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 statements (IDS) submitted on 11/29/2024 and 02/13/2026 have been made record of and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "114" (see FIG. 15) and "113" (see [0105], [0185]) have both been used to designate the protrusion bottom of the adapter piece. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
For the sake of completeness, the Examiner notes that #201, 203, and 205 of FIG. 1 are not included in the list of reference numerals, see [0101]-[0109].
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the protrusion,” although there is no previous recitation of a protrusion in claims 5, 4, or 1. The examiner respectfully recommends aligning the language of claim 6 with the “a protrusion” language of claim 3. Appropriate correction is required.
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: “image recognition unit” and “liquid leakage 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 § 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.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the same site." There is no previous recitation of a “same site.” It is unclear to the examiner if “the same site” refers to positions of the adapter piece and the top cover. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 is similarly rejected. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 17 is directed towards a “computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program.” Computer programs, per se, are not, in and of themselves, methods or machines, nor are they physical products of manufacture or compositions of matter. Therefore, such programs do not fall into any of the categories of eligible subject matter defined in 35 US C 101 are not, by themselves, eligible for patent protection. Such programs can be eligible for patent protection if claims as embodied on or in a computer-readable storage device or medium, but only if the claim clearly and unambiguously excludes transitory, propagating signals from the full scope of the claimed subject matter, as such signals are not eligible under 35 USC 101. It is suggested that amending the claim language to define the computer program embodied on a "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium" would satisfy these requirements and would limit the claimed invention to eligible subject matter.
Claims 1-3 and 16-18 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 processes (concepts performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, and/or mathematical concepts and calculations).
Independent claims 1 and 18 recite acquiring an image of an object, in this case a battery; recognizing the adapter piece and the top cover; and determining whether there is liquid leakage in the battery. This is collecting information, analyzing the information, and making an evaluation based on the information. In other words, a person can look at images, write down components and relationships, and visually evaluate whether a leakage has occurred. Further, the claims disclose that the process is performed by a "image acquisition unit,” “image recognition unit,” and “liquid leakage detection unit,” but they do not recite in a technical way how liquid leakage detection is improved. The recited “computer program” merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer technology. The claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely use generic computer components to evaluate whether a leak has occurred. Therefore claims 1-3 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 USC 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN110793722B), in further view of Tang (CN109860742A), and in further view of Li (CN111426685A).
Consider claims 1 and 18, Xu discloses a liquid leakage detection method/apparatus (¶11; “A non-contact leakage detection method for lead-acid batteries based on machine learning”), comprising:
acquiring a target image of a battery (¶13; “Step 2) Control the infrared camera to acquire multiple images through the image processor. The images include areas of the lead-acid battery that are prone to leakage, such as the positive terminal, safety valve, and negative terminal.”; ¶34);
recognizing the target image to obtain (¶29; “2) The image processor 3 controls the infrared camera 4 to acquire multiple images, including areas of the lead-acid battery 2 such as the positive terminal 7, safety valve 8, and negative terminal 9 that are prone to leakage.”; ¶34; FOV is the outer surface of the wiring terminal); and
determining whether there is liquid leakage in the battery according to (¶15; “Step 4) Identify the leakage area in the image from Step 3).”; ¶16; “Step 5) Mark the leakage area in Step 4). Based on the leakage state calculated in Step 4), find the infrared image with leakage.”).
Xu fails to explicitly disclose recognizing the target image to obtain an adapter piece image and a top cover image.
In related art, Tang also discloses recognizing the target image to obtain (Tang ¶23; “12) In the processing results of steps 10) and 11) above, the black pixel value and the white pixel value represent the battery casing and the positive and negative electrode casing, respectively”; ¶38; “First, the characteristic objects of the outer surface of the battery casing and the positive and negative electrode covers in the image are identified based on color features. Second, the characteristic regions of the outer surface of the battery casing and the positive and negative electrode covers in the image are segmented. Third, the positions of the outer surface of the battery casing and the positive and negative electrode covers in the image are identified using a combination of RGB color features and grayscale features.”);
determining whether there is liquid leakage in the battery according to (Tang ¶24; “13) Based on the image generated in the previous step, if the number of white pixels in each region exceeds 2/50 of the total number of pixels in the region, it indicates that there is a battery electrolyte leak.”; ¶38; “Thus, based on the RGB color feature values and grayscale feature values of the outer surface of the battery casing and the positive and negative electrode covers, it is determined whether there is electrolyte leakage on the outer surface of the substation communication power supply battery casing and the positive and negative electrode covers”).
Xu states, “detecting battery leakage is a very necessary safety precaution (Xu ¶3).” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the leakage detection method of Tang into the leakage detection method of Xu to predictably detect battery leakage.
In related art, Li discloses recognizing the target image to obtain an adapter piece image and a top cover image (Li ¶34-38; “S300: Determine the effective area obtained in S200. If the weld area is within the set range, proceed to the next scanning step; otherwise, determine it as unqualified and use a robotic arm to grab the battery and place it in designated area 1… S400, based on S300, the robotic arm flips the battery 4 so that one side of the cover plate faces the micro-CT unit 3. The micro-CT unit 3 scans the image to determine whether the adapter plate and the battery cover plate are in good actual contact and to determine the effective welding strength.; ¶40; “The micro-CT scanning unit 3 uses a non-destructive 3D imaging technology to clearly understand the internal welding of the battery without damaging it.”); and
determining whether (Li ¶34-38; “S500: The effective welding strength is judged. If the welding strength is within the set range, it is qualified; otherwise, it is unqualified, and the battery is picked up by the robot and placed in designated area two.”; ¶44-49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the adapter plate recognition of Li into the battery surface leakage detection method of Xu, as modified by Tang, to predictably determine whether there is leakage in the battery according to the adapter piece and the top cover (Xu ¶3, 13-16; Tang ¶23-24; Li ¶34-38, 44-49). Li states, “higher requirements have been placed on lithium-ion batteries, demanding that the batteries have stable structures, good consistency, and be safe and reliable (Li ¶5).” Further Li states, “the welding area is more important than the appearance when welding adapter pieces. Therefore, it is more reliable to change the evaluation criterion from the area of the burst point to the effective area of the weld. However, the actual effective area of the weld cannot be determined from the CCD image… a micro-CT scanning unit is added to the traditional laser welding inspection device to use CT to detect whether the battery cover and the adapter plate are in good contact. The larger the actual contact area of the weld, the greater the current carrying capacity and the better the welding effect (Li ¶5, 48).”
Consider claim 2, Xu, as modified by Tang and Li, discloses the claimed invention wherein recognizing the target image to obtain the adapter piece image and the top cover image comprises:
performing grayscale processing on the target image to obtain a grayscale image (Xu ¶20, 32, 37; Tang ¶38, 57; Li ¶20); and
obtaining the adapter piece image and the top cover image according to a grayscale difference between an adapter piece and a top cover in the grayscale image (Xu ¶20, 32, 37; Tang ¶38, 57-74; Li ¶20-21; 44-49).
Consider claim 16, Xu, as modified by Tang and Li, discloses a liquid leakage detection device, comprising:
a memory storing a computer program (Xu ¶8; Tang ¶75); and
a processor configured to execute the computer program (Xu ¶8; Tang ¶75) to implement the claimed liquid leakage detection method of claim 1.
Consider claim 17, Xu, as modified by Tang and Li, discloses a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to implement (Xu ¶8; Tang ¶75) the liquid leakage detection method of claim 1.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, in further view of Tang and Li, as applied to claims 1-2 and 16-18 above, and further in view of CN113390351A (Inventor Unannounced).
Consider claim 4, Xu, as modified by Tang and Li, discloses the claimed invention wherein determining whether there is liquid leakage in the battery according to the adapter piece image and the top cover image (Xu ¶33-37; Tang ¶8; Li ¶44-49), but fails to explicitly disclose:
obtaining a positional offset between the adapter piece and the top cover according to the adapter piece image and the top cover image; and
determining whether there is liquid leakage in the battery according to the positional offset.
In related art, CN113390351A discloses obtaining a positional offset between the adapter piece and the top cover according to the adapter piece image and the top cover image (CN113390351A ¶19-23, 57, 71).
Li states, “a micro-CT scanning unit is added to the traditional laser welding inspection device to use CT to detect whether the battery cover and the adapter plate are in good contact. The larger the actual contact area of the weld, the greater the current carrying capacity and the better the welding effect (Li ¶8).” CN113390351A further states, “a series of sealing defects may occur during the top-side sealing process, such as substandard indentation offset of the top sealing indentation and non-compliant exposed tab adhesive specifications. These sealing defects may lead to the risk of top sealing leakage in the produced cells, posing a safety hazard. Therefore, it is necessary to inspect the exposed specifications of the tab adhesive and the indentation offset of the top sealing indentation in the top sealing area (CN113390351A ¶71).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the determination of positional offset of CN113390351A into the leakage detection method of Xu, as modified by Tang and Li, to predictably yield determining whether there is liquid leakage in the battery according to the positional offset.
Consider claim 5, Xu, as modified by Tang, Li, and CN113390351A, discloses the claimed invention wherein obtaining the positional offset between the adapter piece and the top cover according to the adapter piece image and the top cover image comprises:
determining a detection region for an adapter piece in the adapter piece image and a detection region for a top cover in the top cover image according to the adapter piece image and the top cover image (Xu ¶33-37; Tang ¶8; Li ¶8, 44-49; CN113390351A ¶19-23, 57, 71); and
acquiring a positional offset between the detection region for the adapter piece in the adapter piece image and the detection region for the top cover in the top cover image to obtain a positional offset between the adapter piece and the top cover (Xu ¶33-37; Tang ¶8; Li ¶8, 44-49; CN113390351A ¶19-23, 57, 71).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6-15 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.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN111445462A discloses a storage battery leakage detection method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY HYTREK whose telephone number is (703)756-4562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steve Koziol can be reached at (408)918-7630. 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.
/ASHLEY HYTREK/Examiner, Art Unit 2665
/Stephen R Koziol/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights