DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 14 October 2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous Claim objection. However, an additional Claim objection has been added in the present Office action based on the recent amendments made to the Claims.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 14 October 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 14 October 2025, the status of the claims is as follows: Claim 23-24 have been amended. Claims 25-26 are new
Claims 1-14 and 21-26 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, recommend replacing “is” with “was,” i.e., “… emission of the light is
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-5, 8-10, 12, 14, 21-22, and 24-25 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huh (KR-20040037887-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure, hereinafter Huh ‘887) in view of Becker (US-20090094721-A1, hereinafter Becker ‘721) and Davidson et al. (US-20090173726-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Huh ‘887 teaches a helmet accessory (solar cell 1, light sensor 2, LCD panel 3, and LCD panel driving control unit 10, fig. 1) configured to be mounted to a welding helmet (mounted on the “welding helmet,” para 1, shown in fig. 1), the helmet accessory comprising:
an optical sensor (photodetector 12, fig. 2; light detection unit 120, fig. 3) configured to detect an emission of a light and output a sensor signal indicative of a characteristic of the light (“light detection unit (120) detects light generated during welding, amplifies and filters the detected light signal, and sends it to the control unit,” para 35); and
control circuitry (control unit 140 and timer 130, fig. 3, “microcomputer or microprocessor,” para 52) configured to:
determine, based on the sensor signal, whether the characteristic of the light corresponds to a light characteristic (“frequency…high-intensity light,” para 12; “wavelengths,” para 13; “The control unit (140) is normally in standby mode, and when a light detection signal output from the light detection unit (120) is input, it is activated and switches to the operation mode,” para 40),
in response to determining the characteristic of the light does correspond to the light characteristic of the welding arc (“the control unit (140) outputs an LCD drive signal to the LCD drive unit (150) when a light detection signal is input from the light detection unit (120),” para 45), determine whether the emission of the light was detected by the optical sensor for a threshold amount of time (“the timer (130) is set to count a certain amount of time… It could be 5 minutes, for example, or it could be 30 minutes,” para 57), and
Huh ‘887, figs. 1 and 3
PNG
media_image1.png
306
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
674
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Huh ‘887 does not explicitly disclose control circuitry configured to determine whether the characteristic of the light corresponds to a light characteristic of a welding arc (although Huh ‘887 teaches determinations based on light from welding torches, para 13, Huh ‘887 does not explicitly disclose that the welding torches produce welding arcs), in response to determining the emission of the light was detected by the optical sensor for the threshold amount of time, increment a welding arc counter or record a duration of the welding arc.
However, in the same field of endeavor of auto-darkening welding helmets, Becker ‘721 teaches control circuitry (lens control module 30, fig. 2; “control circuitry,” para 0027) configured to determine whether the characteristic of the light corresponds to a light characteristic of a welding arc (arc 26, fig. 1; “the optical sensors 38 may be connected to an amplification and/or voltage biasing circuit which outputs a signal (e.g., voltage) directly related to the intensity of light detected by the optical sensors 38,” para 0032).
Becker ‘721, fig. 2
PNG
media_image3.png
552
510
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Huh ‘887 to include, control circuitry configured to determine whether the characteristic of the light corresponds to a light characteristic of a welding arc, in view of the teachings of Becker ‘721, by detecting the intensity of an arc, as taught by Becker ‘721, that is produced from a welding torch, as taught by Huh ‘887, because in welding, e.g., stick welding, MIG welding, TIG welding, gas welding, and/or resistance welding, an arc is developed between an electrode and work piece, which causes the work piece and the electrode to melt, resulting in a weld joint when the metal cools, and by measuring the voltage produced from the intensity of the welding arc, the lens of a helmet can be auto-darkened, for the advantage of protecting a user’s eyes from the bright light emitted from the welding arc (Becker ‘721, paras 0018, 0021, and 0025).
Huh ‘887 / Becker ‘721 do not explicitly disclose in response to determining the emission of the light was detected by the optical sensor for the threshold amount of time, increment a welding arc counter or record a duration of the welding arc.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of collecting arc welding data for maintenance determinations, Davidson teaches in response to determining the emission of the light was detected by the optical sensor for the threshold amount of time (“microprocessor,” para 0032; steps 80 and 82, fig. 10; the completion of the alarm 80 taught by Davidson is construed as being equivalent to the completion of the timer 130 taught by Huh ‘887), increment a welding arc counter (step 85, fig. 10) or record a duration of the welding arc (“the controller 16 stores … the overall arc time,” para 0042).
Richardson, fig. 10
PNG
media_image4.png
1074
731
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Huh ‘887 to include by addition, in response to determining the emission of the light was detected by the optical sensor for the threshold amount of time, increment a welding arc counter or record a duration of the welding arc, in view of the teachings of Davidson, by counting the number of welds and by storing the overall arc time, as taught by Davidson, upon completion of a weld either by light detection or by timer, as taught by Huh ‘887, in order to keep track of the number of individual welds as well as the overall time of the weld process, for the advantage of monitoring the weld process to ensure that all of the expected welds have been completed within predetermined quality parameters (Davidson, paras 0003 and 0043-0044).
Regarding claim 2, Huh ‘887 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the characteristic of the light comprises an intensity of the light, and the light characteristic of the welding arc comprises a threshold light intensity or a threshold speed at which the intensity of the light transitions from a first value below the threshold light intensity to a second value at or above the threshold light intensity.
However, in the same field of endeavor of auto-darkening welding helmets, Becker ‘721 teaches wherein the characteristic of the light comprises an intensity of the light (arc 26, fig. 1; “the optical sensors 38 may be connected to an amplification and/or voltage biasing circuit which outputs a signal (e.g., voltage) directly related to the intensity of light detected by the optical sensors 38,” para 0032), and the light characteristic of the welding arc comprises a threshold light intensity (“sensitivity voltage,” para 0025) or a threshold speed (not explicitly disclosed) at which the intensity of the light transitions from a first value below the threshold light intensity (“the arc detect signal 72 is set to ‘high’ if the sensitivity voltage 52 is less than the optical voltage 56,” para 0039) to a second value at or above the threshold light intensity (“’low’ if the sensitivity voltage 52 is greater than the optical voltage 56,” para 0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Huh ‘887 to include, wherein the characteristic of the light comprises an intensity of the light, and the light characteristic of the welding arc comprises a threshold light intensity or a threshold speed at which the intensity of the light transitions from a first value below the threshold light intensity to a second value at or above the threshold light intensity, in view of the teachings of Becker ‘721, by detecting the intensity of an arc based on a sensitivity voltage, as taught by Becker ‘721, to control the auto-darkening of the liquid crystal panel, as taught by Huh ‘887, because in welding, e.g., stick welding, MIG welding, TIG welding, gas welding, and/or resistance welding, an arc is developed between an electrode and work piece, which causes the work piece and the electrode to melt, resulting in a weld joint when the metal cools, and by comparing the voltage produced from the intensity of the welding arc with a sensitivity voltage, the lens of a helmet can be auto-darkened, for the advantage of protecting a user’s eyes from the bright light emitted from the welding arc (Becker ‘721, paras 0018, 0021, and 0025).
Regarding claim 3, Huh ‘887 teaches wherein determining whether the emission of the light is detected by the optical sensor for the threshold amount of time (“the timer (130) is set to count a certain amount of time… It could be 5 minutes, for example, or it could be 30 minutes,” para 57) comprises determining whether the emission of the light is continuously detected by the optical sensor for the threshold amount of time (“The control unit (140) continuously outputs an LCD driving signal to the LCD driving unit (150) while a light detection signal is output from the light detection unit (120),
and accordingly, the LCD panel (3) is continuously driven,” para 42; after the timer concludes its count, the LCD drive signal is “blocked,” para 55; construed such that the continuous detection signal is provided during the claimed “threshold amount of time”).
Regarding claim 4, Huh ‘887 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising memory circuitry configured to store a value of the welding arc counter, the duration of the welding arc, or a date or time when the welding arc is detected.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of collecting arc welding data for maintenance determinations, Davidson teaches further comprising memory circuitry (memory 18, fig. 1) configured to store a value of the welding arc counter, the duration of the welding arc, or a date or time when the welding arc is detected (“weld data, approximate time and location of an alarm condition, and associated weld number or count, can all be stored in memory 18,” para 0047).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Huh ‘887 to include by addition, further comprising memory circuitry configured to store a value of the welding arc counter, the duration of the welding arc, or a date or time when the welding arc is detected, in view of the teachings of Davidson, by storing the weld data, approximate time and location of alarm condition and the associated weld number or count in the memory of a processor, as taught by Davidson, upon completion of a weld either by light detection or by timer, as taught by Huh ‘887, in order to keep track of the number of individual welds as well as the overall time of the weld process, for the advantage of monitoring the weld process to ensure that all of the expected welds have been completed within predetermined quality parameters (Davidson, paras 0003 and 0043-0044).
Regarding claim 5, Huh ‘887 teaches further comprising an auto-darkening lens (liquid crystal panel 3, fig. 1; “the control circuit controls the liquid crystal panel (3) to be dark,” para 16) configured to transition between a lightened state and a darkened state (“less light passes through,” para 16), the control circuitry being configured to put the auto-darkening lens in the darkened state in response to determining the characteristic of the light does correspond to the light characteristic of the welding arc (“when a light detection signal is input from the light detection unit (12), it operates in an active mode and outputs an LCD driving signal to the LCD driving unit (14) to drive the LCD panel (14),” para 20).
Regarding claim 8, Huh ‘887 teaches a welding helmet (fig. 1), comprising:
an optical sensor (photodetector 12, fig. 2; light detection unit 120, fig. 3) configured to detect an emission of a light and output a sensor signal indicative of a characteristic of the light (“light detection unit (120) detects light generated during welding, amplifies and filters the detected light signal, and sends it to the control unit,” para 35); and
control circuitry (control unit 140 and timer 130, fig. 3, “microcomputer or microprocessor,” para 52) configured to:
determine, based on the sensor signal, whether the characteristic of the light corresponds to a light characteristic (“frequency…high-intensity light,” para 12; “wavelengths,” para 13; “The control unit (140) is normally in standby mode, and when a light detection signal output from the light detection unit (120) is input, it is activated and switches to the operation mode,” para 40),
put an auto-darkening lens (liquid crystal panel 3, fig. 1) of the welding helmet into a darkened state (“the control circuit controls the liquid crystal panel (3) to be dark,” para 16) when the characteristic of the light does correspond to the light characteristic of the welding arc (“when a light detection signal is input from the light detection unit (12), it operates in an active mode and outputs an LCD driving signal to the LCD driving unit (14) to drive the LCD panel (14),” para 20),
in response to determining the characteristic of the light does correspond to the light characteristic of the welding arc (“the control unit (140) outputs an LCD drive signal to the LCD drive unit (150) when a light detection signal is input from the light detection unit (120),” para 45), determine whether the optical sensor detects the emission of the light having the characteristic for a threshold amount of time (“the timer (130) is set to count a certain amount of time… It could be 5 minutes, for example, or it could be 30 minutes,” para 57).
Huh ‘887 does not explicitly disclose control circuitry configured to determine whether the characteristic of the light corresponds to a light characteristic of a welding arc (although Huh ‘887 teaches determinations based on light from welding torches, para 13, Huh ‘887 does not explicitly disclose that the welding torches produce welding arcs) in response to determining the optical sensor detects the mission of the light having the characteristic for the threshold amount of time, increment a welding arc counter or record a duration of the welding arc.
However, in the same field of endeavor of auto-darkening welding helmets, Becker ‘721 teaches control circuitry (lens control module 30, fig. 2; “control circuitry,” para 0027) configured to determine whether the characteristic of the light corresponds to a light characteristic of a welding arc (arc 26, fig. 1; “the optical sensors 38 may be connected to an amplification and/or voltage biasing circuit which outputs a signal (e.g., voltage) directly related to the intensity of light detected by the optical sensors 38,” para 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Huh ‘887 to include, control circuitry configured to determine whether the characteristic of the light corresponds to a light characteristic of a welding arc, in view of the teachings of Becker ‘721, by detecting the intensity of an arc, as taught by Becker ‘721, that is produced from a welding torch, as taught by Huh ‘887, because in welding, e.g., stick welding, MIG welding, TIG welding, gas welding, and/or resistance welding, an arc is developed between an electrode and work piece, which causes the work piece and the electrode to melt, resulting in a weld joint when the metal cools, and by measuring the voltage produced from the intensity of the welding arc, the lens of a helmet can be auto-darkened, for the advantage of protecting a user’s eyes from the bright light emitted from the welding arc (Becker ‘721, paras 0018, 0021, and 0025).
Huh ‘887 / Becker ‘721 do not explicitly disclose in response to determining the optical sensor detects the mission of the light having the characteristic for the threshold amount of time, increment a welding arc counter or record a duration of the welding arc.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of collecting arc welding data for maintenance determinations, Davidson teaches in response to determining the optical sensor detects the mission of the light having the characteristic for the threshold amount of time (“microprocessor,” para 0032; steps 80 and 82, fig. 10; the completion of the alarm 80 taught by Davidson is construed as being equivalent to the completion of the timer 130 taught by Huh ‘887), increment a welding arc counter (step 85, fig. 10) or record a duration of the welding arc (“the controller 16 stores … the overall arc time,” para 0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Huh ‘887 to include by addition, in response to determining the optical sensor detects the mission of the light having the characteristic for the threshold amount of time, increment a welding arc counter or record a duration of the welding arc, in view of the teachings of Davidson, by counting the number of welds and by storing the overall arc time, as taught by Davidson, upon completion of a weld either by light detection or by timer, as taught by Huh ‘887, in order to keep track of the number of individual welds as well as the overall time of the weld process, for the advantage of monitoring the weld process to ensure that all of the expected welds have been completed within predetermined quality parameters (Davidson, paras 0003 and 0043-0044).
Regarding claim 9, Huh ‘887 teaches in response to determining the optical sensor detects the emission of the light having the characteristic for the threshold amount of time (paras 45 and 57).
Huh ’887 does not explicitly disclose further comprising a non-optical sensor, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: in response to determining the optical sensor detects the emission of the light having the characteristic for the threshold amount of time, determine whether the welding arc is valid based on non-optical data detected by the non-optical sensor, and in response to determining the welding arc is valid, increment the welding arc counter or record the duration of the welding arc.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of collecting arc welding data for maintenance determinations, Davidson teaches further comprising a non-optical sensor (“voltage sensor 26, a current sensor 28,” para 0037), wherein the control circuitry (controller 16, fig. 1) is further configured to: in response to determining the optical sensor detects the emission of the light having the characteristic for the threshold amount of time (steps 80 and 82, fig. 10), determine whether the welding arc is valid based on non-optical data detected by the non-optical sensor (based on current and voltage feedback, the controller “determines whether an arc start has been achieved, and a weld has been started,” para 0047), and in response to determining the welding arc is valid, increment the welding arc counter (“When the weld count function is activated, the processor 16 can also increment a weld counter (process block 64),” para 0047; step 85, fig. 15) or record the duration of the welding arc (“the controller 16 stores … the overall arc time,” para 0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Huh ‘887 to include by addition, further comprising a non-optical sensor, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: in response to determining the optical sensor detects the emission of the light having the characteristic for the threshold amount of time, determine whether the welding arc is valid based on non-optical data detected by the non-optical sensor, and in response to determining the welding arc is valid, increment the welding arc counter or record the duration of the welding arc, in view of the teachings of Davidson, by using the current and voltage feedback, as taught by Davidson, in addition to the data from the light sensor, as taught by Huh ‘887, to determine whether a arc stat has been achieved and that an arc has been established, for the advantage of verifying that all of the expected welds in a sequence have been completed within predetermined quality parameters (Davidson, paras 0003, 0043-0044, and 0047).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Huh ‘887 in view of Becker ‘721 and Davidson as set forth above regarding claim 9 teaches the invention of claim 10. Specifically, Davidson teaches wherein the non-optical sensor comprises an electromagnetic sensor (“voltage sensor 26, a current sensor 28,” para 0037) configured to detect electromagnetic emission (voltage and current are construed as electromagnetic emissions) outside of an optical wavelength range, a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, or a sound level sensor (voltage and current are “outside” of these claimed measurement range and sensors).
Regarding claim 12, Huh ‘887 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: memory circuitry configured to store a value of the welding arc counter, the duration of the welding arc, or a date or time when the welding arc is detected; and a user interface configured to provide a notification when a value of the welding arc counter, or the duration of the welding arc, meets, exceeds, or is less than a threshold.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of collecting arc welding data for maintenance determinations, Davidson teaches further comprising: memory circuitry (memory 18, fig. 1) configured to store a value of the welding arc counter, the duration of the welding arc, or a date or time when the welding arc is detected (“weld data, approximate time and location of an alarm condition, and associated weld number or count, can all be stored in memory 18,” para 0047); and a user interface (user interface 32, fig. 2) configured to provide a notification (“alarm limits” are accessible through the weld monitor configuration screen 56, fig. 7; para 0044) when a value of the welding arc counter (“Weld Counter,” fig. 7), or the duration of the welding arc (“Weld Time,” fig. 7), meets, exceeds, or is less than a threshold (“min and max limits,” para 0044).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Huh ‘887 to include by addition, further comprising: memory circuitry configured to store a value of the welding arc counter, the duration of the welding arc, or a date or time when the welding arc is detected; and a user interface configured to provide a notification when a value of the welding arc counter, or the duration of the welding arc, meets, exceeds, or is less than a threshold, in view of the teachings of Davidson, by storing the weld data, approximate time and location of alarm condition and the associated weld number or count in the memory of a processor and by providing alarms based on min and max limits, as taught by Davidson, during the welding, as taught by Huh ‘887, in order to keep track of the number of individual welds as well as the overall time of the weld process, for the advantage of monitoring the weld process to ensure that all of the expected welds have been completed within predetermined quality parameters, such that if a fault limit is exceeded, a fault alarm notifies a user, ensuring that a minimum quality level of is maintained during the welding (Davidson, paras 0003, 0013, and 0043-0044).
Regarding claim 14, Huh ‘887 teaches further comprising a helmet shell (exterior shell of the helmet shown in fig. 1), the optical sensor (light sensor 2, fig. 1) and the control circuitry (LCD panel driving control unit 10, fig. 1) being mounted to the helmet shell (as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Huh ‘887 in view of Becker ‘721 and Davidson as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 21. Specifically, Huh ‘887 teaches wherein the control circuitry (control unit 140 and timer 130, fig. 3, “microcomputer or microprocessor,” para 52) is configured to determine the emission of the light was detected by the optical sensor for the threshold amount of time (construed as the time for the timer that is less the prescribed “certain amount of time” taught in para 57, i.e., when the time is less than this amount, then this determination is construed as being a valid response). Additionally, Davidson teaches wherein the control circuitry (controller 16, fig. 1) is configured to increment the welding arc counter (step 85, fig. 10) in response to determining the emission of the light was detected by the optical sensor for the threshold amount of time (steps 80 and 82, fig. 10; the completion of the alarm 80 taught by Davidson is construed as being equivalent to the completion of the timer 130 taught by Huh ‘887).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Huh ‘887 in view of Becker ‘721 and Davidson as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 22. Specifically, Huh ‘887 teaches wherein the control circuitry (control unit 140 and timer 130, fig. 3, “microcomputer or microprocessor,” para 52) is configured to determine the emission of the light was detected by the optical sensor for the threshold amount of time (construed as the time for the timer that is less the prescribed “certain amount of time” taught in para 57, i.e., when the time is less than this amount, then this determination is construed as being a valid response). Additionally, Davidson teaches wherein the control circuitry (controller 16, fig. 1) is configured to record the duration of the welding arc (“the controller 16 stores … the overall arc time,” para 0042) in response to determining the emission of the light was detected by the optical sensor for the threshold amount of time (steps 80 and 82, fig. 10; the completion of the alarm 80 taught by Davidson is construed as being equivalent to the completion of the timer 130 taught by Huh ‘887).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Huh ‘887 in view of Becker ‘721 and Davidson as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 22. Specifically, Huh ‘887 teaches wherein the control circuitry (control unit 140 and timer 130, fig. 3, “microcomputer or microprocessor,” para 52) is configured to determine the emission of the light was detected by the optical sensor for the threshold amount of time (construed as the time for the timer that is less the prescribed “certain amount of time” taught in para 57, i.e., when the time is less than this amount, then this determination is construed as being a valid response). Additionally, Davidson teaches wherein the control circuitry (controller 16, fig. 1) is configured to record the duration of the welding arc (“the controller 16 stores … the overall arc time,” para 0042) in response to determining the emission of the light was detected by the optical sensor for the threshold amount of time (steps 80 and 82, fig. 10; the completion of the alarm 80 taught by Davidson is construed as being equivalent to the completion of the timer 130 taught by Huh ‘887).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Huh ‘887 in view of Becker ‘721 and Davidson as set forth above regarding claim 8 teaches the invention of claim 25. Specifically, Huh ‘887 teaches determining the emission of the light was detected by the optical sensor (“light detection unit (120) detects light generated during welding, amplifies and filters the detected light signal, and sends it to the control unit,” paras 35-36) for the threshold amount of time (“the timer (130) is set to count a certain amount of time… It could be 5 minutes, for example, or it could be 30 minutes,” para 57). Additionally, Davison teaches wherein the control circuitry (“microprocessor,” para 0032) is configured to increment the welding arc counter (step 85, fig. 10) in response to determining the emission of the light was detected by the optical sensor for the threshold amount of time (steps 80 and 82, fig. 10; the completion of the alarm 80 taught by Davidson is construed as being equivalent to the completion of the timer 130 taught by Huh ‘887).
Claim 6 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huh (KR-20040037887-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure, hereinafter Huh ‘887) in view of Becker (US-20090094721-A1, hereinafter Becker ‘721) and Davidson et al. (US-20090173726-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Huh (US-20110156989-A1, hereinafter Huh ‘989).
Huh ‘887 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a display screen configured to display the welding arc counter or the duration of the welding arc.
However, in the same field of endeavor of auto-darkening welding helmets, Huh ‘989 teaches further comprising a display screen (display unit 230, fig. 2) configured to display the welding arc counter (not explicitly disclosed) or the duration of the welding arc (“The calculated operation time may be stored in the memory unit 260 and may be displayed on the display unit 230,” para 0049).
Huh ‘989, figs. 1-2
PNG
media_image5.png
759
608
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
803
444
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Huh ‘887 to include, further comprising a display screen configured to display the welding arc counter or the duration of the welding arc, in view of the teachings of Huh ‘989, by using a display unit to display the calculated operation time, as taught by Huh ‘989, for each duration of a weld, as taught by Huh ‘887, in order to calculate an operation of the liquid crystal screen indicating how long the liquid crystal screen is kept dark, which is then displayed on a display unit, enabling a user to know how long the welding has taken, for the advantage of performing welding in a more efficient manner as a result of informing the user of the elapsed time (Huh ‘989, paras 0002 and 0011-0013).
Claim 7 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huh (KR-20040037887-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure, hereinafter Huh ‘887) in view of Becker (US-20090094721-A1, hereinafter Becker ‘721) and Davidson et al. (US-20090173726-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Huh (US-20110156989-A1, hereinafter Huh ‘989) and Sundell (US-20060285330-A1).
Huh ‘887 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a user interface an output device configured to provide a notification indicating an operation type or a welding process type; and a non-optical sensor configured to detect non-optical sensor data, the control circuitry being configured to determine the operation type or the welding process type based on the non-optical sensor data.
However, in the same field of endeavor of auto-darkening welding helmets, Huh ‘989 teaches further comprising an output device (display unit 230, fig. 2) configured to provide a notification indicating an operation type (welding operation S110, cutting operation S120, grinding operation S130, or X-mode operation S140, fig. 3) or a welding process type.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Huh ‘887 to include, further comprising a user interface an output device configured to provide a notification indicating an operation type or a welding process type; and a non-optical sensor configured to detect non-optical sensor data, the control circuitry being configured to determine the operation type or the welding process type based on the non-optical sensor data, in view of the teachings of Huh ‘989, by using a display unit to toggle through different operation steps, as taught by Huh ‘989, which was located inside the interior of the helmet, as taught by Huh ‘887, in order to automatically adjust the luminance of the light sensitivity based on the type of operation, because the tolerance error range for the detected luminance will change depending on the operation step requiring adjustment of the auto-darkening feature for the liquid crystal display (Huh ‘989, paras 0055-0056; fig. 3 shows changes based on the sensitivity level based on the operation step).
Huh ‘887/ Huh ‘989 do not explicitly disclose a non-optical sensor configured to detect non-optical sensor data, the control circuitry being configured to determine the operation type or the welding process type based on the non-optical sensor data.
However, in the same field of endeavor of auto-darkening welding helmets, Sundell teaches a non-optical sensor (motion sensor 68, fig. 3; construed as being a non-optical sensor in view of the Specification) configured to detect non-optical sensor data (“determine whether any sensed movements satisfy a preselected threshold condition,” para 0020), the control circuitry (power controller 64, fig. 3) being configured to determine the operation type or the welding process type (“when a user picks up the welding helmet,” para 0018) based on the non-optical sensor data (“activation signal essentially “wakes up” ADF 40, causing it enter the ON state,” para 0020; construed as an additional sensor for activating the LCD panel taught by Huh ‘989).
Sundell, figs. 1 and 3
PNG
media_image7.png
484
444
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
721
600
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Huh ‘887 to include, a non-optical sensor configured to detect non-optical sensor data, the control circuitry being configured to determine the operation type or the welding process type based on the non-optical sensor data, in view of the teachings of Sundell, by using the motion sensor, as taught by Sundell, to activate the LCD panel during welding, as taught by Huh ‘887, in order to activate the automatic darkening feature automatically when the helmet is picked up, reducing the risk that the user forgets to turn on the automatic darkening feature and does not receive adequate protection during welding as well as saving electrical energy (battery life) by automatically powering down the helmet when not in use (Sundell, para 0040).
Claim 11 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huh (KR-20040037887-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure, hereinafter Huh ‘887) in view of Becker (US-20090094721-A1, hereinafter Becker ‘721) and Davidson et al. (US-20090173726-A1) as applied to claims 8-9 above and further in view of Becker et al. (US 20090231423 A1, hereinafter Becker ‘423).
Huh ‘887 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose the non-optical sensor configured to detect whether the welding helmet is in a raised position or a lowered position, the control circuitry being further configured to determine the welding arc is not valid when the welding helmet is in the raised position.
However in the same field of endeavor of auto-darkening welding helmets, Becker ‘423 teaches, in a welding helmet having both an optical sensor (38) and a non-optical sensor which is a position sensor (66, Fig. 3): the non-optical sensor is configured to detect whether the welding helmet is in a raised position or a lowered position (“The helmet position sensor 66 may detect whether the helmet is raised (i.e., no welding operation will begin) or lowered (i.e., a welding operation may be initiated at any time),” Par. 0026), the control circuitry being further configured to determine the welding arc is not valid when the welding helmet is in the raised position (para 0026).
Becker ‘423, figs. 2-3
PNG
media_image9.png
578
466
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
536
672
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of the modified Becker ‘721 to include, the non-optical sensor configured to detect whether the welding helmet is in a raised position or a lowered position, the control circuitry being further configured to determine the welding arc is not valid when the welding helmet is in the raised position, by adding a position sensor to the helmet to detect the position of the helmet and to configure the control circuitry to determine whether welding is likely to occur, as taught by Becker ‘423, to the helmet, as taught by Huh ‘887, in order to improve the automation of the device, and save energy by not operating the helmet when welding is not taking place.
Claim 13 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huh (KR-20040037887-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure, hereinafter Huh ‘887) in view of Becker (US-20090094721-A1, hereinafter Becker ‘721) and Davidson et al. (US-20090173726-A1) as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of Huh (US-20110156989-A1, hereinafter Huh ‘989).
Huh ‘887 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a display screen configured to display the welding arc counter or the duration of the welding arc.
However, in the same field of endeavor of auto-darkening welding helmets, Huh ‘989 teaches further comprising a display screen (display unit 230, fig. 2) configured to display the welding arc counter (not explicitly disclosed) or the duration of the welding arc (“The calculated operation time may be stored in the memory unit 260 and may be displayed on the display unit 230,” para 0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Huh ‘887 to include, further comprising a display screen configured to display the welding arc counter or the duration of the welding arc, in view of the teachings of Huh ‘989, by using a display unit to display the calculated operation time, as taught by Huh ‘989, for each duration of a weld, as taught by Huh ‘887, in order to calculate an operation of the liquid crystal screen indicating how long the liquid crystal screen is kept dark, which is then displayed on a display unit, enabling a user to know how long the welding has taken, for the advantage of performing welding in a more efficient manner as a result of informing the user of the elapsed time (Huh ‘989, paras 0002 and 0011-0013).
Claims 23 and 26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huh (KR-20040037887-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure, hereinafter Huh ‘887) in view of Becker (US-20090094721-A1, hereinafter Becker ‘721) and Davidson et al. (US-20090173726-A1) as applied to claims 1-2 and 8 above and further in view of Fergason (US-20050001155-A1).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Huh ‘887 in view of Becker ‘721 and Davison as set forth above regarding claim 2 teaches the invention of claim 23. Specifically, Becker ‘721 teaches wherein the light characteristic of the welding arc comprises the threshold (“sensitivity voltage,” para 0025) at which the intensity of the light transitions from the first value below the threshold light intensity (“the arc detect signal 72 is set to ‘high’ if the sensitivity voltage 52 is less than the optical voltage 56,” para 0039) to the second value at or above the threshold light intensity (“’low’ if the sensitivity voltage 52 is greater than the optical voltage 56,” para 0039).
Huh ‘887 / Becker ‘721 do not explicitly disclose the welding arc comprises the threshold speed (although Becker ‘721 teaches sensitivity voltage thresholds, Becker ‘721 does not teach different threshold rates).
However, in the same field of endeavor of auto-darkening during welding, Fergason teaches the welding arc (“arc welding,” pora 0042) comprises the threshold speed (referencing page 8 of arguments filed 5 Mar 2025, examiner is relying on paragraph 0019 from the Specification to understand this limitation; paragraph 0019 discloses “fast” transitions of light intensity; similarly, Fergason teaches a detector with a “fast response time” and another detector with a “slow response time,” which are construed as being “threshold speeds”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Huh ‘887, in view of the teachings of Fergason, by using one detector that has a low sensitivity as well as another detector with a high sensitivity, as taught by Fergason, to detect the sensitivity voltages, as taught by Beker ‘721, to control the auto-darkening of the liquid crystal panel, as taught by Huh ‘887, in order to use one detector with a fast response time that immediately darkens the lens upon detection of welding and another detector with a slower response time that ensures welding is completed before the darkening feature is turned off (Fergason, paras 0037 and 0042).
Regarding claim 26, Huh ‘887 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the characteristic of the light comprises an intensity of the light, and the light characteristic of the welding arc comprises a threshold speed at which the intensity of the light transitions from the first value below the threshold light intensity to the second value at or above the threshold light intensity.
However, in the same field of endeavor of auto-darkening during welding, Becker ‘721 teaches wherein the characteristic of the light comprises an intensity of the light (arc 26, fig. 1; “the optical sensors 38 may be connected to an amplification and/or voltage biasing circuit which outputs a signal (e.g., voltage) directly related to the intensity of light detected by the optical sensors 38,” para 0032), and the light characteristic of the welding arc comprises a threshold (“sensitivity voltage,” para 0025) at which the intensity of the light transitions from the first value below the threshold light intensity (“the arc detect signal 72 is set to ‘high’ if the sensitivity voltage 52 is less than the optical voltage 56,” para 0039) to the second value at or above the threshold light intensity (“’low’ if the sensitivity voltage 52 is greater than the optical voltage 56,” para 0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Huh ‘887 to include, wherein the characteristic of the light comprises an intensity of the light, and the light characteristic of the welding arc comprises a threshold at which the intensity of the light transitions from a first value below the threshold light intensity to a second value at or above the threshold light intensity, in view of the teachings of Becker ‘721, by detecting the intensity of an arc based on a sensitivity voltage, as taught by Becker ‘721, to control the auto-darkening of the liquid crystal panel, as taught by Huh ‘887, because in welding, e.g., stick welding, MIG welding, TIG welding, gas welding, and/or resistance welding, an arc is developed between an electrode and work piece, which causes the work piece and the electrode to melt, resulting in a weld joint when the metal cools, and by comparing the voltage produced from the intensity of the welding arc with a sensitivity voltage, the lens of a helmet can be auto-darkened, for the advantage of protecting a user’s eyes from the bright light emitted from the welding arc (Becker ‘721, paras 0018, 0021, and 0025).
Huh ‘887 / Becker ‘721 do not explicitly disclose the welding arc comprises a threshold speed (although Becker ‘721 teaches sensitivity voltage thresholds, Becker ‘721 does not teach different threshold rates).
However, in the same field of endeavor of auto-darkening during welding, Fergason teaches the welding arc (“arc welding,” pora 0042) comprises a threshold speed (referencing page 8 of arguments filed 5 Mar 2025, examiner is relying on paragraph 0019 from the Specification to understand this limitation; paragraph 0019 discloses “fast” transitions of light intensity; similarly, Fergason teaches a detector with a “fast response time” and another detector with a “slow response time,” which are construed as being “threshold speeds”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Huh ‘887, in view of the teachings of Fergason, by using one detector that has a low sensitivity as well as another detector with a high sensitivity, as taught by Fergason, to detect the sensitivity voltages, as taught by Beker ‘721, to control the auto-darkening of the liquid crystal panel, as taught by Huh ‘887, in order to use one detector with a fast response time that immediately darkens the lens upon detection of welding and another detector with a slower response time that ensures welding is completed before the darkening feature is turned off (Fergason, paras 0037 and 0042).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 14 October 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Rejections under 35 USC § 103
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In particular, the arguments attack the Davidson reference indi