Office Action Predictor
Application No. 17/627,279

WELDING WORK DATA STORAGE DEVICE, WELDING WORK ASSISTANCE SYSTEM, AND WELDING ROBOT CONTROL DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 11, 2022
Examiner
ROSARIO-APONTE, ALBA T
Art Unit
3761
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Hitachi, LTD.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 1m
To Grant
67%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

54%
Career Allow Rate
251 granted / 465 resolved
Without
With
+12.9%
Interview Lift
avg trend
4y 1m
Avg Prosecution
50 pending
515
Total Applications
career history

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
43.0%
+3.0% vs TC avg
§102
21.8%
-18.2% vs TC avg
§112
27.6%
-12.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/31/2025 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ABE (JP 2003-281287). Regarding claim 1, ABE teaches a welding work data accumulation device comprising: a central processing unit (CPU) (15; para. 0047) configured to measure, in real time, a welding motion and a welding phenomenon when a welding operator grips a welding torch (10) and performs welding on a welded body (A) (para. 0046); extract, in real time, welding data in correlation with time or coordinates based on the welding motion and the welding phenomenon, the welding data being a welding motion feature amount and a welding phenomenon feature amount (para. 0047); create a database (para. 0010) including: the welding data; and correction motion data comprising recorded adjustments to a respective welding motion feature in response to deviations in a corresponding welding phenomenon feature amount, the correction motion data stored in association with a type and a magnitude of the corresponding welding phenomenon deviation (updated reference data; para. 0041); and issue, during the welding operation, correction information to the welding operator derived from the correction motion data in response to a determination that a second welding motion feature amount or a second welding phenomenon feature amount deviates from a predetermined range based on the welding data (para. 0040-0044; 0050). Regarding claim 5, ABE teaches the welding work data accumulation device according to claim 1, wherein the CPU is further configured to receive information regarding a welding work environment (para. 0047-0048; 0050-0051), and analyze the second welding motion feature amount and the second welding phenomenon feature amount based on the information regarding the welding work environment, the welding motion and the welding phenomenon (para. 0047-0048; 0050-0051). 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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ABE. Regarding claim 2, ABE teaches the welding work data accumulation device according to claim 1, wherein CPU is further configured to measure, as the welding motion, a motion of the welding torch with a coordinate resolution (a motion camera inherently has a coordinate or spatial resolution; para. 0046-0047). ABE fails to disclose wherein the coordinate resolution is less than 1 cm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to provide the claimed coordinate resolution range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Regarding claim 3, ABE teaches the welding work data accumulation device according to claim 1, further comprising a motion capture system (13) configured to measure a motion of the welding torch as the welding motion (para. 0046-0047). ABE fails to disclose wherein the motion capture system comprise a plurality of cameras. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to provide a plurality of motion capturing cameras, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Regarding claim 4, ABE teaches the welding work data accumulation device according to claim 3, further comprising any one of a molten pool observation camera that captures an image of a molten pool, a line-of-sight camera that detects a line of sight of the welding operator, a vibration sensor that measures vibration caused by the welding, a microphone that collects sound caused by the welding, and a torch pressure sensor that measures a pressure applied to the welding operator from the welding torch (para. 0046-0047). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that “Abe is directed to "a skill evaluation method" Abe, [0001]. Abe states that this method "provides a reference data generating step for measuring the operation of a work step performed by an operator under a certain work environment and generating reference data, and a work" Abe, [0011]. However, Abe does not disclose, teach, or suggest, a CPU configured to "create a database including the welding data, and correction motion data comprising recorded adjustments to a respective welding motion feature in response to deviations in a corresponding welding phenomenon feature amount, the correction motion data stored in association with a type and a magnitude of the corresponding welding phenomenon deviation," and "issue, during the welding operation, correction information to the welding operator derived from the correction motion data," as recited in amended claim 1. As an example, the system of Abe includes a "change data generation step of giving the work environment in the work process without permission to a worker and measuring the motion of the worker at this time to generate change data," Abe, [0011]. Abe further discloses that the "change data is generated by associating the moving speed of the [torch 10] with the reference data previously stored in the storage medium 16." Abe, [0050]. Thus, Abe merely teaches measuring features of the torch 10 as separate parameters during respective welding operations and, then compares the parameters to reference data following the welding operations. Therefore, Abe does not disclose, teach, or suggest, a CPU configured to "create a database including the data, and correction motion data comprising recorded adjustments to a respective welding motion feature in response to deviations in a corresponding welding phenomenon feature amount, the correction motion data stored in association with a type and a magnitude of the corresponding welding phenomenon deviation," and "issue, during the welding operation, correction information to the welding operator derived from the correction motion data," as recited in amended claim 1.” on remarks page 7, lines 11-32 and page 8, lines 1-2. In response to Applicant’s arguments, Abe teaches creating a database (para. 0010) including: the welding data; and correction motion data comprising recorded adjustments to a respective welding motion feature in response to deviations in a corresponding welding phenomenon feature amount, the correction motion data stored in association with a type and a magnitude of the corresponding welding phenomenon deviation (updated reference data; para. 0041); and issuing, during the welding operation, correction information to the welding operator derived from the correction motion data in response to a determination that a second welding motion feature amount or a second welding phenomenon feature amount deviates from a predetermined range based on the welding data (para. 0040-0044; 0050). For these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive. Regarding claims 2-5, Applicant relies on the same arguments, therefore, the same response applies. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE whose telephone number is (571)272-9325. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8am-5pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 02/12/2026 /STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 11, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 11, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Sep 25, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 28, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 29, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 11, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 27, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology. Study what changed to get past this examiner.

Patent 12594631
LASER MACHINING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576462
METHOD OF PROCESSING PLATE-SHAPED WORKPIECE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12551962
ENGINE-DRIVEN AIR COMPRESSOR/GENERATOR LOAD PRIORITY CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12543884
REUSABLE BREW BASKET AND BREWING MACHINE ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12521810
OVERVOLTAGE PROTECTION FOR CURRENT BRAKING SWITCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026

AI Strategy Recommendation

Click below to generate an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
67%
With Interview (+12.9%)
4y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 465 resolved cases by this examiner