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
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/02/2026 was entered. Claims 1 and 6-15 are pending. Claim 1 was amended by additionally reciting the features of claims 14 and 15. Claim 1 was further amended by restricting the recited spot size range to 50 micron < Li < 60 micron, wherein prior art disclosure at exactly 50 microns no longer meets the claims.
Claim 1 was clarified by re placing the language "the flat panel detector and the X-ray source are respectively located on two sides of the carrying assembly" with "the flat panel detector and the X-ray source are respectively located on opposite sides of the carrying assembly".
Support for what applicant called, a clarification can, for example, be found in Figure 1 of the Application, showing X-ray source 120, flat panel detector 130 and carrying assembly 110, reproduced hereafter for ease of reference, together with the corresponding portions of the Description. Notice that the clarification “two sides “ to “opposite sides”, which is called a clarification, is still new claim text and at least now includes a narrowing clarification.
Claims 6-13 were unchanged. Claims 14-15 were canceled. No new matter was entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 04/02/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument, see the additions of Macdonald et al. (WO 2007/016484 A2) and Stutman et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0028378 A1) below.
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, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng et al. (CN 218272049) in view of Macdonald et al. (WO 2007/016484 A2) in view of Stutman et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0028378 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Meng discloses a battery detection device 100, comprising:
a carrying assembly 3, configured to carry a battery to be detected 2;
an X-ray source 1, configured to irradiate X-rays to the battery to be detected on the carrying assembly; and a flat panel detector 2, wherein the flat panel detector 2 and the X-ray source 1 are respectively located on two sides of the carrying assembly 3, and the flat panel detector 2 is configured to receive rays emitted by the X-ray source 1 and penetrating through the battery 2 to be detected.
Also, Meng discloses a focal spot of the micro-focus X-ray source from 2-200 microns. Meng gives a single specific example of 40 micrometer for the focal spot of its ray source in [0038].
Additionally, Meng discloses in a first direction, a distance hl between the X-ray source and a carrying surface of the carrying assembly and a distance h2 between the carrying surface of the carrying assembly and the flat panel detector satisfy a relationship: (hi+ h2)/h12.5, wherein the first direction is a direction perpendicular to a principal plane of the flat panel detector (Page 4 and Figure 1 of the English Translation) (or from the CN publication [0015] – [0018], [0040]-[0044] (Figure 1).
Notice that the distance between the micro-focus X-ray source 1 and the two-dimensional X-ray detector 2 is 1000mm, the distance between the conveying device and the two-dimensional X-ray detector 2 is 500mm. This example produces a value of 2, which is within the claimed parameters.
Lastly, Meng discloses wherein the distance hl between the X-ray source and the carrying surface and the distance h2 between the carrying surface and the flat panel detector satisfy a relationship: 1.5 < (hi + h2)/h12.0 (Page 4).
Notice that the distance between the micro-focus X-ray source 1 and the two-dimensional X-ray detector 2 is 1000mm, the distance between the conveying device and the two-dimensional X-ray detector 2 is 500mm This example produces a value of 2, which is within the claimed parameters.
Meng fails to expressly disclose the claimed a focal spot size satisfying 50 microns less than to L1 greater than or equal than to 60 microns.
Macdonald discloses an X-ray imaging system employing a conventional X-ray source and detector. Macdonald states that the discloses systems are applicable to radiographic imaging in general not to any particular application, and that the source mab be convention fixed-anode or radiation anode x-ray tube. MacDonald further teaches in Fig. 3 an X-ray imaging system with source 300, object 340, and detector e350, the detector providing a tow-dimensional map of X-ray intensity [0041] - [0044]; Figures 3 – 4.
Macdonald further teaches that, for any imaging system, image resolution is an important parameter and that, for thick objects or large object to detector distances, spatial resolution is approximately proportional to angular divergence. Macdonald states that angular resolution measurements were performed with an Oxford Instruments Microfocus 5011 molybdenum source having a larger focal spot size of approximately 60 microns [0057] – [0058]; (Figure 12).
Stutman additionally teaches an X-ray imaging system in which a 60-micron spot W-anode X-ray tube is assumed as the source, thereby evidencing that 60-micron focal spots were known and used in X-ray imaging systems [0152] (Figure 11).
In view of the utility, to satisfy the desired field of view, image blur and resolution as needed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Meng to include the teachings of Macdonald and Stutman, specifically about 60-micron focal spot size, since such a selection is a predictable optimization within Meng’s expressly disclose microfocus source range.
With regards to claim 6, Meng discloses a power P of the X-ray source satisfies: 65 W < P <75 W (Pages 2 and 3 of the English translation).
Notice how Meng teaches that the focal spot of the micro-focus X-ray source 1 is 2-200 microns.
With regards to claim 7, Meng discloses the power P of the X-ray source satisfies: 68 W < P <72 W (Pages 2 and 3 of the English translation). Notice how Meng teaches that the focal spot of the micro-focus X-ray source 1 is 2-200 microns.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng et al. (CN 218272049), Macdonald et al. (WO 2007/016484 A2) and Stutman et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0028378 A1) in view of Heo et al. (2020/0363344 A1).
With regards to claims 8 and 9, Meng modified discloses the claimed limitations as claimed according to claim 1, but fails to expressly disclose wherein an operating voltage V of the X-ray source satisfies: V>130 kV or V >150 kV, and/or an operating current I of the X-ray source satisfies: I< 500 A or I < 400 A.
Heo et al. discloses an apparatus and method for inspecting batter cells for automation of total inspection wherein the apparatus includes an X-ray generating unit 300a, a tube voltage selected from 20 kVp to 500 kVp may be used in consideration of a material composition of the test object, and a focal spot size may be 0.01 μm to several hundred micrometers depending on a composition and a geometric structure of the test object. In this case, an open tube or a closed tube, which satisfies the tube voltage and the focal spot size, may be used [0109].
In view of the utility, to satisfy the tube voltage and the focal spot size as needed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Meng to include the teachings of Heo.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng et al. (CN 218272049), Macdonald et al. (WO 2007/016484 A2) and Stutman et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0028378 A1) in view of Stamm et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0056945 A1).
With regards to claim 10, Meng modified discloses the claimed inventio according to claim 1, but fails to expressly disclose that the flat panel detector is an amorphous silicon flat panel detector.
Stamm discloses referring to FIG. 1, a detection mechanism 20 is arranged in a radial fashion around the x-ray source 14 with the beam 16 emanating from a large part of the available solid angle. This forms an inspection region 22 around the x-ray source 14, between the x-ray source 14 and detection mechanism 20. The parts to be inspected, i.e., the multiple objects 12 can travel through the inspection region 22 while being scanned by the detection mechanism 20. The multiple objects 12 can be a single, continuous (e.g., long) part instead of discrete separate objects. The multiple objects 12 can include, but are not limited to, battery cells, metal castings, plastic moldings, electronic devices and other industrial and commercial goods [0021].
Stamm further discloses that the detection mechanism 20 may include a two-dimensional imaging array of sensors for detecting the signal intensity transmitted through the multiple objects 12, such as a flat panel detector (e.g., an area indirect conversion detector with scintillators). Notice how the detection mechanism 20 may include, but is not limited to, an amorphous silicon (a-Si), indium gallium zinc oxide (IGZO), or complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) flat panel detector [0023].
In view of the utility, to include efficient and effective sensors as needed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Meng to include the teachings of Stamm.
Claim(s) 11 – 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng et al. (CN 218272049), Macdonald et al. (WO 2007/016484 A2) and Stutman et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0028378 A1) in view of Murai et al. (EP 3 982 450 A1).
With regards to claims 11 -13, Meng modified discloses the claimed inventio according to claim 1, but fails to expressly disclose that a pixel size L2 of the flat panel detector satisfies: L2 100, 30 m< L2 < 90 or 70 m< L2 < 80 microns.
Murai discloses a battery inspection device including a detector comprising light-receiving element not limited to any particular pixel size, and one side is preferably 20 to 300, most preferably 50 to 150 microns [0021] (Abstract).
In view of the utility, to include efficient and effective sensors as needed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Meng to include the teachings of Murai.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DJURA MALEVIC whose telephone number is (571)272-5975. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9-5).
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571.272.3995. 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.
/DJURA MALEVIC/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights