DETAILED ACTION
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.
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: “obtaining unit”, “extraction unit” and “detection unit” in claim 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. When reviewing independent claim 1, and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 1-18 are held to claim an abstract idea without reciting elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The Examiner will analyze Claim 1, and similar rationale applies to independent Claim 18.
The rationale, under MPEP § 2106, for this finding is explained below. The claimed invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception, as defined below. The following two step analysis is used to evaluate these criteria.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
When examining the claim under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner interprets that the claims is related to a process since the claim is directed to a method for defect detection of a separator of a composite material strip.
Step 2a, Prong 1: Does the claim wholly embrace a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception?
obtaining a continuous image of the composite material strip; intercepting at least one image segment from the continuous image of the composite material strip, wherein the image segment comprises a separator region; and.
The Examiner interprets that the judicial exception applies since Claim 1 limitation of performing detection on the separator region are directed to an abstract. The claim is related to mental process by a quality control engineer check for defect using the image taken.
If/when the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two.
Step 2a, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The additional claim limitations obtaining a continuous image of the composite material strip; intercepting at least one image segment from the continuous image of the composite material strip, (data gathering) is nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity.
An apparatus is bused to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how it functions.
Step 2b: If a judicial exception into a practical application is not recited in the claim, the Examiner must interpret if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. NO.
The Examiner finds that Claims 2-17 does not state significantly more since the claim only recites additional steps for analyzing image for detecting defect of a separator of a composite material strip.
Thus, claims 1-18 recite the same abstract idea and therefore are not drawn to the eligible subject matter as they are directed to the abstract idea without significantly more.
Therefore, all claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) or 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by UEDA (Pub. No. US 2023/0065858).
Regarding claim 1, UEDA teaches a method for defect detection of a separator (fiber layer 13) of a composite material strip (electrode sheet 10), comprising: obtaining (captures) a continuous image of the composite material strip [Para. 2; Para. 46, “a pinhole defect is detected as a defect of the fiber layer 13”; Para. 29 “the fiber layer 13 is lithium-ion conductive and acts as an electrically insulating separator”; Para. 18 “An inspection system 1 is a system for inspecting a defect of a fiber layer formed in an electrode sheet 10 manufactured at the stage of manufacturing a secondary battery.”; Para. 31 “The image sensor 40 captures an image of the electrode sheet 10 from the side closest to the fiber layer 13 at a frame rate synchronized with the conveyance speed of the electrode sheet 10”; and Para. 42 “the processor 51 generates an image by combining imaging data of each line.”; intercepting (selects) at least one image segment (single image) from the continuous image of the composite material strip, wherein the image segment comprises a separator region (inspection region DA) [Para. 47 “the processor 51 selects a single image from the images stored in the storage 54.”;Para. 31 “the imaging data captured with the image sensor 40 may include a first region of the electrode 12 and a second region of the fiber layer 13.” And para. 49 “As shown in FIG. 6A, an inspection region DA is a region of the fiber layer 13 (the second region in each single line of the imaging data, as described above), and is set in an image in the present embodiment”]; and
performing detection (detects) on the separator region (inspection region DA) [Para. 48 “In step S12, the processor 51 sets an inspection region and detects a region having the color of the electrodes in the inspection region”; para. 52 “therefore, the processor 51 detects the pinhole defect P as the region (a pinhole region) having the color of the electrode (an active-material-layer color) in the inspection region DA by detecting, particularly in the present embodiment, a blue region specific to lithium titanate, which is a negative electrode active material used in the negative electrode active material layer 12b of the negative electrode current collector 12a.”].
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.
Claims 1, 4, 9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JORDAN et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0265673) in view of Shinomiya et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0149602).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Jordan teaches a method for defect detection (optical detection of flaw) of a separator of a composite material strip electrode-separator assembly, comprising: obtaining a continuous image (continuously changing sequence of images) of the composite material strip (electrode-separator assembly) [Para. 23 “The electrode-separator assembly can optionally be produced from functional layers of a predetermined length or from endless strips of functional layers which are joined and connected to one another with the desired layer structure”; para. 43 “In the case of a camera system, the measurement results are individual images or a continuously changing sequence of images that are passed on to the data processing system for evaluation. Within the data processing system, the evaluation takes place according to predetermined rules”, and Para. 68 “In addition, the device or the data processing device can be designed with an optical detection of flaws in order to control the lamination in-line, i.e. in the ongoing manufacturing process”].
However, Jordan doesn’t explicitly teach about detecting defect of the separator.
Shinomiya teaches inspecting the separator for defect [Para. 231].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jordan’s electrode-separator-assembly inspection metho by configuring its image processing device to apply Shinomiya’s separator-defect determination to the separator (separator 12) represented in the continuously changing sequence of images, because both systems process captured image data to identify battery component defects. This modification improves Jordan by adding separator-specific defect screening to the existing in-line inspection, thereby identifying defective separator portions before further battery cell manufacture.
Intercepting (selected) at least one image segment (area) from the continuous image (continuously changing sequence of images) of the composite material strip [Para. 23 “The electrode-separator assembly can optionally be produced from functional layers of a predetermined length or from endless strips of functional layers which are joined and connected to one another with the desired layer structure”; Para. 43 “In the case of a camera system, the measurement results are individual images or a continuously changing sequence of images that are passed on to the data processing system for evaluation”; and Para. 45 “From the recorded image of the camera system, with the aid of the function an area is selected that is to be integrated into the gray scale value formation”].
Jordan further teaches having an image segment (area) [Para. 45]; however, Jordan doesn’t explicitly teach having an image segment comprising a separator region.
Shinomiya teaches having a separator region (separator 12) [Para. 128].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jorda’s area-selection function by using Shinoniya’s target-region definition so that the selected area includes a separator region (separator 12), because both systems select image regions before defect evaluation. This medication improves Jordon by focusing image processing on an area containing the separator, thereby enabling separator specific defect evaluation while reducing evaluation of unrelated image content. and
Jordan further teaches performing detection on of flaws [Para. 68 “the device or the data processing device can be designed with an optical detection of flaws in order to control the lamination in-line, i.e. in the ongoing manufacturing process.”].
However, Jordan doesn’t explicitly teach performing detection on the separator region.
Shinomiya teaches performing detection on the separator region (separator 12) [Para. 231 and 236].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jordan’s optical flaw-detection logic by applying Shinomiya’s defect determination to the separator region (separator 12) represented in the selected image area, because both systems evaluate captured image data for battery-component defects. This modification improves Jordan by directly testing separator integrity in addition to laminate connection quality, thereby expanding the types of defects detected during in-line inspection.
Regarding claim 4, Jordan doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Shinomiya teaches wherein performing detection on the separator region comprises: determining whether the separator region comprises a suspected defect region [Para. 135, fig. 4 shows in the first region R1 a foreign object 5 as a defect to be detected].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jordan’s optical flaw-detection logic by applying Shinomiya’s defect determination to the separator region (separator 12) represented in the selected image area, because both systems evaluate captured image data for battery-component defects. This modification improves Jordan by directly testing separator integrity in addition to laminate connection quality, thereby expanding the types of defects detected during in-line inspect.
Regarding claim 9, Jordan teaches further comprising: outputting a detection result [Para. 69].
However, Jordan doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
Shinomiya teaches 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 separator is defective, and a defect type, wherein the defect type comprises damage or wrinkle [Para. 234 and 236].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jordan’s electrode-separator-assembly inspection metho by configuring its image processing device to apply Shinomiya’s separator-defect determination to the separator (separator 12) represented in the continuously changing sequence of images, because both systems process captured image data to identify battery component defects. This modification improves Jordan by adding separator-specific defect screening to the existing in-line inspection, thereby identifying defective separator portions before further battery cell manufacture.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JORDAN et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0265673) in view of Shinomiya et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0149602) further in view Taniguchi et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0142533).
Regarding claim 2, Jordan teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the image segment (area)
However, Jordan in view of Shinomiya doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of the claim limitation.
Taniguchi teaches wherein the image segment further comprises an electrode plate body region surrounded by the separator region, a plurality of tab protruding regions (tab part), and a background region adjacent to the separator region [Para. 42, 46, 49 and 48].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jordan’s camera based inspection, modified by Shinomiya, of a selected image segment (area), by imaging Taniguchi’s laminated-electrode configuration so that the selected image contains the electrode plate body, the surrounding separator, the protruding tab regions (tab part) and the adjacent holding surface background. This medication improves Jordan by providing the component boundary information necessary to distinguish the electrode, separator, tabs, and surrounding background before separator specific defect processing.
Furthermore, Shinomiya the method further comprising extracting the separator region (separator 12) from the image segment [Para. 234-235].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jordan’s optical flaw-detection logic by applying Shinomiya’s defect determination to the separator region (separator 12) represented in the selected image area, because both systems evaluate captured image data for battery-component defects. This modification improves Jordan by directly testing separator integrity in addition to laminate connection quality, thereby expanding the types of defects detected during in-line inspection.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JORDAN et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0265673) in view of Shinomiya et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0149602) further in view Taniguchi et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0142533) and further in view of Wang et a. (Pub. No. US 2016/0283817).
Regarding claim 3, Jordan in view of Shinomiya further in view of Taniguchi and further in view of doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Wang teaches removing the background region from the image segment (area) based on a maximum grayscale threshold of the background region to obtain a first intermediate image [Para. 54, 64, 67-68]; extracting, from the first intermediate image, an image of a maximum rectangular region inscribed with edges of the first intermediate image as a second intermediate image [para. 64-68, fig. 2, 3 and related description]; and removing the rectangular electrode plate body region from the second intermediate image based on a maximum grayscale threshold of the electrode plate body region to obtain the separator region [Para. 82, 46, and 54].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jordan’s image-segment (area) processing, modified by Shinomiya and Taniguchi, by incorporating Wang’s grayscale-threshold (grayscale threshold) background classification and removal so that background pixels are removed before extracting the battery-component regions. This modification improves Jordan by suppressing irrelevant background pixels and increasing contrast between the separator, electrode, and table regions thereby facilitating subsequent separator region extraction.
Claims 5, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JORDAN et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0265673) in view of Shinomiya et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0149602) further in view Liu et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0174489).
Regarding claim 5, Jordan in view of Shinomiya doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Liu teaches in response to determining that the separator 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 less than a minimum grayscale threshold of the separator region [Para. 11, 72, 82-83, and 97]; 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 separator region comprises the suspected defect region [72, 82-83, 92, fig. 1, 2 and related description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jordan’s separator-defect processing, as modified by Shinomiya by applying Liu’s gray-threshold segmentation to identify dark abnormal pixels and group the threshold pixels into independently connected regions before defect evaluation. This medication improves Jordan by converting isolated dark-pixel abnormalities into spatially coherent candidate regions, thereby reducing pixel-level noise and facilitating reliable separator defect analysis.
Regarding claim 10, Jordan in view of Shinomiya doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Liu teaches an electronic device, comprising at least one processor (second processor) and a memory communicatively connected (communicatively coupled) 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 [Para. 117 and 118].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jordan’s separator-defect processing, as modified by Shinomiya by applying Liu’s gray-threshold segmentation to identify dark abnormal pixels and group the threshold pixels into independently connected regions before defect evaluation. This medication improves Jordan by converting isolated dark-pixel abnormalities into spatially coherent candidate regions, thereby reducing pixel-level noise and facilitating reliable separator defect analysis.
Regarding claim 16, Jordan in view of Shinomiya doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Liu teaches computer-readable storage medium storing computer instructions, wherein the computer instructions are used to cause a computer to execute the method according to claim 1 [Para. 126].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jordan’s separator-defect processing, as modified by Shinomiya by applying Liu’s gray-threshold segmentation to identify dark abnormal pixels and group the threshold pixels into independently connected regions before defect evaluation. This medication improves Jordan by converting isolated dark-pixel abnormalities into spatially coherent candidate regions, thereby reducing pixel-level noise and facilitating reliable separator defect analysis.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JORDAN et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0265673) in view of Shinomiya et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0149602) further in view Kochiwa et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0054670).
Regarding claim 6, Jardan in view of Shinomiya doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Kochiwa teaches determining a suspected defect type corresponding to the suspected defect region based on geometrical characteristic information of the suspected defect region, wherein the suspected defect type comprises suspected damage or suspected wrinkle [Para. 78, and 83-84].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jordan’s separator defect system, as notified by Shinomiya by incorporating Kochiw’s shape-based classification logic to classify a localized suspected separator defect according to geometrical characteristics as damage or wrinkle. This medication improves Jordan by distinguishing defect morphology rather than merely detecting defect presence, thereby enabling defect specific evaluation and handling.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JORDAN et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0265673) in view of Shinomiya et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0149602) further in view Noy (Pub. No. US 2002/0168099).
Regarding claim 7, Jardan in view of Shinomiya doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Noy teaches 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 separator defect sample in a separator defect sample library [Para. 27-29]; 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 [Para. 30-35, fig. 2, 3 and related description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jordan’s separator defect processing, already provided with Noy’s similarity-based confidence coefficient, by incorporating Kumar’s confidence-threshold (confidence threshold) decision so that a suspected separator region is confirmed as defective when its confidence coefficient exceeds the selected threshold. This modification improves Jordan by requiring quantitative confidence sufficient to confirm a suspected defect, thereby reducing false positive defect classifications.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JORDAN et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0265673) in view of Shinomiya et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0149602) further in view Nicolaids et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0370175).
Regarding claim 8, Jordan in view of Shinomiya doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Nicolaides teaches wherein obtaining the 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 [Para. 75-77].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jordan’s camera based in-line inspection of both sides of the electrode-separator assembly by using Nicolaides’s line scan camera inspections for the respective opposing surfaces so that each side is imaged while the material moves through the inspection system. This medication improves Jordan by proving high-sensitivity continuous coverage of both surfaces while retaining high speed in-line inspection.
Claims 11, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JORDAN et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0265673) in view of Shinomiya et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0149602) further in view Liu et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0174489) further in view of Varga et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0141269).
Regarding claim 11, Jordan teaches system for defect detection of a separator 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 [Para. 43 and 63].
However, Jordan in view of Shinomiya further in view of Liu doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
Varga teaches a second image acquisition unit, configured to acquire a continuous image of another side surface of the composite material strip [Para. 18] and the electronic device according to claim 10, connected to the first image acquisition unit and the second image acquisition unit [Para. 28].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jordan’s camera-based inspection, as modified by Shinomiya and Liu, of the upper and lower surfaces by incorporating Varga’s multiple camera network and assigning one camera to each respective side surface of the moving electrode separator assembly. This modification improves Jordan by permitting simultaneous imaging of both surfaces, thereby providing more complete in line defect inspection.
Regarding claim 12, Jordan in view of Shinomiya doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
Varga 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 23 [Para. 18, fig. 1-2 and related description]; 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 [Para. 25, fig. 1-2 and related description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jordan’s camera-based inspection, as modified by Shinomiya and Liu, of the upper and lower surfaces by incorporating Varga’s multiple camera network and assigning one camera to each respective side surface of the moving electrode separator assembly. This modification improves Jordan by permitting simultaneous imaging of both surfaces, thereby providing more complete in line defect inspection.
Regarding claim 15, Jordan teaches a lamination machine, comprising the system according to claim 11 [Para. 68].
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JORDAN et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0265673) in view of Shinomiya et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0149602) in view Liu et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0174489) further in view of Varga et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0141269) and further in view of Freifeld et al. (Pub. No. US 20100053317).
Regarding claim 13, Jordan in view of Shinomiya further in view of Liu and Varga doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
Freifeld teaches 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 (line trigger signal) to the first line scan camera to trigger the first line scan camera to acquire images line by line [Para. 28]; 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 (line trigger signal) to the second line scan camera to trigger the second line scan camera to acquire images line by line [Para. 27-30].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jordan’s camera-based inspection of the upper and lower surfaces by incorporating Freifed’s multiple camera network and assigning one camera to each respective side surface of the moving electrode separator assembly. This modification improves Jordan by permitting simultaneous imaging of both surfaces, thereby providing more complete in line defect inspection.
Regarding claim 14, Jordan in view of Shinomiya further in view of Liu and Varga doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
Freifed 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 [Para. 28]; 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 [Para. 27-28].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jordan’s camera-based inspection of the upper and lower surfaces by incorporating Freifed’s multiple camera network and assigning one camera to each respective side surface of the moving electrode separator assembly. This modification improves Jordan by permitting simultaneous imaging of both surfaces, thereby providing more complete in line defect inspection.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JORDAN et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0265673) in view of Shinomiya et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0149602) further in view Schule (Pub. No. US 2021/0263775).
Regarding claim 17, Jordan in view of Shinomiya doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Schulze teaches a computer program product, comprising a computer program, wherein when the computer program is executed by a processor, the method according to claim 1 is implemented [Para. 189, 208].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jordan’s separator-defect processing, as modified by Shinomiya by applying Schulze gray-threshold segmentation to identify dark abnormal pixels and group the threshold pixels into independently connected regions before defect evaluation. This medication improves Jordan by converting isolated dark-pixel abnormalities into spatially coherent candidate regions, thereby reducing pixel-level noise and facilitating reliable separator defect analysis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7452. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10 AM-7 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, O’Neal Mistry can be reached on 313-446-4912. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-0101 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights