further in view of Kagawa teaches the system according to claim 18, wherein a tangent position between the composite material strip and the first backup roller is located within the image acquisition region of the first line scan camera, and a tangent position between the composite material strip and the second backup roller is located in the image acquisition region of the second line scan camera (Kagawa, Fig. 1, While a tangent position is not clearly defined in the art and since the specifications offers no criticality and no unexpected results for having said tangent position, it is deemed as 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 size).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 113376177 A Pole Ear Detection Method, Device And Electronic Device The invention claims a tab detection method, device, electronic device and storage medium, the method comprises: in response to the electric core placed on the carrier moving part is transmitted to the first preset position, controlling the moving part to reduce the transmission speed, and controlling the first image collecting device to collect the first image of a group of tabs of the electric core from the side of the electric core, wherein the first preset position is the position in the shooting range of the first image collecting device; based on the first image, determining whether the tab has defect. The embodiment of the invention can improve the efficiency and accuracy of the tab detection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAISALI RAO KOPPOLU whose telephone number is (571)270-0273. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5.
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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at (571) 272-2976. 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.
VAISALI RAO. KOPPOLU
Examiner
Art Unit 2664
/VAISALI RAO KOPPOLU/Examiner of Art Unit 2664
Prosecution Insights