Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/27/26, 07/03/25, have been entered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
3. The drawings filed on 10/17/24. These drawings are acceptable.
Double Patenting
4. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
5. Claims 1, 7-10, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,155,045). Hereafter, “Kim ‘045”.
As to claim 1, Kim ‘045 claims:
A battery cell inspection system (claim 1, line 1) comprising:
a scan device scanning one side surface of the battery cell (claim 1, lines 3-4); and
a battery cell inspection device (claim 1, line 3); comprising:
a data collector configured to obtain scan data obtained by scanning one side surface of the battery cell from the scan device (claim 1, lines 2-4),
a bend value determiner configured to determine a bend value indicating a bent degree of one side surface positioned at a corresponding point at each point of the one side surface based on information on each of different points of the one side surface included in the scan data (claim 1, lines 5-10).
As to claim 7, Kim ‘045 claims a standard value calculator configured to calculate a standard value for deciding a degree at which the respective bend values are spread out based on the bend values determined for each point of the one side surface by the bend value determiner; a tolerance calculator configured to calculate a tolerance corresponding to a difference between the bend value of each point and the standard value at each point of the one side surface; and a second decider configured to decide whether the battery cell is good or bad based on the tolerances calculated for each point of the one side surface by the tolerance calculator (claim 6).
As to claim 8, Kim ‘045 claims the second decider decides that the battery cell is a good battery cell when all of magnitudes of each of the tolerances are equal to or less than a second reference value, and decides that the battery cell is a bad battery cell when a magnitude of at least one of the tolerances exceeds second reference value (claim 7).
As to claim 9, Kim ‘045 claims the standard value calculator calculates an average value of the respective bend values and sets the calculated average value as the standard value (claim 9).
As to claim 10, Kim ‘045 claims the standard value calculator calculates a line fitted value of the respective bend values and sets the calculated line fitted value as the standard value (claim 10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
7. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee Eun Juet al. (EP 2479556) in view of Sim Sang Heon (KR 20210097572). Hereafter “Lee” and “Sim”. (Please see attached files for Lee’reference and Sim’s reference).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Lee discloses a battery cell inspection system (figure 1) comprising:
a scan device scanning one side surface of the battery cell (figure 1, sensor unit 30 with light source 20 is not different from a scan device, scanning one side surface of the battery cell 10); and
a battery cell inspection device (figure 1); comprising:
a data collector configured to obtain scan data obtained by scanning one side surface of the battery cell from the scan device (figure 1, sensor unit 30 is not different from a data collector to obtain scanning data by scanning one side surface of the battery cell 10),
a bend value determiner configured to determine a bend of one side surface positioned at a corresponding point at each point of the one side surface based on information on each of different points of the one side surface included in the scan data (figures 2, 3, a point of surface that has a bend, has diffused reflected light. Different points of surface that do not have bend, have specular reflected light; Page 4, lines 39-47).
However, Lee does not disclose a bend value indicating a bent degree. Sim discloses a bend value indicating a bent degree (Abstract, lines 6-10; Page 2, lines 1-9; Page 3, lines 37-39; Page 5, lines 19-21; Page 6, lines 34-25. Note: degree of flatness is not different from a bent degree). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Lee by having a bend value indicating a bent degree in order to discriminate side defects and to determine whether defective products are maximally improved, (Abstract, lines 6-10; Page 2, lines 1-9; Page 3, lines 37-39; Page 5, lines 19-21; Page 6, lines 34-25).
8. Claim(s) 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee Eun Juet al. (EP 2479556) in view of Sim Sang Heon (KR 20210097572), further in view of Wang et al. (CN 210741428). Hereafter “Lee”, “Sim”, “Wang”. (Please see attached files for Lee’reference, Sim’s reference and Wang’s reference).
Regarding Claim(s) 7, Lee as modified by Sim, disclose a battery cell inspection system according to claim 1 as stated above except for a standard value calculator configured to calculate a standard value for deciding a degree at which the respective bend values are spread out based on the bend values determined for each point of the one side surface by the bend value determiner; a tolerance calculator configured to calculate a tolerance corresponding to a difference between the bend value of each point and the standard value at each point of the one side surface; and a second decider configured to decide whether the battery cell is good or bad based on the tolerances calculated for each point of the one side surface by the tolerance calculator.
Sim further discloses a standard value calculator configured to calculate a standard value for deciding a degree at which the respective bend values are spread out based on the bend values determined for each point of the one side surface by the bend value determiner (Abstract, lines 6-10; Page 2, lines 1-9; Page 3, lines 37-39; Page 5, lines 19-21; Page 6, lines 34-25. Note: degree of flatness is not different from a bent degree. It is inherent that there must be a calculator in order to calculate degree of flatness, and the slope using to recognize the degree of flatness is not different from a standard value for deciding a degree); a tolerance calculator configured to calculate a tolerance corresponding to a difference between the bend value of each point and the standard value at each point of the one side surface (Abstract, lines 6-10; Page 2, lines 1-9; Page 3, lines 37-39; Page 5, lines 19-21; Page 6, lines 34-25. Note: the level of flatness is within the error range is not different from a tolerance. It is inherent that there must be a tolerance calculator in order to calculate a tolerance); and a decider configured to decide whether the battery cell is good or bad based on the tolerances calculated for each point of the one side surface by the tolerance calculator (Abstract, lines 6-10; Page 2, lines 1-9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Lee and Sim by calculating a standard value, a tolerance, and to decide whether the battery cell is good or bad in order to discriminate side defects and to determine whether defective products are maximally improved, (Sim, Abstract, lines 6-10; Page 2, lines 1-9; Page 3, lines 37-39; Page 5, lines 19-21; Page 6, lines 34-25).
Moreover, Lee as modified by Sim do not disclose second decider. Wang discloses second decider (page 2, line 10. Two pressing the battery to be detected and then measuring the distance is not different from the first and the second decider). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Lee and Sim by having second decider in order to obtain the thickness of the battery by the displacement sensor at different locations more effectively.
Regarding Claim(s) 9, Lee as modified by Sim, disclose a battery cell inspection system according to claims 1 and 7, as stated above except for the standard value calculator calculates an average value of the respective bend values and sets the calculated average value as the standard value. Wang discloses the standard value calculator calculates an average value of the respective bend values and sets the calculated average value as the standard value (page 5, lines 9-16. Note: “the difference between any two thickness values are within a predetermined difference range, detection of the battery thickness, is ensured under the condition of relatively high flatness of the surface of the battery, taking the average value of each measured value as the thickness value of the battery”, a predetermined difference range is not different from the standard value. Further, it is inherent that in order to measure the average value, there must be a calculator to calculates that average value). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Lee and Sim by having the standard value in order to reduce the measuring error of the battery thickness detecting device, (Wang, page 5, lines 9-16).
9. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee Eun Juet al. (EP 2479556) in view of Sim Sang Heon (KR 20210097572), further in view of Zi-long Li (CN 113030136). Hereafter “Lee”, “Sim”, “Zi-long”. (Please see attached files for Lee’reference, Sim’s reference and Zi-long’s reference).
Regarding Claim(s) 10, Lee as modified by Sim, disclose a battery cell inspection system according to claims 1 and 7, as stated above except for the standard value calculator calculates a line fitted value of the respective bend values and sets the calculated line fitted value as the standard value. Sim discloses the calculator and a standard value as indicated in claim 7 above. Zi-long discloses a line fitted value of the respective bend values (Abstract, lines 7-8; Page 2, lines 27-28, 37-38; Page 3, lines 1-2; The linear fitting degree of the effective pixel point is not different from a line fitted value of the respective bend values). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Lee and Sim by having line fitted value in order to judge whether there is a battery layer in the scanning area, (Zi-long, Abstract, lines 7-8; Page 2, lines 27-28, 37-38; Page 3, lines 1-2).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 2-6, 8, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
11. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there was no prior art found by the examiner that suggested modification or combination with the cited art so as to satisfy the combination of all the limitations in claims 2, 8.
12. As claim 2, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a battery cell inspection system comprising to obtain scan data obtained by scanning one side surface of the battery cell, to determine a bend value indicating a bent degree of one side surface positioned at a corresponding point at each point of the one side surface based on information on each of different points of the one side surface included in the scan data; wherein the battery cell has three side surfaces where the pouch cases are overlapped and sealed together and one side surface which does not have a sealing part, and, the scan device scanning the one side surface which does not have a sealing part; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1 and 2.
13. As claim 8, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a battery cell inspection system comprising to obtain scan data obtained by scanning one side surface of the battery cell, to determine a bend value indicating a bent degree of one side surface positioned at a corresponding point at each point of the one side surface based on information on each of different points of the one side surface included in the scan data;
to calculate a standard value for deciding a degree at which the respective bend values are spread out based on the bend values determined for each point of the one side surface by the bend value determiner; to calculate a tolerance corresponding to a difference between the bend value of each point and the standard value at each point of the one side surface; and a second decider configured to decide whether the battery cell is good or bad based on the tolerances calculated for each point of the one side surface by the tolerance calculator; and decides that the battery cell is a bad battery cell when a magnitude of at least one of the tolerances exceeds second reference value.
Fax/Telephone Information
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (571)270-5789. 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 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
June 12, 2026
/Tri T Ton/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights