DETAILED ACTION
This is a FINAL Office Action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed on 09/08/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are examined below.
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 Amendments
The amendments filed on 09/08/2025 in response to the initial rejection made on 03/10/2025 have been acknowledged and entered. Claim(s) 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, and 13-14 have been amended. The newly submitted IDS has been considered. Rejections necessitated in response to the amendments made to the claims have been made. Responses to the Applicant’s arguments are written below.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “control circuitry configured to: determine a welding position or welding orientation of the welding-type tool, or the arc, relative to the reference point based on the helmet position and the helmet orientation relative to the reference point and the position or orientation of the welding-type tool or arc relative to the second sensor system.” In lines 6-10 of the claim. As discussed in Claim Rejection under 35 USC § 101 below, “control circuitry” is broadly provided, but not specifically described in the written description of the specification as originally filed. Paragraph [0043] in the originally filed specification states that it could be a laptop. No further descriptions of the laptop were provided and therefore it could be interpreted as a generic computer. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting it as a device that has a processor. Claims 2-7 depend from Claim 1 and are therefore rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “control circuitry configured to: determine a welding position or welding orientation of the welding-type tool, or the arc, relative to the reference point based on the helmet position and the helmet orientation relative to the reference point and the position or orientation of the welding-type tool or arc relative to the second sensor system.” In lines 6-10 of the claim. As discussed in Claim Rejection under 35 USC § 101 below, “control circuitry” is broadly provided, but not specifically described in the written description of the specification as originally filed. Paragraph [0043] in the originally filed specification states that it could be a laptop. No further descriptions of the laptop were provided and therefore it could be interpreted as a generic computer. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting it as a device that has a processor. Claims 9-14 depend from Claim 8 and are therefore rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “control circuitry configured to: determine a welding position or welding orientation of the welding-type tool, or the arc, relative to the reference point based on the helmet position and the helmet orientation relative to the reference point and the position or orientation of the welding-type tool or arc relative to the second sensor system…” In lines 9-14 of the claim. As discussed in Claim Rejection under 35 USC § 101 below, “control circuitry” is broadly provided, but not specifically described in the written description of the specification as originally filed. Paragraph [0043] in the originally filed specification states that it could be a laptop. No further descriptions of the laptop were provided and therefore it could be interpreted as a generic computer. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting it as a device that has a processor. Claims 16-20 depend from Claim 15 and are therefore rejected on the same grounds.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to “a welding helmet” (i.e. a manufacture), claim 8 is directed to “a wearable weld tracker” (i.e. a machine), and claim 13 is directed to “a weld tracking system” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “determining a welding position or welding orientation of the welding-type tool or arc,” in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1
“monitor a helmet position and a helmet orientation of the welding helmet relative to a reference point in a welding environment;
track a position or orientation of a welding-type tool, or of an arc produced by the welding-type tool… ; and
determine a welding position or welding orientation of the welding-type tool, or the arc, relative to the reference point based on the helmet position and the helmet orientation relative to the reference point and the position or orientation of the welding-type tool or arc…”
Per claim 8
“monitor a wearable position and a wearable orientation of the wearable weld tracker relative to a reference point in a welding environment;
track a position or orientation of a welding-type tool, or of an arc produced by the welding-type tool…; and
determine a welding position or welding orientation of the welding-type tool, or the arc, relative to the reference point based on the wearable position and the wearable orientation relative to the reference point and the position or orientation of the welding-type tool or arc…”
Per claim 15
“monitor a helmet position and a helmet orientation of the welding helmet relative to a reference point of a welding environment,
track a position or orientation of a welding-type tool, or of an arc produced by the welding-type tool… , and
determine a welding position or welding orientation of the welding-type tool, or the arc, relative to the reference point based on the helmet position and the helmet orientation relative to the reference point and the position or orientation of the welding-type tool, or arc, … and
determine a welding technique parameter, welding technique feedback, welding operation parameter, or welding operation feedback based on the welding position or the welding orientation of the welding-type tool or the arc, and
transmit one or more signals representative of the welding technique parameter, welding technique feedback, welding operation parameter, welding operation feedback, or welding position or welding orientation of the welding-type tool or arc; and
receive the one or more signals and set a welding parameter based on the welding technique parameter, welding technique feedback, welding operation parameter, welding operation feedback, or welding position or welding orientation of the welding-type tool or arc.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed elements of “a first sensor system,” “a second sensor system,” “control circuitry,” “communication circuitry,” “a welding helmet,” and “welding equipment,” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “determining a welding position or welding orientation of the welding-type tool or arc,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a first sensor system,” “a second sensor system,” “control circuitry,” “communication circuitry,” “a welding helmet,” and “welding equipment,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a first sensor system,” and “a second sensor system,” are described in para. [0022] as follows:
“[0022] In some examples, the first sensor system comprises a camera sensor, and the first sensor system is configured to monitor the wearable position and wearable orientation using a simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) algorithm. In some examples, the first sensor system further comprises an inertial sensor. In some examples, the second sensor system comprises an infra-red (IR) sensor.”
These elements are reasonably interpreted as generic input devices with no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment.
On the topic of “sensors,” It is worth noting that para. [0027] provides the following:
“[0027] In the example of FIG. 1, the weld tracking sensors 102 are stationary and/or mounted to fixtures (e.g., wall(s), pillar(s), ceiling, etc.). In some examples, the weld tracking sensors 102 may comprise camera sensors, optical sensors, infra-red (IR) sensors, thermal sensors, acoustic sensors, ultrasonic sensors, electromagnetic sensors, and/or other appropriate types of sensors.”
While “weld tracking sensors” are not specifically claimed, the written description of the specification as originally filed provides a generic list of common sensors that are also reasonably interpreted as generic input devices with no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment.
Continuing, the Applicant’s claimed “control circuitry,” is broadly provided, but not specifically described in the written description of the specification as originally filed. Although, “a computer” is not claimed, para. [0043] provides the following:
“[0043] In the example of FIG. 1, the weld tracking system 100 further includes a computing system 150. While shown as a desktop computer in the example of FIG. 1, in some examples, the computing system 150 may instead be some other appropriate computational apparatus, such as, for example, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, and/or a web server.”
As such, “control circuitry” is reasonably interpreted as a generic computer and again, no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment is provided.
Also, the Applicant’s claimed “communication circuitry,” is broadly provided, but not specifically described in the written description of the specification as originally filed. Although, “helmet communication circuitry” and “computing communication circuitry” are not claimed, para. [0081] provides the following:
“[0081] In some examples, the helmet communication circuitry 306 and/or computing communication circuitry 156 may include one or more wireless adapters, wireless cards, cable adapters, wire adapters, dongles, radio frequency (RF) devices, wireless communication devices, Bluetooth devices, IEEE 802.11-compliant devices, WiFi devices, cellular devices, GPS devices, Ethernet ports, network ports, lightning cable ports, cable ports, etc. In some examples, the helmet communication circuitry 306 and/or computing communication circuitry 156 may be configured to facilitate communication via one or more wired media and/or protocols (e.g., Ethernet cable(s), universal serial bus cable(s), etc.) and/or wireless mediums and/or protocols (e.g., cellular communication, general packet radio service (GPRS), near field communication (NFC), ultra high frequency radio waves (commonly known as Bluetooth), IEEE 802.11x, Zigbee, HART, LTE, Z-Wave, WirelessHD, WiGig, etc.). In some examples, the helmet communication circuitry 306 and/or computing communication circuitry 156 may be coupled to one or more antennas to facilitate wireless communication.”
While “helmet communication circuitry” and “computing communication circuitry” are not specifically claimed, the written description of the specification as originally filed provides a generic list of common communication hardware and software protocols that are also reasonably interpreted as generic communication devices with no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment.
Continuing, the Applicant’s claimed “a welding helmet,” is described in para. [0055] as follows:
“[0055] While a welding helmet 200 may be used as a self-contained, portable, weld tracking system, in some examples, other wearable items may be also used in place of, or in addition to, a welding helmet 200. For example, a hat, vest, goggles, sleeve, wristband, collar, pendant, and/or other wearable item may be used in place of, or in addition to, a welding helmet 200 as a self-contained, portable, weld tracking system. That said, there are obvious advantages to using the welding helmet 200 as the wearable item (e.g., familiarity of operator 114, likelihood of welding-type tool 110 and/or welding-operation being visible, etc.).”
The written description of the specification as originally filed provides no advancement about the claimed “welding helmet,” and that any commercially available equipment may be used to achieve the abstract idea of “determining a welding position or welding orientation of the welding-type tool or arc.”
Finally, the Applicant’s claimed “welding equipment,” is mentioned four (4) times in the written description of the specification as originally filed and is reasonably interpreted to broadly describe “welding equipment” that is commercially available today.
As such, the claimed limitations of “a first sensor system,” “a second sensor system,” “control circuitry,” “communication circuitry,” “a welding helmet,” and “welding equipment,” are reasonably understood as ubiquitous standard equipment and are not providing anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 also do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 2 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1, 8 or 15. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over William J. Becker et al. (US 20130291271 A1; hereinafter Becker et al.) in view of Matthew Wayne Wallace et al. (US 20130183645 A1; hereinafter Wallace et al.).
Regarding Claim 1 and similarly Claim 8, Becker et al. discloses A welding helmet that is also a wearable tracker, comprising: a first sensor system configured to monitor a helmet position and a helmet orientation of the welding helmet relative to a reference point in a welding environment. Becker et al. discloses a helmet system to be worn by a user that has sensors which include but are not limited to position, orientation, and motion sensors. These sensors are then used to determine a welding arc done by a user in a welding environment. (See at least: Becker et al. paragraph [0028]). Becker et al., also discloses a second sensor system configured to track a position or orientation of a welding-type tool, or of an arc produced by the welding-type tool, relative to the second sensor system Becker et al. discloses that the detection system can not only detect arcs produced but it can also detect if a ser has the helmet system on based on the position of the helmet by the user. (See at least: Becker et al. paragraph [0030]). However, Becker et al. does not explicitly disclose determining a welding position or welding orientation of the welding-type tool, or the arc, relative to the reference point based on the helmet position and the helmet orientation relative to the reference point and the position or orientation of the welding-type tool or arc relative to the second sensor system. Wallace et al. teaches a data collection (VR) welding system that has real-time welding with molten metal fluidity and heat dissipation characteristics [Abstract]. The system has a face-mounted display device that is in a helmet (FIG. 9A element: 900) that a user will wear and be able to track their work in respect to the 3D spatial frame for the practice welding [See at least: Wallace et al. paragraph [0059]). the welding-type equipment 116 may be considered part of the weld tracking system 100.
“[0038]…In some examples, the welding-type equipment 116 may be omitted, or may be mock and/or simulated welding-type equipment 116, such as may be used for training, simulated, and/or mock welding-type operations.” In the originally filed Specification applicant suggests that the claimed invention could work for simulated welding operations. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the helmet with the sets of sensors from Becker et al. with the welding system of Wallace et al. to provide a welding environment for students that not only teaches them and provides feedback but also is safe until they are ready to work with industry standard welding equipment.
Regarding Claim 2, and similarly Claim 9, Becker et al. in view of Wallace et al. teach the claimed invention as stated above and Wallace et al. further teaches the control circuitry is further configured to determine welding operation feedback based on the welding position the welding helmet further comprising a display screen configured to display welding technique feedback Wallace et al. teaches that the real-time molten metal fluidity and heat dissipation characteristics of the simulated weld puddle provide real-time visual feedback to a user of the mock welding tool when displayed, allowing the user to adjust or maintain a welding technique in real-time in response to the real-time visual feedback (i.e., helps the user learn to weld correctly) (See at least: Wallace et al. paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the claimed invention as stated above along with the feedback system of Wallace for the added benefit of letting students know when they are doing something correctly or how to make changes so that they can learn how to do it correctly according to the project they are working on.
Regarding Claim 3, and similarly Claim 10, Becker et al. in view of Wallace et al. teach the claimed invention as stated above and Wallace et al. further teaches the welding technique parameter comprises a weld path characteristic, the welding operation parameter comprises a location of a weld produced by the welding- type tool (See at least: Wallace et al. he displayed weld puddle is representative of a weld puddle that would be formed in the real-world based on the user's welding technique and the selected welding process and parameters. By viewing a puddle (e.g., shape, color, slag, size, stacked dimes), a user can modify his technique to make a good weld and determine the type of welding being done. [0043]), and the control circuitry is configured to: determine the welding operation feedback based on the welding operation parameter and a target welding operation parameter value Wallace et al. teaches a system that is a programmable processor [See at least Wallace et al. paragraph [0044] that has capabilities that will measure parameters such as travel angle, work angle, speed, and distance from the weld joint are examples of what may be measured, although any parameters may be analyzed for scoring purposes. The tolerance ranges of the parameters are taken from real-world welding data, thereby providing accurate feedback as to how the user will perform in the real world (See at least Wallace et al. paragraph [0070]). Applicant does not disclose exactly what a “control circuitry” is (as discussed in the 35 USC 112 rejection above) in the originally filed Specification and Examiner is reasonably interpreting it as a generic computer component (as discussed in the 35 USC 101 rejection above). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have included a processing system to be able to take in the data gathered from the sensors and provide feedback as a part of the learning system for students.
Regarding Claim 4, and similarly Claim 11, Becker et al. in view of Wallace et al. teach the claimed invention as stated above and Becker et al. further teaches wherein the arc is a real electrical arc (“Embodiments of the present invention may be used in a variety of welding applications. For example, FIG. 1 illustrates an arc welding system 10. As depicted, the arc welding system 10 may include a power supply 12 that generates and supplies welding power to an electrode 14 via a conduit 16” (see in at least: Becker at al. paragraph [0015])). Regarding Claim 5, Becker et al. in view of Wallace et al. teach the claimed invention as stated above and Becker et al. further discloses a helmet shell, wherein the first sensor system is attached to a side or rear surface of the helmet shell and the second sensor system is attached to a front surface of the helmet shell, the first sensor system being fixed relative to the second sensor system, and vice versa. Becker et al. discloses in FIG. 2 (as shown below) and detailed description paragraph (See at least: Becker et al. paragraph [0021]) teaches that there are sensor systems on the front, and sides of the helmet system that are programed to process inputs and provide corresponding outputs to the accessories on the helmet. Becker et al. also discloses that sensors 40 may be disposed at any location on, or in, the welding assembly. (See at least: Becker et al. paragraph [0028]).
PNG
media_image1.png
342
309
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, and similarly Claim 12, Becker et al. in view of Wallace et al. teach the claimed invention as stated above and Becker et al. further discloses the first sensor system comprises a camera sensor Elements 38 in FIG. 2 above are optical sensors that may include one or more cameras (See at least Becker et al. paragraph [0025]), and the first sensor system is configured to monitor the helmet position and helmet orientation using a simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) algorithm. Accordingly, sensors 40 may be used to detect whether the helmet 20 is in the raised position or the lowered (e.g., down) position. For example, a first accelerometer may be placed on the lens assembly 24 or helmet shell 22. A second accelerometer may be placed at another location within the welding helmet assembly 20 (e.g., headgear). By using data from the first and second accelerometer, the control circuitry 30 may determine whether the welding helmet assembly 20 is in the raised or the lowered position. (See at least Becker et al. paragraph [0030]). The sensor system is being used to track and map if the helmet is being moved up and down and can figure out the helmets position and orientation based on the user’s behavior while wearing the helmet.
Regarding claim 7, and similarly claim 14 Becker et al. in view of Wallace et al. teach the claimed invention as stated above and Becker et al. further discloses wherein the reference point is separate and distinct from the welding-type tool and the arc (The welding helmet includes a storage device configured to store the resettable duration of the one or more welding arcs detected by the arc detection system, a first date that provides a reference point relating to when the resettable duration was last reset, a first time that provides the reference point relating to when the resettable duration was last reset, a second date that provides the reference point relating to when the resettable duration was last zero, a second time that provides the reference point relating to when the resettable duration was last zero, or some combination thereof (see at least: Becker paragraph [0007])).
Regarding claim 13, Becker et al. in view of Wallace et al. teach the claimed invention as stated above and Wallace et al. further teaches wherein the first sensor system further comprises an inertial sensor, and the second sensor system comprises an infra-red (IR) sensor (In accordance with other alternative embodiments of the present invention, other types of spatial trackers 120 may be used in the system 100 including, for example, an accelerometer/gyroscope-based tracker, an optical tracker (active or passive), an infrared tracker, an acoustic tracker, a laser tracker, a radio frequency tracker, an inertial tracker, and augmented reality based tracking systems. Other types of trackers may be possible as well (see at least: Wallace et al. paragraph [0058])).
Regarding Claim 15, Becker et al. discloses A welding helmet that is also a wearable tracker, comprising: a first sensor system configured to monitor a helmet position and a helmet orientation of the welding helmet relative to a reference point in a welding environment. Becker et al. discloses a helmet system to be worn by a user that has sensors which include but are not limited to position, orientation, and motion sensors. These sensors are then used to determine a welding arc done by a user in a welding environment. (See at least: Becker et al. paragraph [0028]). Becker et al., also discloses a second sensor system configured to track a position or orientation of a welding-type tool, or of an arc produced by the welding-type tool, relative to the second sensor system Becker et al. discloses that the detection system can not only detect arcs produced but it can also detect if a ser has the helmet system on based on the position of the helmet by the user. (See at least: Becker et al. paragraph [0030]). However, Becker et al. does not explicitly disclose determining a welding position or welding orientation of the welding-type tool, or the arc, relative to the reference point based on the helmet position and the helmet orientation relative to the reference point and the position or orientation of the welding-type tool or arc relative to the second sensor system. Wallace et al. teaches a data collection (VR) welding system that has real-time welding with molten metal fluidity and heat dissipation characteristics [Abstract]. The system has a face-mounted display device that is in a helmet (FIG. 9A element: 900) that a user will wear and be able to track their work in respect to the 3D spatial frame for the practice welding [See at least: Wallace et al. paragraph [0059]). the welding-type equipment 116 may be considered part of the weld tracking system 100.
“[0038]…In some examples, the welding-type equipment 116 may be omitted, or may be mock and/or simulated welding-type equipment 116, such as may be used for training, simulated, and/or mock welding-type operations.” In the originally filed Specification applicant suggests that the claimed invention could work for simulated welding operations. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the helmet with the sets of sensors from Becker et al. with the welding system of Wallace et al. to provide a welding environment for students that not only teaches them and provides feedback but also is safe until they are ready to work with industry standard welding equipment.
Wallace et al. further teaches the control circuitry is further configured to determine welding operation feedback based on the welding position. Wallace et al. teaches that the real-time molten metal fluidity and heat dissipation characteristics of the simulated weld puddle provide real-time visual feedback to a user of the mock welding tool when displayed, allowing the user to adjust or maintain a welding technique in real-time in response to the real-time visual feedback (i.e., helps the user learn to weld correctly) (See at least: Wallace et al. paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the claimed invention as stated above along with the feedback system of Wallace for the added benefit of letting students know when they are doing something correctly or how to make changes so that they can learn how to do it correctly according to the project they are working on.
Wallace et al. also teaches communication circuitry configured to transmit one or more signals representative of the welding technique feedback (audio may be provided, allowing real-time audio communication between a student and a remote instructor (See at least: Wallace et al. paragraph [0048]). and welding equipment configured to receive the one or more signals and set a welding parameter based on the welding technique feedback (As shown in FIG. 3, the ODD 150 is capable of displaying a first user scene showing various welding parameters 151 including position, tip to work, weld angle, travel angle, and travel speed. These parameters may be selected and displayed in real time in graphical form and are used to teach proper welding technique. (See at least: Wallace et al. paragraph [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the helmet system of Becker et al. with the welding training system of Wallace et al. to provide an environment for students to practice welding without injury to themselves or others and get real-time feedback on their work.
Regarding Claim 16, Becker et al. in view of Wallace et al. teach the claimed invention as stated above and Becker et al. further discloses wherein the first sensor system is fixed relative to the second sensor system, and vice versa. Becker et al. discloses in FIG. 2 (as shown above) and detailed description paragraph [0021] teaches that there are sensor systems on the front, and sides of the helmet system that are programed to process inputs and provide corresponding outputs to the accessories on the helmet.
Regarding Claim 17, Becker et al. in view of Wallace et al. teach the claimed invention as stated above and Becker et al. further discloses wherein the second sensor system comprises an infra-red (IR) sensor Becket et al. discloses that in order to detect only the welding arcs 26 that correspond to the operator 18 wearing the helmet assembly 20, the arc detection system 31 may use non-optical sensors 40. Such non-optical sensors 40 include position sensors, orientations sensors, motion sensors, location sensors, temperature sensors, humidity sensors, sound level sensors, and so forth. For example, the sensors 40 may include thermistors, thermocouples, hygrometers, pressure transducers, piezoelectric sensors, tactile switches, geospatial locating devices (e.g., global positioning system (GPS) device), accelerometers, gyroscopes, magnetometers, and microelectromechanical systems (MEMS).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used generic sensors to gather data needed for the welding system according to the environment and project that they are training a student.
Regarding Claim 18, Becker et al. in view of Wallace et al. teach the claimed invention as stated above and Wallace et al. further teaches wherein the second sensor system is embedded in an auto-darkening filter (ADF), or positioned behind a cover lens, of the welding helmet (the lens assembly 24 may include electronic components that cause the lens to automatically darken when sensors detect bright light in excess of a threshold value, for example, by triggering circuitry of the lens assembly 24 to provide a voltage across the lens. (See at least: Wallace et al. paragraph [0019]).
Regarding Claim 19, Becker et al. in view of Wallace et al. teach the claimed invention as stated above and Wallace et al. further teaches the welding technique parameter comprises a weld path characteristic, the welding operation parameter comprises a location of a weld produced by the welding- type tool (See at least: Wallace et al. he displayed weld puddle is representative of a weld puddle that would be formed in the real-world based on the user's welding technique and the selected welding process and parameters. By viewing a puddle (e.g., shape, color, slag, size, stacked dimes), a user can modify his technique to make a good weld and determine the type of welding being done. [0043]), and the control circuitry is configured to: determine the welding operation feedback based on the welding operation parameter and a target welding operation parameter value Wallace et al. teaches a system that is a programmable processor [See at least Wallace et al. paragraph [0044] that has capabilities that will measure parameters such as travel angle, work angle, speed, and distance from the weld joint are examples of what may be measured, although any parameters may be analyzed for scoring purposes. The tolerance ranges of the parameters are taken from real-world welding data, thereby providing accurate feedback as to how the user will perform in the real world (See at least Wallace et al. paragraph [0070]). Applicant does not disclose exactly what a “control circuitry” is (as discussed in the 35 USC 112 rejection above) in the originally filed Specification and Examiner is reasonably interpreting it as a generic computer component (as discussed in the 35 USC 101 rejection above). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have included a processing system to be able to take in the data gathered from the sensors and provide feedback as a part of the learning system for students.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker et al. in view of Wallace et al. in further view of Joseph A. Daniel et al. (US 20150125836 A1; hereinafter Daniel et al.).
Regarding Claim 20, Becker et al. in view of Wallace et al. teach the claimed invention as stated above, however they do not explicitly disclose wherein the control circuitry is further configured to send a disable command to the welding equipment, via the communication circuitry, in response to welding technique parameter. Daniel et al. discloses a VR welding and training system that is configured to automatically turn off after virtual welding is complete or after a predetermined period of time has lapsed. The trigger can be configured to turn off automatically or after a period of time, wire is used, or amount of energy is delivered. (See at least Daniel et al. paragraph [0106]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the system as taught above with the automatic disabling of the system after a technique parameter is met. This conserves energy and also lets the student to be aware that doing certain things while in training can cause the system to automatically turn off to seek help and guidance if needed.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
Applicant requests that the rejections made to claims 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for indefiniteness for the use of “control circuitry” to be withdrawn. The applicant states on page 1 of the remarks that the limitation is broad vs. indefinite. The examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no definition in the Specification for what the “control circuitry” is or its structure. There is no structural support or defining support for the control circuity. In the original rejection mailed out on 03/10/2025 the Examiner stated in both the 112(b) rejection as well as the 101 rejection that to interpret the claim under BRI Examiner will use paragraph [0043] and interpret “control circuity” as a laptop. Both the Specification and claims were not amended to include more information about the circuitry.
Therefore, the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 112 § 112(b) maintained.
35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant states in pages 2-5 of the remarks that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant states that the “the claims could not practically be performed in the human mind, at least because the claims rely on a welding helmet (or wearable) as well as two sensor systems, thereby requiring resources (more extensive than pen and paper) outside the human mind.” Furthermore, the applicant states that “the claims could not practically be performed in the human mind. However. the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.” As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
The applicant states “In this case, practical application is evidenced by the technological improvements and meaningful use set forth in the claims, as well as the particular machines and/or manufacture that are integral to the claims … First, Applicant notes that all the claims are directed to a welding helmet or wearable. The welding helmet and/or wearable limitations are additional elements comprising particular machines or manufacture that are integral to the claims. Also, at least claims 15-20 incorporate welding equipment, which is another additional element comprising a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claims. As the welding helmet, wearable, and/or welding equipment additional elements are particular machines or manufacture that are integral to the claims as a whole, Applicant submits that the claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application, and are therefore patent eligible”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the additional elements of welding helmets, sensors, and wearable limitations are merely generic components used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Furthermore, under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: welding helmets, sensors, and wearable limitations does not amount to an innovative concept since, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
Furthermore, the applicant states “Second, Applicant notes that the practical implementation of the alleged abstract idea in, on, and/or with a welding helmet and/or wearable constitute an improvement to the technology and/or technical field of weld tracking systems. The advantages of this improvement are described in detail in Applicant's Specification. For example, Applicant's Specification notes that "weld tracking systems that may be implemented entirely in (and/or on) a welding helmet ... may provide a convenient, compact, and portable means of weld tracking, that is not restricted to the confines of a fixed weld tracking system." See the following paragraphs taken from the originally filed Specification
“[0015] a helmet based weld tracking system may track its own position and/or orientation relative to a reference point in a welding environment, as well as the position and/or orientation of a welding-type tool and/or arc relative to the helmet. In this way, the helmet-based weld tracking system can differentiate between movement of the helmet and movement of the tool and/or arc. By tracking movement of the tool and/or arc the weld tracking system can analyze the welding technique of an operator, the location(s) of the welding operation(s), and/or the sequence of welding operations.”
“[0016]These significant improvements constitute both a meaningful application of any alleged judicial exception, and evidence of patent eligible practical application. In view of the above, Applicant submits that the claims are patent eligible at least because the claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application, as evidenced by the improvements to a technology and/or technical field.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant states (Amend. 25) that “the additional elements provide an improvement in the functioning of a computer, and an improvement to other technology or technical field, that amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicants assert arguments for a more general improvement to an existing technological process. However, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because applicant’s claim 1 fails to recite (1) any limitations detailing “low demand services”, how to efficiently “uninstall and then reinstall a service” or how management of services are allowed to be more efficient, and (2) any limitations detailing how “allowing the service requester to receive a desired quality of service” or how “not experiencing a delay or difference in quality of service even if the requested service had its processing priority lowered and needed to be reconfigured” is achieved. When a claim directed to an abstract idea contains no restriction on how an asserted improvement is accomplished and the asserted improvement is not described in the claim, then the claim does not become patent eligible. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) (“Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification”).
It is for these reasons that the current 35 USC 101 rejection has been maintained.
35 U.S.C. § 103:
The applicant states on pages 5-9 of the remarks that Becker (US20130291271A1) in view of Wallace (US20130183645A1) fail to teach the limitations of independent claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant states that Becker fails to teach “a first sensor system configured to monitor a helmet position and a helmet orientation of the welding helmet relative to a reference point in a welding environment; a second sensor system configured to track a position or orientation of a welding-type tool, or of an arc produced by the welding-type tool, relative to the second sensor system.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, Becker teaches determining and motioning the orientation and position of a helmet in reference to a welding position as stated in at least paragraph 37 of Becker “As a further example, accelerometers may determine an orientation of the welding helmet assembly 20 (e.g., flat—facing down while welding on a surface parallel to the ground, vertical or horizontal—facing straight ahead while welding on a surface perpendicular to the ground, overhead—facing upward while welding on a surface above the operator's head). The control circuitry 30 may determine a total duration and/or total number of welding arcs 26 that relate to a specific orientation of the welding helmet assembly 20.”. Secondly, Becker teaches determining information of a welding type tool and the arcs produced as stated in at least paragraph 38 “The control circuitry 30 may be used to calculate additional data that relates to the welding arcs 26. For example, the control circuitry 30 may calculate an average weld duration for all welding arcs 26. The control circuitry 30 may also calculate an average weld duration for a specific category, such as welding orientation, welding process, lens mode, environmental conditions, location, tack welding, non-tack welding, and so forth. The control circuitry 30 may also determine a longest duration weld, a shortest duration weld, the most number of welds performed in a predetermined time period, and a least number of welds performed in a predetermined time period.” Such that Becker discloses the above limitation of independent claim 1.
Furthermore, the applicant states that Wallace fails to teach “control circuitry configured to: determine a welding position or welding orientation of the welding-type tool, or the arc, relative to the reference point based on the helmet position and the helmet orientation relative to the reference point and the position or orient