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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 10/8/2025 has been entered.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 2 and 11-17 were previously cancelled.
Claims 3-10 and 18-20 are as previously presented.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 18-20 are still pending in this application, with claim 1 being independent.
Applicant's amendment overcomes the 7/1/2025 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1, 3-10, and 18-20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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. Specifically, with regards to the visual representation of the weld instruction, claim 1 has been amended to further recite “…wherein the visual representation comprises one or both of an overall visual look and appearance of objects in a slide for display”; and Daniel (US 20170189984 A1) has been presented as teaching that it is known to display visual representations of a weld to be performed and/or the location of the weld on a part [para. 0019] to help the operator [para. 0025], wherein the display can present data in any color [para. 0039].
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.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea (claim 1 recites a mental process: “determine, for each of the weld instructions in the sequence of weld instructions, respective values for one or more of the properties that are defined via the interface; … determining, for one or more of the properties that have not been defined for the weld instruction, default values for the properties, by: determining one or more hierarchical levels corresponding to the default values; determining the default values based on values set at the corresponding hierarchical levels… manage the generating of the weld program based on one or more rules, wherein the one or more rules comprise at least one rule applicable to generating and/or presenting at least one visual representation of at least one weld instruction”) without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of “a processor; and a machine readable storage device comprising machine readable instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: provide an interface to define a weld program comprising a sequence of weld instructions for display to a weld operator during a weld sequence, the weld program comprising a plurality of properties… generate the weld program comprising the sequence of weld instructions by, for each of the weld instructions in the sequence of weld instructions… generating a visual representation of the weld instruction using the values that are defined for the weld instruction and using the determined default values… wherein the visual representation comprises one or both of an overall visual look and appearance of objects in a slide for display” do not add a meaningful limitation to the claim as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are merely structure to enable data gathering (i.e., pre-solution activity to define the weld program) and insignificant application (i.e., post-solution activity of generating the weld program of the sequence of weld instructions, and generating a visual representation of a weld instruction).
The claims do not pass the Patent Office's eligibility analysis - the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court's “framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, Claim 1 is directed towards a system to generate weld instructions
Step 2A: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature), or an abstract idea?
Yes, Claim 1 is directed towards: determining respective values and default values for properties, determining hierarchical levels corresponding to the default values, managing the generating of the weld program based on one or more rules; wherein these limitations can be performed by a human mind and amount to an algorithm (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard.
Step 2B, Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, although claim 1 recites “a processor… a machine readable storage device… an interface…for display to a weld operator… a visual representation” these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to nothing more than parts of a generic computer. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Regarding dependent claims 3-10, and 18-20, the limitations of claims 3-10 and 18-20 further define the limitations already indicated as being directed to the abstract idea.
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.
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 1, 3-9, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (EP 2533931 B1) (formerly Robert) in view of Fischer (US 20140075409 A1) and Daniel (US 20170189984 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Davidson discloses: A system to generate weld instructions for display to a weld operator during a welding sequence [abstract], the system comprising:
a processor [fig. 1: #16]; and
a machine readable storage device [fig. 1: #18] comprising machine readable instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
provide an interface [fig. 1: #32] to define a weld program [fig. 2: #104] comprising a sequence of weld instructions [fig. 3: #120] for display to a weld operator during a weld sequence [paras. 20-21: “…the controller 16 can include one or more microcontroller, microprocessor, digital signal processor, or other programmable controller, along with one or more internal or external memory component 18, capable of storing weld configuration data, welding programs and weld sequence data and procedures specified by the user, as described more fully below. Communications between the controller 16, operators, and external components can be provided through a user interface 32, the communications system 30, and input/output communications board 17. The user interface 32 can include a user display and input devices…” the reference explicitly states that an operator is able to specify a weld sequence (refer to fig. 3 - #120) via a display on the user interface], the weld program comprising a plurality of properties [fig. 4A: #103; para. 40: “…the user can define parameters for a weld sequence in step 120, such as, for example, pre-flow and post-flow times; weld voltage and wire feed speed parameters, and other command variables, which can be stored in the weld file 110. After the weld sequence 103 is defined, the user proceeds to process block 121, which allows the user to enter additional optional data into the weld files, such as operator limits, arc data monitoring parameters, or drawing files, as discussed above….”];
determine, for each of the weld instructions in the sequence of weld instructions [fig. 4A: #103], respective values for one or more of the properties that are defined via the interface [fig. 1: #32; para. 40];
generate the weld program [fig. 3: #118] comprising the sequence of weld instructions [fig. 3: #120] by, for each of the weld instructions in the sequence of weld instructions [para. 40]:
determining, for one or more of the properties that have not been defined for the weld instruction, default values for the properties [para. 30: “Preferably, default parameters will be stored in memory 18 and associated with specific programs or processes 104, which can then be changed or adjusted by the operator. Weld sequence stages can be stored in memory 18 and then correlated with specific weld files. 110, 112,114, 116 and correlated with weld programs 104….” the reference explicitly states that default values are set for specific procedures that are not yet adjusted by a user, in which the user can then change/adjust said default parameters.], by:
determining one or more hierarchical levels corresponding to the default values [para. 6: “Present welding control systems often include a limited number of weld processes and programs, which are closely correlated to a weld sequencer. These systems, therefore, allow only a fixed number of different welding options in any given welding system. These systems, moreover, do not allow the welding system to be easily reconfigured for different stages of a weld process, or for different operators or different parts. The present invention addresses these issues.”];
generating a visual representation of the weld instruction using the values that are defined for the weld instruction and using the determined default values [paras. 20-21: “…the controller 16 can include one or more microcontroller, microprocessor, digital signal processor, or other programmable controller, along with one or more internal or external memory component 18, capable of storing weld configuration data, welding programs and weld sequence data and procedures specified by the user, as described more fully below. Communications between the controller 16, operators, and external components can be provided through a user interface 32, the communications system 30, and input/output communications board 17. The user interface 32 can include a user display and input devices…” the reference explicitly states that the user interface, which including the display, is used to communicate with the controller in order to store/modify welding programs/procedures specified by the user, in which it is clear that via the display, a visual representation of the weld instructions are created.]; and
manage the generating of the weld program based on one or more rules [e.g., do not exceed an acceptable range], wherein the one or more rules comprise at least one rule applicable to generating and/or presenting at least one visual representation [e.g., presenting the range of acceptable values or an alarm] of at least one weld instruction [para. 0031: “The arc data monitoring parameters can, for example, specify which of a plurality of available welding parameters to monitor (volts, wire feed speed, current), provide a range of acceptable values for the monitored parameters, and be used to prompt an alarm (e.g. a visual display such as a light, or an audio alarm) to the weld operator when the acceptable range is exceeded.”],
However, Davidson does not explicitly disclose:
determining the default values based on values set at the corresponding hierarchical levels; and
wherein the visual representation [i.e., the visual representation of the weld instruction] comprises one or both of an overall visual look and appearance of objects in a slide for display.
Fischer, in the same field of endeavor [i.e., determining one or more hierarchical levels in a control system], teaches when given one or more hierarchical levels [see fig. 4, showing hierarchical levels S0, S1, S11, and S111] corresponding to default values [para. 53: “… at least one default option XD for the compiling of the graphical model S0 to program code is defined and a default value xD is preset for these default options XD. In the present example, the default values xD are used for the default options XD, so that they are used as a preset value for the corresponding option of model S0 at the highest hierarchical level, if the value of the corresponding options in the graphical model is not defined…”], determining the default values based on values set at the corresponding hierarchical levels [Specifically, Fischer teaches setting default values at different hierarchical levels (i.e., S0-S111), and that yields a predictable result of utilizing hierarchical levels, which is that it allows for default values to be set depending on the relative ‘importance’ of each level; para. 53; “...In the example according to FIG. 5, only the options B, C, D, E, F are known per se for model S0, whereby only options B, C, D, and F at the highest hierarchical level in graphical model S0 are assigned the values b0, c0, d0, and f0. The automated method, again designated by the downward pointing arrow, makes sure that in the case of unset values for options (this also affects option A still not known in the model), the default values are automatically set for these options…”].
Daniel, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that weld instructions in a slide for display to the weld operator [para. 0018-19: “In typical semi-automatic work cells, parts are welded according to a welding schedule. The welding schedule can be stored in an electronic form, such as a sequence file, and the sequence file can include functions that represent each step in the welding schedule… A computer system, such as a weld sequencer, can execute the sequence file. When executed, an operator can step through the functions in an order determined by the welding schedule.”], specifically the visual representation of the weld instruction, may comprise an overall visual look and appearance of the weld [paras. 0018-19: “For example, a function can include parameter settings for the semi-automatic equipment and visual representations of a weld to be performed and/or the location of the weld on a part.”; para. 0039: “The display can present data in any color and can receive data from the welding job sequencer 102 via any wireless or hard wire protocol and/or standard.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to:
combine the system of Davidson with the method of determining the default values based on values set at the corresponding hierarchical levels, as disclosed by Fischer, since ensures that if values have failed to be assigned to a certain option, the default values function as a fallback position, as taught by Fischer [para. 53], and furthermore since the combination would have yielded a predictable result of utilizing one or more hierarchical levels in a control system; and
wherein the visual representation of the weld instruction comprises one or both of an overall visual look and appearance of objects in the slide for display, since Daniel teaches that this would help the operator during the welding sequence [para. 0025: “Moreover, the welding job sequencer 102 can utilize the welding sequence (e.g., the visual representations of the welds) to help an operator perform the two or more welds.”].
Regarding claim 3, Davidson in view of Fischer and Daniel discloses the system as defined in claim 1. Davidson further discloses wherein the machine readable instructions cause the processor to:
identify a change in at least one of the default values used by the sequence of weld instructions [para. 30: “…Preferably, default parameters will be stored in memory 18 and associated with specific programs or processes 104, which can then be changed or adjusted by the operator….”]; and
update the weld program based on the change [para. 30: “…Preferably, default parameters will be stored in memory 18 and associated with specific programs or processes 104, which can then be changed or adjusted by the operator. Weld sequence stages can be stored in memory 18 and then correlated with specific weld files. 110, 112,114, 116 and correlated with weld programs 104….”].
Regarding claim 4, Davidson in view of Fischer and Daniel discloses the system as defined in claim 1. Davidson further discloses wherein the hierarchical levels comprise at least one of:
a slide master level, the processor configured to use a value for one of the properties defined at the slide master level as a default value for any slide associated with the slide master;
a slide level, the processor configured to use a value for one of the properties defined at the slide level as a default value for any weld instructions associated with the slide.
[para. 36: “In a specific example, a welding process for a part could involve two stages: a first stage in which two components are tacked together, and a second stage in which the components are welded along seams. In the tacking stage, a hand-held gun is used. For this operation, a first weld bank 106 storing a configuration for semi-automatic welding would be selected when the trigger signal is received from the hand-held gun, along with a weld file 110 providing appropriate parameters for the tack weld. In the second stage a fixed or flexible automation system can be used to perform the weld.”]
Regarding claim 5, Davidson in view of Fischer and Daniel discloses the system as defined in claim 1. Davidson further discloses wherein the machine readable instructions cause the processor to:
identify a change in one of the properties from the corresponding default value to a defined value [para. 30: “…Preferably, default parameters will be stored in memory 18 and associated with specific programs or processes 104, which can then be changed or adjusted by the operator….”]; and
update the weld program based on the change [para. 30: “…Preferably, default parameters will be stored in memory 18 and associated with specific programs or processes 104, which can then be changed or adjusted by the operator. Weld sequence stages can be stored in memory 18 and then correlated with specific weld files. 110, 112,114, 116 and correlated with weld programs 104….”].
Regarding claim 6, Davidson in view of Fischer and Daniel discloses the system as defined in claim 1. Davidson further discloses wherein the one or more properties comprise at least one of: an operator shift time, a welding parameter threshold [para. 40: “…the user can define parameters for a weld sequence in step 120, such as, for example, pre-flow and post-flow times; weld voltage and wire feed speed parameters, and other command variables, which can be stored in the weld file 110. After the weld sequence 103 is defined, the user proceeds to process block 121, which allows the user to enter additional optional data into the weld files, such as operator limits, arc data monitoring parameters, or drawing files, as discussed above…” the prior art clearly discloses setting arc data monitoring parameters, in which the parameters of an welding arc would be setting a threshold to control the welding arc, as disclosed in the reference], a welding productivity goal, an operator authorization, an operator interface configuration, or a workflow event configuration.
Regarding claim 7, Davidson in view of Fischer and Daniel discloses the system as defined in claim 1. Davidson further discloses wherein the one or more properties comprise a pointer [fig. 4C: showing TeachPoint[1-15]; para. 46: “Each weld program can also include a plurality of teach points, which store taught process data.”] to a configuration file representative of a plurality of the one or more properties.
Regarding claim 8, Davidson in view of Fischer and Daniel discloses the system as defined in claim 1. Davidson further discloses wherein the one or more properties comprise at least one of: an object color, a text color, a background color, a text typeface, a text font, or a background image [para. 32: “...For example, a CAD file stored with the weld bank 106 could provide a drawing and weld parameter data for a series of welds for a part that is intended to be welded using the weld files stored in the weld bank 106. Each of the series of welds could correspond to a specific weld file…” the examiner is interpreting the CAD drawing as being a background image].
Regarding claim 9, Davidson in view of Fischer and Daniel discloses the system as defined in claim 1. Davidson further discloses wherein the weld program defines an event [para. 29: “…The weld process or program data 104 can include a predefined weld process type such as spray MIG, pulsed MIG, short circuit MIG, and Regulated Metal Deposition (RMD), and can also include specific weld parameters selected to optimize the weld for selected material types and/or thicknesses, shielding gas, wire and other material parameters…”; the examiner is interpreting the “predefined weld process” pertaining to different welding situations as being a weld event] and a response to the event, wherein the processor is configured to generate the weld program by:
determining, for one or more of the properties for the event, default values for the properties [para. 30: “…Preferably, default parameters will be stored in memory 18 and associated with specific programs or processes 104, which can then be changed or adjusted by the operator. Weld sequence stages can be stored in memory 18 and then correlated with specific weld files. 110, 112,114, 116 and correlated with weld programs 104….”]; and
in response to an event trigger, performing the event based on the default values for the one or more properties of the event [claim 1: “....the computerized welding system (10) using the weld configuration, and to perform a weld using data stored in the welding process program and the weld sequence data structures such that the computerized welding system (10) is configurable for any one semi-automatic, automatic, and robotic welding configurations…” as shown above, the controller is able to be automatically configurable to execute welding configurations, that is, respond to a specific welding event and be able to perform welding configurations in response to automatically, thus responding to an event trigger].
Regarding claim 18, Davidson in view of Fischer and Daniel discloses the system as defined in claim 1. Davidson further discloses
wherein the hierarchical levels comprise at least:
a root level, the processor configured to use a value for one of the properties defined at the root level as a default value for any slide [para. 30: “Preferably, default parameters will be stored in memory 18 and associated with specific programs or processes 104, which can then be changed or adjusted by the operator.”];
a weld instruction level, the processor configured to use a value for one of the properties defined at the weld instruction level as a default value for any weld associated with the weld instruction [para. 30: “Preferably, default parameters will be stored in memory 18 and associated with specific programs or processes 104, which can then be changed or adjusted by the operator. Weld sequence stages can be stored in memory 18 and then correlated with specific weld files. 110, 112,114, 116 and correlated with weld programs 104….”].
However, Davidson does not explicitly disclose:
a part level defined for a part, the processor configured to use a value for one of the properties defined at the part level as a default value for any slide associated with the part.
Davidson as modified by Fischer and Daniel, specifically Fischer, further teaches a part level defined for a part, the processor configured to use a value for one of the properties defined at the part level as a default value for any slide associated with the part [para. 24; “…The options information and with it the source information are documented and stored, for example, in at least one part and/or at least one file of the generated program code as comments and/or as a code constant and/or as a preprocessor macro and/or separately in at least one other data memory, particularly a file or a database.….”]. Furthermore, Fischer teaches another predictable result of utilizing hierarchical levels, specifically that the number of levels is not limiting [see fig. 4, showing hierarchical levels S0, S1, S11 … S111].
Regarding claim 19, Davidson in view of Fischer and Daniel discloses the system as defined in claim 1. Davidson as modified by Fischer and Daniel, specifically Fischer further discloses:
wherein determining the default values further comprises, in response to identifying multiple conflicting default values for at least one of the properties [see fig. 4, Fischer teaches constant options (circled values b1 and d0), set at higher hierarchical levels (S1 and S0, respectively), with conflicting default values (b111 at S111 and d1(1) at S1); para. 52; “FIG. 4 shows the behavior of the computer-aided method, when a preset value for an option for a submodel at a hierarchical level (and thereby also a value for an option for the model at the highest hierarchical level) is designated as unchangeable, therefore is designated as a "constant option." In the exemplary embodiment shown in FIG. 4, unchangeable values for options are shown circled. At the topmost model level S0, this is the value d0 for option D; in submodel S1 this is additionally the value b1 for option B.”], selecting the default value using the lowest hierarchical level for which one of the conflicting default values is defined [para. 52: “…After the values b1 and d0 have been designated as unchangeable, these values b1, d0 are also applied by nested subsystems S11 , S111 at lower hierarchical levels and in fact also when at one of these lower hierarchical levels S11 , S111 another value is set for the corresponding option B, D (see the value d1(1) in subsystem S1 and the value b111 in subsystem S111).”].
Regarding claim 20, Davidson in view of Fischer and Daniel discloses the system as defined in claim 19. Davidson as modified by Fischer and Daniel, specifically Fischer further discloses:
wherein the hierarchical levels comprise, at least, a root level, a part level, and a weld instruction level, and wherein the root level is a higher hierarchical level than the part level, and the part level is a higher hierarchical value than the weld instruction level [see fig. 4, showing highest hierarchical level S0 to lowest hierarchical level S111].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (EP 2533931 B1) in view of Fischer (US 20140075409 A1) and Daniel (US 20170189984 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hsu (US 20160267806 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Davidson in view of Fischer and Daniel discloses the system as defined in claim 1. Davidson discloses all limitations of the invention wherein the instructions cause the processor to generate the visual representation of the weld instruction by generating metadata associated with the weld instruction based on the values that are defined for the weld instruction and the determined default values.
Hsu, in the same field of endeavor, pertains to a method and apparatus to provide visual information associated with welding operations [abstract].
Hsu discloses the instructions cause the processor to generate the visual representation of the weld instruction by generating metadata associated with the weld instruction based on the values that are defined for the weld instruction and the determined default values [para. 145: “…In block 654, instructions for the weld(s) to be performed are retrieved from memory (e.g., local memory in the 20 and/or network-based memory). For example, the identifier determined in block 652 may be used as an index to retrieve a corresponding entry in a database residing in server 30 (FIG. 1). The retrieved instructions may comprise, for example, text and/or images (still images, video, and/or CAD drawings) of any format suitable for presentation on the display 304….” The reference clearly discloses being able to present the weld instructions in the form of images/video/CAD drawings etc. and that is, it would be data (the drawing/video etc.) that provides information about other data (welding instruction) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata ; accessed 01/19/2023)].
Hsu discloses the benefits of the visual representation of the weld instructions in that it avoids complications of difficulty of monitoring and maintain welding parameters throughout the welding process [para. 2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the welding instructions as taught by Davidson in view of displaying visual representation of the weld instructions as taught by Hsu to further include wherein the instructions cause the processor to generate the visual representation of the weld instruction by generating metadata associated with the weld instruction based on the values that are defined for the weld instruction and the determined default values to avoid complications of difficulty of monitoring and maintain welding parameters throughout the welding process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE J EVANGELISTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm EST.
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, Edward F Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/THEODORE J EVANGELISTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761