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 .
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 1-2 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hinterberger et al (U.S. PGPub # 2018/0034111).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Hinterberger teaches:
A battery cell pouch inspection device comprising:
an inspection portion measuring insulation resistance of a battery cell pouch using a probe (Paragraphs 0018-0019, 0042, & 0045-0046.);
a thermal detection portion photographing one surface of the battery cell pouch to generate a thermographic image according to temperature distribution (Paragraphs 0008, 0042, & 0044 wherein NDIR and temperature sensors are disclosed.); and
a control portion analyzing an insulation resistance signal measured by the inspection portion and the thermographic image to determine whether the battery cell pouch is defective (Abstract, paragraphs 0006, 0009-0012, 0038-0044, & elsewhere. Fig. 1 Element 19.).
PNG
media_image1.png
628
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hinterberger teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Hinterberger teaches the control portion determines that the battery cell pouch is normal when the insulation resistance signal is within the range of a reference insulation resistance signal (Paragraphs 0018-0019 & 0044-0046.).
Regarding claim 8, Hinterberger teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Hinterberger teaches the inspection portion applies an inspection voltage to the insulation resistance through a probe to measure the insulation resistance (Paragraph 0019 wherein the voltage is applied the “galvanic element is connected to the battery cell housing in a low ohm manner.”).
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.
Claims 3-7 & 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinterberger et al (U.S. PGPub # 2018/0034111) in view of Sotirov et al (Sotirov, Sotir, et al. "Battery Thermal Image Sequence Processing." 2022 13th National Conference with International Participation (ELECTRONICA). IEEE, 2022.).
Regarding claim 3, Hinterberger teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Hinterberger teaches the control portion determines the battery cell pouch to be in a primary defective state when the insulation resistance signal is out of the range of a reference insulation resistance signal (Paragraphs 0018-0019 & 0044-0046.), and
Hinterberger may not explicitly teach decides a final defective state by analyzing the thermographic image of the battery cell pouch determined to be a primary defective state.
Sotirov teaches decides a final defective state by analyzing the thermographic image of the battery cell pouch determined to be a primary defective state (See Section III Battery Thermographic Image Analysis Software Pages 182-183. See Fig. 3, 4, 5, & 6 and associated text. Sotirov teaches finding fault through thermographic imaging analysis, it does not matter what label is given to the state of fault such as final or otherwise.).
PNG
media_image2.png
268
262
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
288
348
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
226
334
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
216
320
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Sotirov to the teachings of Hintergerger such that one decides a final defective state by analyzing the thermographic image of the battery cell pouch determined to be a primary defective state because “monitoring battery temperature can aid the identification of (these) faults and warn of their presence prior to the occurrence of permanent thermal damaging” and “extraction and visualization of necessary information regarding the resulting temperature changes over the entire battery surface or certain parts of it is made possible.” See Abstract of Sotirov.
Regarding claim 4, Hinterberger & Sotirov teach all elements of claim 3, upon which this claim depends.
Hinterberger may not explicitly teach the control portion analyzes color distribution of the thermographic image of the battery cell pouch determined to be in the primary defective state, and decides the battery cell pouch to be in a true defective state when at least some area has a value higher than or equal to a preset temperature.
Sotirov teaches the control portion analyzes color distribution of the thermographic image of the battery cell pouch determined to be in the primary defective state, and decides the battery cell pouch to be in a true defective state when at least some area has a value higher than or equal to a preset temperature (See Section III Battery Thermographic Image Analysis Software Pages 182-183. See Fig. 3, 4, 5, & 6 and associated text. Sotirov teaches finding fault through thermographic imaging analysis, it does not matter what label is given to the state of fault such as final or otherwise.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Sotirov to the teachings of Hintergerger such that the control portion analyzes color distribution of the thermographic image of the battery cell pouch determined to be in the primary defective state, and decides the battery cell pouch to be in a true defective state when at least some area has a value higher than or equal to a preset temperature because “monitoring battery temperature can aid the identification of (these) faults and warn of their presence prior to the occurrence of permanent thermal damaging” and “extraction and visualization of necessary information regarding the resulting temperature changes over the entire battery surface or certain parts of it is made possible.” See Abstract of Sotirov.
Regarding claim 5, Hinterberger & Sotirov teach all elements of claim 3, upon which this claim depends.
Hinterberger may not explicitly teach the control portion analyzes color distribution of the thermographic image of the battery cell pouch determined to be in the primary defective state, and decides the battery cell pouch to be in a false defective state when at least some area has a value lower than a preset temperature.
Sotirov teaches the control portion analyzes color distribution of the thermographic image of the battery cell pouch determined to be in the primary defective state, and decides the battery cell pouch to be in a false defective state when at least some area has a value lower than a preset temperature (See Section III Battery Thermographic Image Analysis Software Pages 182-183. See Fig. 3, 4, 5, & 6 and associated text. Sotirov teaches finding fault through thermographic imaging analysis, it does not matter what label is given to the state of fault such as final or otherwise.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Sotirov to the teachings of Hintergerger such that the control portion analyzes color distribution of the thermographic image of the battery cell pouch determined to be in the primary defective state, and decides the battery cell pouch to be in a false defective state when at least some area has a value lower than a preset temperature because “monitoring battery temperature can aid the identification of (these) faults and warn of their presence prior to the occurrence of permanent thermal damaging” and “extraction and visualization of necessary information regarding the resulting temperature changes over the entire battery surface or certain parts of it is made possible.” See Abstract of Sotirov.
Regarding claim 6, Hinterberger & Sotirov teach all elements of claim 3, upon which this claim depends.
Hinterberger may not explicitly teach the control portion analyzes color distribution of the thermographic image of the battery cell pouch determined to be in the primary defective state, and decides the battery cell pouch to be in a false defective state when at least some area has a value lower than a preset temperature.
Sotirov teaches the control portion analyzes color distribution of the thermographic image of the battery cell pouch determined to be in the primary defective state, and decides the battery cell pouch to be in a false defective state when at least some area has a value lower than a preset temperature (See Section III Battery Thermographic Image Analysis Software Pages 182-183. See Fig. 3, 4, 5, & 6 and associated text. Sotirov teaches finding fault through thermographic imaging analysis, it does not matter what label is given to the state of fault such as final or otherwise.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Sotirov to the teachings of Hintergerger such that the control portion analyzes color distribution of the thermographic image of the battery cell pouch determined to be in the primary defective state, and decides the battery cell pouch to be in a false defective state when at least some area has a value lower than a preset temperature because “monitoring battery temperature can aid the identification of (these) faults and warn of their presence prior to the occurrence of permanent thermal damaging” and “extraction and visualization of necessary information regarding the resulting temperature changes over the entire battery surface or certain parts of it is made possible.” See Abstract of Sotirov.
Regarding claim 7, Hinterberger & Sotirov teach all elements of claim 6, upon which this claim depends.
Hinterberger may not explicitly teach the control portion analyzes color distribution of the thermographic image to determine whether there is deterioration in each area of the battery cell pouch divided according to the preset pattern.
Sotirov teaches the control portion analyzes color distribution of the thermographic image to determine whether there is deterioration in each area of the battery cell pouch divided according to the preset pattern (See Section III Battery Thermographic Image Analysis Software Pages 182-183. See Fig. 3, 4, 5, & 6 and associated text. Sotirov teaches finding fault through thermographic imaging analysis, it does not matter what label is given to the state of fault such as final or otherwise.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Sotirov to the teachings of Hintergerger such that the control portion analyzes color distribution of the thermographic image to determine whether there is deterioration in each area of the battery cell pouch divided according to the preset pattern because “monitoring battery temperature can aid the identification of (these) faults and warn of their presence prior to the occurrence of permanent thermal damaging” and “extraction and visualization of necessary information regarding the resulting temperature changes over the entire battery surface or certain parts of it is made possible.” See Abstract of Sotirov.
Regarding claim 9, Hinterberger teaches:
A operating method of a battery cell pouch inspection device, comprising:
a step of applying a inspection voltage to one surface of a battery cell pouch using a probe (Paragraph 0019 wherein the voltage is applied the “galvanic element is connected to the battery cell housing in a low ohm manner.”);
a step of measuring insulation resistance of the battery cell pouch (Paragraphs 0018-0019, 0042, & 0045-0046.);
a step of primarily determining whether an insulation resistance signal is present within the range of a reference insulation resistance signal (Abstract, paragraphs 0006, 0009-0012, 0038-0044, & elsewhere. Fig. 1 Element 19.);
a step of primarily determining the battery cell pouch to be in a primary defective state when the insulation resistance signal is out of the range of the reference insulation resistance signal (Abstract, paragraphs 0006, 0009-0012, 0038-0044, & elsewhere. Fig. 1 Element 19.); and
PNG
media_image1.png
628
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hinterberger does not explicitly teach:
a step of deciding a final defective state by analyzing a thermographic image of the battery cell pouch determined to be in a primary defective state.
Sotirov teaches:
a step of deciding a final defective state by analyzing a thermographic image of the battery cell pouch determined to be in a primary defective state (See Section III Battery Thermographic Image Analysis Software Pages 182-183. See Fig. 3, 4, 5, & 6 and associated text. Sotirov teaches finding fault through thermographic imaging analysis, it does not matter what label is given to the state of fault such as final or otherwise.).
PNG
media_image2.png
268
262
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
288
348
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
226
334
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
216
320
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Sotirov to the teachings of Hintergerger such that one would have a step of deciding a final defective state by analyzing a thermographic image of the battery cell pouch determined to be in a primary defective state because “monitoring battery temperature can aid the identification of (these) faults and warn of their presence prior to the occurrence of permanent thermal damaging” and “extraction and visualization of necessary information regarding the resulting temperature changes over the entire battery surface or certain parts of it is made possible.” See Abstract of Sotirov.
Regarding claim 10, Hinterberger & Sotirov teach all elements of claim 9, upon which this claim depends.
Hinterberger teaches in the step of primarily determining, the battery cell pouch is determined to be normal, when the insulation resistance signal is present within the range of the reference insulation resistance signal (Paragraphs 0018-0019 & 0044-0046.).
Regarding claim 11, Hinterberger & Sotirov teach all elements of claim 9, upon which this claim depends.
Hinterberger may not explicitly teach in the step of deciding a final defective state, the battery cell pouch is decided to be in a true defective state, when the color distribution of the thermographic image of the battery cell pouch determined to be in a primary defective state is analyzed and at least some area has a value higher than or equal to a preset temperature.
Sotirov teaches in the step of deciding a final defective state, the battery cell pouch is decided to be in a true defective state, when the color distribution of the thermographic image of the battery cell pouch determined to be in a primary defective state is analyzed and at least some area has a value higher than or equal to a preset temperature (See Section III Battery Thermographic Image Analysis Software Pages 182-183. See Fig. 3, 4, 5, & 6 and associated text. Sotirov teaches finding fault through thermographic imaging analysis, it does not matter what label is given to the state of fault such as final or otherwise.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Sotirov to the teachings of Hintergerger such that in the step of deciding a final defective state, the battery cell pouch is decided to be in a true defective state, when the color distribution of the thermographic image of the battery cell pouch determined to be in a primary defective state is analyzed and at least some area has a value higher than or equal to a preset temperature because “monitoring battery temperature can aid the identification of (these) faults and warn of their presence prior to the occurrence of permanent thermal damaging” and “extraction and visualization of necessary information regarding the resulting temperature changes over the entire battery surface or certain parts of it is made possible.” See Abstract of Sotirov.
Regarding claim 12, Hinterberger & Sotirov teach all elements of claim 9, upon which this claim depends.
Hinterberger may not explicitly teach in the step of deciding a final defective state, the battery cell pouch is decided to be in a true defective state, when the color distribution of the thermographic image of the battery cell pouch determined to be in a primary defective state is analyzed and at least some area has a value lower than a preset temperature.
Sotirov teaches in the step of deciding a final defective state, the battery cell pouch is decided to be in a true defective state, when the color distribution of the thermographic image of the battery cell pouch determined to be in a primary defective state is analyzed and at least some area has a value lower than a preset temperature (See Section III Battery Thermographic Image Analysis Software Pages 182-183. See Fig. 3, 4, 5, & 6 and associated text. Sotirov teaches finding fault through thermographic imaging analysis, it does not matter what label is given to the state of fault such as final or otherwise.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Sotirov to the teachings of Hintergerger such that in the step of deciding a final defective state, the battery cell pouch is decided to be in a true defective state, when the color distribution of the thermographic image of the battery cell pouch determined to be in a primary defective state is analyzed and at least some area has a value lower than a preset temperature because “monitoring battery temperature can aid the identification of (these) faults and warn of their presence prior to the occurrence of permanent thermal damaging” and “extraction and visualization of necessary information regarding the resulting temperature changes over the entire battery surface or certain parts of it is made possible.” See Abstract of Sotirov.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed but not cited represents the previous state of the art and analogous art that teaches some of the limitations claimed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW whose telephone number is (469)295-9025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-4:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on 571-270-5628. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights