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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2020-0026135, filed on 3/02/20.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/15/24. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a flat cradle” in line 3 and "the cradle” in lines 5 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Double Patenting
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-1 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12025578. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 15 of US 12025578 has all limitations of claim 1-11 of pending application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NA et al. (CN 110006953, cited in parent application 17/769860, hereinafter Na), and further in view of MAEDA et al. (US 20210245292, cited in parent application 17/769860, hereinafter MAEDA).
Regarding to claim 1, Na discloses an apparatus for inspecting a welding state in a welded portion for an electronic or mechanical coupling in a lithium secondary battery (abstract and fig. 7-11 discloses a false soldering detection system), comprising:
a measuring unit configured to obtain data for deriving a resistance value of the welded portion by allowing a resistance measuring probe to contact the welded portion (fig. 7 and at step S604 resistance detector [200] is used to detect the resistance value of each welding point of the battery module 100); and
a controller configured to communicate with the measuring unit, determine the resistance value of the welded portion by receiving the data obtained from the measuring unit (fig. 7 and the resistance detector 200, for detecting the to-be-tested battery module 100 each welding resistance value of the point according to the control signal of the controller 300), and determine whether a weak welding was performed by comparing the determined resistance value with a threshold resistance value ([t]he resistance value and the preset resistance threshold, detecting the welding state of the welding point, the welding state comprises a normal soldering and welding),
wherein the measuring unit is configured to allow the resistance measuring probe to contact one end and the other end of the welded portion (a resistance detector by said probe corresponding to the number, for each of the welding point to detect, obtaining the resistance value of each welding point on the to-be-detected battery module).
Na discloses a preset threshold. Na does not disclose wherein the controller includes a threshold resistance value setting program for setting the threshold resistance value by processing data obtained for a sample group by a statistical scheme, wherein the measuring unit measures the resistance value up to nanoohm to microohm levels, and the number of objects of the sample group is at least 100,000.
However, to set the threshold value based on processing data obtained for a sample group by a statistical scheme. wherein the measuring unit measures the resistance value up to nanoohm to microohm levels, and the number of objects of the sample group is at least 100,000 is a matter of design choice.
Furthermore, paragraph 0012 and 014 of MAEDA discloses setting thresholds by a statical method.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date, it would be obvious to set the threshold based on statical method as matter of choice.
Regarding to claim 2, Na in view of MAEDA discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller determines that a weak welding was performed if the determined resistance value exceeds the threshold resistance value (Na discloses judging whether the resistance value greater than the resistance threshold value; if the resistance value is greater than the resistance threshold, then determining the welding state of the welding point is insufficient).
Regarding to claim 10, Na in view of MAEDA discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein resistance values determined from data obtained for the sample group correspond to a normal distribution curve (paragraph 0014 of MAEDA).
Claim(s) 3-7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NA in view of MAEDA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cho (KR 101887148, provided by applicant, hereinafter Cho).
Regarding to claim 3, Na in view of MAEDA discloses the apparatus of claim 1, except wherein the measuring unit comprises: a flat cradle on which a subject is mounted; an upper plate configured to be positioned on an upper portion having a predetermined separation distance from the flat cradle and includes a plurality of through holes into which the resistance measuring probe is insertable; a lower plate configured to be positioned on a lower portion having a predetermined separation distance from the flat cradle and includes a plurality of through holes into which the resistance measuring probe is insertable; a coupling unit configured to allow the flat cradle, the upper plate and the lower plate to be coupled to each other; and a pair of resistance measuring probes configured to obtain data for determining the resistance value by contacting the welded portion.
Note: the claim does not limit the specific location of the flat cradle with respect to the upper and lower plates. Therefore, a broadest reasonable interpretation,
Cho discloses a system for inspecting weld quality comprising:
a flat cradle on which a subject is mounted (fig. 1 shows target object 110 on 120);
an upper plate configured to be positioned on an upper portion having a predetermined separation distance from the cradle and includes a plurality of through holes into which the resistance measuring probe is insertable (fig. 1 and 3 shows plate 325 as a upper plate where probes 310, 315 go through 325 which implies 325 included a plurality of through hole);
a lower plate configured to be positioned on a lower portion having a predetermined separation distance from the cradle and includes a plurality of through holes into which the resistance measuring probe is insertable (fig. 1 and 3 shows plate 320 as a lower plate where probes 310, 315 go through 320 which implies 320 included a plurality of through hole);
a coupling unit configured to allow the cradle, the upper plate and the lower plate to be coupled to each other (fig. 1 shows 130 include 320 and 325 coupled to 120 and “the target object transferring unit 120 may connect the welding quality inspection apparatus 130” which indicates there is a coupling unit to couple the cradle, the upper plate and the lower plate to be coupled to each other); and
a pair of resistance measuring probes configured to obtain data for determining the resistance value by contacting the welded portion (fig. 1 and 3 shows probe 310 and 315).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date, it would be obvious to a POSITA to incorporate the structure of Cho into Na in order to measure the voltage at the accurate welding site by minimizing the contact surface while minimizing breakage of the tip portion.
Regarding to claim 4, Na in view of MAEDA discloses the apparatus of claim 1, except wherein one resistance measuring probe includes a current probe and a voltage probe.
Cho discloses 310 and 315 contact the welding portion 230 to apply a current to the welding portion 230 and measure the voltage at the welding portion 230. The inspection units 310 and 315 include at least two inspection units so that the pair of inspection units 310 applies current to the welding unit 230 and the other pair of the inspection units 315 applies the current to the welding unit 230 Measure the voltage.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date, it would be obvious to a POSITA to incorporate the structure of Cho into Na in order to measure the voltage at the accurate welding site by minimizing the contact surface while minimizing breakage of the tip portion
Regarding to claim 5, Na in view of MAEDA and Cho discloses the apparatus of claim 3, wherein an upper guide member and a lower guide member for allowing the resistance measuring probe to be inserted into a correct position are coupled to the upper plate and the lower plate, respectively (fig. 1 and 3 of Cho show the probes 310 and 315 through upper and lower plate and align to the target which indicates that there are upper and lower guide member).
Regarding to claim 6, Na in view of MAEDA and Cho discloses the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the upper guide member and the lower guide member have through holes into which the resistance measuring probe is insertable, respectively, wherein the through holes of the upper guide member and the through holes of the upper plate are located on a straight line to thereby allow the resistance measuring probe to pass the through holes to approach an upper surface of the welded portion, and wherein the through holes of the lower guide member and the through holes of the lower plate are located on a straight line to thereby allow the resistance measuring probe to pass the through holes to approach a lower surface of the welded portion (fig. 1 and 3 of Cho).
Regarding to claim 7, Na in view of MAEDA and Cho discloses the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the coupling unit includes a coupling bar and a coupling screw.
Fig. 1 and 3 of Cho show there are coupling bars in a coupling unit, however, Cho does not show a coupling screw.
It would be obvious to have coupling screws in order to hold all elements together.
Regarding to claim 11, Na in view of MAEDA discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a power source configured to apply power to the measuring unit (it would have necessitated to have a power supply to power a controller and a resistance detector), wherein the power is a direct current (DC) power and is controlled by the controller (it would have necessitated to provide DC power to the resistance detector).
Furthermore, Cho discloses a DC power source 610.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date, it would be obvious to provide a DC to a resistance measurement device in order to perform the measurement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 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.
Regarding to claim 8, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination does not fairly teach or suggest “wherein the cradle, the upper plate and the lower plate each has coupling holes at 4 edge portions, and wherein the upper plate, the cradle and the lower plate are coupled as the coupling bar sequentially passes through coupling holes disposed on the upper plate, the cradle and the lower plate” including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding to claim 9, Regarding to claim 8, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination does not fairly teach or suggest “further comprising a compression spring for adjusting a separation distance between the cradle and the upper plate and a separation distance between the cradle and the lower plate, wherein the coupling bar is configured to be insertable into a hollow portion of the compression spring” including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SON T LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5818. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7AM - 4PM.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 5712724448. 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.
/SON T LE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights