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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment presents claims 1, 3-5, 11-16, 18, and 19 as amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending examination.
The amendment is sufficient in overcoming the rejections under 35 USC 112 (a) previously indicated, as well as, the prior art rejections under 35 USC 102.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Response to “Claims 1-20 Are Not Directed to An Abstract Idea”
Applicant traverses the rejection under 35 USC 101 in that claims 1-20 are not directed to an abstract idea. Specifically, Applicant argues that “the human mind is not equipped to track tool positions and tool orientation using sensor data detected by a sensor system.” Applicant contends that “the human mind is not equipped to use the claimed sensor system as an aid at least because the human mind is not equipped to receive and/or interpret the electrical output of the sensor system.” See page 7 of the filed Remarks.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees as the analysis was not based on the concept that the mind alone performs the abstract idea. As noted in the rejection previously, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). Nor do the courts 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").
With respect to Applicant’s position that “the human mind is not equipped to use the claimed sensor system as an aid at least because the human mind is not equipped to receive and/or interpret the electrical output of the sensor system,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The sensor system, as recited for instance in claim 1, is claimed at high level of generality; i.e., the scope of the claim includes any sensor system that can detect a tool position and orientation. For example, the scope includes a generic digital camera with a display screen as the claimed sensor system. Such digital camera is more than capable of capturing a picture of a welding tool such that an operator can judge the tool’s position and orientation from a displayed image. Nothing in the claim language limits the sensor system (claims 1 and 11) to only those that output just electrical signals.
Response to “Claims 1-20 Integrate Any Alleged Abstract Idea Into A Practical Application”
Applicant further traverses that any abstract idea claimed is integrated into a practical application. Specifically, Applicant contends that the recitation of a “feedback device,” “welding tool” and a “sensor system” are particular machines or manufacture which integrate the aforementioned “tracking,” “determining,” and “identifying” steps into a practical application.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner maintains that the mere inclusion of a “feedback device,” “welding tool” and “sensor system” fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As previously detailed, the claim refers to the sensor system in a generic manner, encompassing any and all sensors that can track a tool position/orientation (i.e., cameras, accelerometers, infrared sensors, etc.)
TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
In this case, the sensor system is used to track tool position/orientation which is used in the “tracking,” “determining,” and “identifying” steps. In other words, the use of such sensor system is disclosed as merely a tool for implementing the abstract idea with the sensor being used in its ordinary capacity (i.e., a camera, for instance, recording tool movement). Accordingly, when viewed individually and as a whole, the claim requires using generic tools (i.e. computer and sensor to implement, or otherwise carry out an abstract idea).
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. See MPEP 2106.05 (g).
Here, using the sensor system to track position/orientation of the welding tool amounts to a mere data gathering step that is used to carry out the claimed invention.
As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). In Flook, the Court reasoned that “[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula”. 437 U.S. at 590; 198 USPQ at 197; Id. (holding that step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was “post-solution activity”). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012) (additional element of measuring metabolites of a drug administered to a patient was insignificant extra-solution activity).
A similar logic applies to the welding tool and feedback device.
Response to “Claims 1-20 Amount to Significantly More Than An Abstract Idea”
Applicant further traverses that the claims “recite significantly more than any alleged judicial exception.” Specifically, Applicant contends that the “claims include additional elements that confine the claim to a particular useful application through unconventional steps and/or limitations that are not well understood, routine or conventional.” Further, Applicant contends that “the novel, non-obvious, and/or unconventional limitations discussed below with respect to the prior art rejections” serves as evidence that the “unconventional steps and/or limitations are evidence of patent eligible claims that recite significantly more than the alleged abstract idea(s).”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s traversal amounts to a general allegation without any supporting evidence. Specifically, Applicant fails to identify what the “particular useful application” is or which steps “are not well understood, routine or conventional.” Applicant’s citation to MPEP 2106.05 (I)(A), while relevant to the issue at hand, was also addressed in the rejection. Specifically, the rejection outlines scenarios in which the Courts have found limitations not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more.”
Response to “The Rejections under 35 USC 102”
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a judicial exception; i.e., an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons detailed below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
First, one must consider whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 is directed to a method. Thus, claim 1 falls within a statutory category (Step 1).
Second, an evaluation is made as to whether the claim recites a judicial exception (Step 2A). Under the first prong, an evaluation is made whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, a law of mature, or a natural phenomenon. To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The claim recites the following steps:
tracking, via processing circuitry, tool positions and a tool orientation of a welding tool using sensor data detected by a sensor system;
determining, via the processing circuitry, a joint characteristic of a welding joint based on the tool positions of the welding tool;
identifying, via the processing circuitry, a parameter value based on the joint characteristic and the tool orientation of the welding tool; and
providing feedback to a welding operator, via a feedback device, based on the parameter value.
The aforementioned “tracking,” “determining,” and “identifying” steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps In the mind (i.e., a mental step) [Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).].
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.
The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper").
Nor do the courts 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").
Under BRI, nothing in the claim element precludes the above “tracking,” “determining,” and “identifying” steps from practically being performed in the mind or using some form of aid (e.g., generic computer using feedback from a sensor). For example, the step of “determining” step in the context of this claim encompasses the user taking a mental note of a joint characteristic of a welding joint based on the tool position of the welding tool; for example, determining whether the tool position allowed for a consistent weld joint. Similarly, the steps of “identifying…a parameter value…” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the step in the mind (or using a general purpose computer). For example, the “identifying” step involves a user merely thinking or ascertaining some parameter based on the joint characteristic and the tool orientation. More specifically, a user can look at the visual appearance of a welding joint and draw some conclusions including whether the welding tool was too close or too far away, too steep or too shallow, or if the current was too high or too low.
The ”tracking” step, while required to be done by a sensor system, presents merely an extra solution activity; namely using a generic tool to compile data. This amounts to merely using a generic tool to carry out an otherwise mental process of visually ascertaining a tool position/orientation of the welding tool.
Third, an evaluation is made whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application (Step 2B).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the above steps and does not implement these steps into any meaningful activity. Accordingly, the claimed steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits of practicing the abstract idea. The claim further recites using a sensor system and processing circuitry. However, these additional elements do not take the aforementioned steps and transform them into a practical application. Additionally, the step of “providing feedback to a welding operator, via a feedback device, based on the parameter value” refers to a general manner in which the abstract idea is arranged. In other words, the claim, as a whole, amounts to collecting information, analyzing the information and displaying (providing feedback) the result, where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result has been found to not be sufficient in showing improvements to technology. See TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. See also Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) in which the Court found that limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid failed to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claim, as a whole, is directed to an abstract idea.
The only additional features recited in the claim is the use of a sensor system, feedback device, and processing circuitry that performs the aforementioned steps.
The use of a computer, as detailed above, does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to the use of a sensor system, the claim refers to the same in a generic manner, encompassing any and all sensors that can track a tool position/orientation (i.e., cameras, accelerometers, infrared sensors, etc.)
TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
In this case, the sensor system is used to track tool position/orientation which is used in the “tracking,” “determining,” and “identifying” steps. In other words, the use of such sensor system is disclosed as merely a tool for implementing the abstract idea with the sensor being used in its ordinary capacity (i.e., a camera, for instance, recording tool movement). Accordingly, when viewed individually and as a whole, the claim requires using generic tools (i.e. computer and sensor to implement, or otherwise carry out an abstract idea). A similar analysis applies to the feedback device.
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. See MPEP 2106.05 (g).
Here, using the sensor system to track position/orientation of the welding tool amounts to a mere data gathering step that is used to carry out the claimed invention.
As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). In Flook, the Court reasoned that “[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula”. 437 U.S. at 590; 198 USPQ at 197; Id. (holding that step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was “post-solution activity”). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012) (additional element of measuring metabolites of a drug administered to a patient was insignificant extra-solution activity).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 further defines the parameter value as comprising “a travel angle value or work angle value of the welding tool.”
This does not, for the same reasons enumerated above, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The BRI of such step encompasses a mental process that require a human to use a physical aid. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper").
For the same reasons detailed above, claim 2 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 3 further defines the welding tool as being a manual welding torch.
This does not, for the same reasons enumerated above, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The BRI of such step encompasses a mental process that require a human to use a physical aid. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper").
For the same reasons detailed above, claim 3 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 4 further requires the welding tool (or stand) to comprise the sensor system, or the processing circuitry.
This does not, for the same reasons enumerated above, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The BRI of such step encompasses a mental process that require a human to use a physical aid. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper").
For the same reasons detailed above, claim 4 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 5 further defines the feedback device as comprising “a vibration device of the welding tool.”
This does not, for the same reasons enumerated above, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The BRI of such step encompasses a mental process that require a human to use a physical aid. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper").
For the same reasons detailed above, claim 5 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 6 further defines the sensor system as being “an inertial measurement unit comprising an accelerometer, a gyroscope, or a magnetometer.”
This does not, for the same reasons enumerated above, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The BRI of such step encompasses a mental process that require a human to use a physical aid. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper").
For the same reasons detailed above, claim 6 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 7 further defines the sensor system as being “a depth sensor.”
This does not, for the same reasons enumerated above, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The BRI of such step encompasses a mental process that require a human to use a physical aid. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper").
For the same reasons detailed above, claim 7 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 8 further defines the tracking step as comprising “emitting a visible pattern, via the depth sensor, and observing a reflection of the visible pattern.”
This does not, for the same reasons enumerated above, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The BRI of such step encompasses a mental process that require a human to use a physical aid. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper").
For the same reasons detailed above, claim 8 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 9 further defines the sensor system as comprising a camera sensor.
This does not, for the same reasons enumerated above, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The BRI of such step encompasses a mental process that require a human to use a physical aid. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper").
For the same reasons detailed above, claim 9 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 10 further defines the tracking step as comprising “identifying the tool position or the tool orientation based on a rigid body model of the welding tool, and an arrangement of markers shown on the welding tool in the one or more images.”
This does not, for the same reasons enumerated above, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The BRI of such step encompasses a mental process that require a human to use a physical aid. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper").
For the same reasons detailed above, claim 10 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11 is an independent claim and is directed to a weld monitoring system. The above analysis with respect to claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 11. The main difference being is that claim 11 is directed to a machine while claim 1 is directed to a process.
Claims 12-20 mirror claims 2-10 with the analysis provided above being applicable to claims 12-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 11-14, 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace in view of Penrod (US2011/0006047).
Regarding claim 1, Wallace teaches a method (Abstract; system and method for tracking and analyzing welding activity) comprising:
tracking, via processing circuitry (processor based computing device 110 configured to track and analyze dynamic spatial properties of welding tool 230-para. 0019), tool positions and a tool orientation of a welding tool (230) using sensor data detected by a sensor system (160) (110, using sensor 160, tracks the position, orientation, and movement of tool 230 over time during welding process producing weld 16) (See also Fig. 5 and para. 0020; “a method 500 (see FIG. 5) for tracking and analyzing welding activity includes, in step 510, setting up a manual welding process, and, in step 520, sensing dynamic spatial properties (e.g., positions, orientations, and movements) of a welding tool 230 during a manual welding process producing a weld using at least one sensor (e.g., sensor arrays 160 and 165). In step 530, the method includes tracking the sensed dynamic spatial properties over time during the manual welding process using a real time tracking module 121 (see FIG. 4).”);
determining, via the processing circuitry (110), a joint characteristic (quality characteristic) of a welding joint (16) based on the tool positions of the welding tool (230) (para. 0020 and Fig. 5; “The method further includes, in step 550, analyzing the tracked data to determine performance characteristics of a welder 10 performing the manual welding process and/or quality characteristics of a weld produced by the welding process using a computer based analysis engine 122. In step 560, at least one of the performance characteristics and the quality characteristics are reviewed using a display device (e.g., display device 130).”) (para. 0029; “system 100 captures performance data during the welding process that can be used to determine the quality of the welded joint. More specifically, system 100 is used to identify potential discontinuities and flaws within specific regions of a weld joint. The captured data may be analyzed by an experienced welder or trained professional (e.g., a trainer 123, see FIG. 4), or in an alternative by the system 100 using the analysis module 122 for identifying areas within the weld joint that may be flawed. In one example, torch position and orientation along with travel speed and other critical parameters are analyzed as a whole to predict which areas along the weld joint, if any, are deficient. It will be understood that quality is achieved during the welding process when the operator 10 keeps the weld torch 230 within acceptable operational ranges. Accordingly, the performance data may be analyzed against known good parameters for achieving weld quality for a particular weld joint configuration.”);
identifying, via the processing circuitry (110), a parameter value based on the joint characteristic (quality) and the tool orientation of the welding tool (230) (para. 0028; “By recorded it is meant that the system 10 captures data related to a particular welding process for determining the quality of the weld joint or weld joints. The types of performance data that may be captured include, but are not limited to, for example: weld joint configuration or weld joint trajectory, weld speed, welding torch pitch and roll angles, electrode distance to the center weld joint, wire feed speed, electrode trajectory, weld time, and time and date data. Other types of data may also be captured and/or entered into the system 100 including: weldment materials, electrode materials, user name, project ID number, and the like. Still, any type and quantity of information may be captured and/or entered into the system 100 as is suitable for tracking, analyzing and managing weld performance data. In this manner, detailed information about how the welding process for a particular weld joint was performed may be captured and reconstructed for review and analysis in an analysis record 124”) (para. 0033; “ It is noted that the neural network(s) may be trained to recognize problems that may arise from the weld torch position and movement, as well as other critical welding factors. Therefore, as data from the welding process is captured and stored, the system 100 may analyze the data for identifying the quality of the weld joint. Additionally, the system 100 may provide an output device 170 (see FIG. 4) that outputs indications of potential flaws in the weld such as, for example, porosity, weld overfill, and the like.”); and
providing feedback to a welding operator, via a feedback device (Fig. 4; GUI 135; display screen 135-para. 0027), based on the parameter value.
Wallace teaches the claimed method including, inter alia, determining a joint characteristic of a welding joint (e.g., quality characteristic of the joint) (para. 0029; deficiencies or flaws along the weld joint.). Wallace does not teach the joint characteristic comprising a shape of the welding joint or a virtual line representative of the welding joint.
Penrod relates to a method and system for monitoring and characterizing the creation of a manual weld in which the position and orientation of the welding tool is tracked and feedback is provided to the operator (Abstract).
Penrod teaches determining a joint characteristic of the welding joint based on the tool positions/orientations of the welding tool where the joint characteristic comprises a shape of the welding joint or a virtual line representative of the welding joint (para. 0047; “ include the step of processing the plurality of position and orientation characteristics calculated during welding and the plurality of arc parameters acquired during welding to estimate a weld cross-section geometry, metallurgy, or resultant weld shape in real-time. As previously discussed, the plurality of position and orientation characteristics and the plurality of arc parameters can greatly affect a number of weld properties. In this step, the processor (400) utilizes the known ways in which the plurality of position and orientation characteristics and the plurality of arc parameters affect weld properties to provide an estimate of the weld cross-section, metallurgy, or resultant weld shape. Furthermore, the estimated weld cross-section, metallurgy, or resultant weld shape may be illustrated on the display (500). Such an embodiment is especially useful in welder training as providing visual feedback on how the manipulation of the welding gun (200) influences weld cross-section, metallurgy, or resultant weld shape.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Wallace with Penrod, by replacing or adding to the joint characteristic of Wallace, with the joint characteristic comprising a shape of the welding joint or a virtual line representative of the welding joint of Penrod, for in doing so would provide useful insight to an operator on how the manipulation of the welding tool influences the weld cross section, metallurgy, or resultant weld shape (para. 0047 of Penrod).
Regarding claim 2, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the parameter value comprises a travel angle value or work angle value of the welding tool (See Wallace as applied in claim 1, above. “weld joint configuration or weld joint trajectory, weld speed, welding torch pitch and roll angles, electrode distance to the center weld joint, wire feed speed, electrode trajectory, weld time, and time and date data”).
Regarding claim 3, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the welding tool comprises a manual welding torch (Wallace; Fig. 1 and para. 0014).
Regarding claim 4, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the welding tool (230) or a welding stand comprises the sensor system (Wallace; 160; para. 0023 and Figures 1-2) or the welding tool comprises the processing circuitry.
Regarding claim 6, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the sensor system comprises an inertial measurement unit comprising an accelerometer (Wallace; para. 0034; inertial sensors including one or more accelerometers), a gyroscope, or a magnetometer (magnetic sensors-para. 0034), and the sensor data comprises data detected by the inertial measurement unit.
Claims 11-12 is substantially the same as claims 1-2. Accordingly, claims 11-12 are similarly rejected as obvious over Wallace and Penrod.
Claim 13 recites wherein the joint characteristic comprises the virtual line representative of the welding joint. Penrod, as detailed above, teaches the joint characteristic determined by the processing circuitry includes “the weld cross-section, metallurgy, or resultant weld shape.” In this case, the weld cross section includes a virtual line representative of the welding joint as a “cross section” is understood to refer to “a section made by a plane cutting anything transversely, especially at right angles to the longest axis” (see dictionary.com/browse/cross-section, viewed on 06/25/2026). As such, the “cross section” of Penrod includes a virtual line representative of the welding joint which, in this case, is taken as the virtual line about which the cross section is taken.
Claim 14 is substantially the same as claim 3 and is similarly rejected as obvious over Wallace and Penrod.
Regarding claim 16, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 14, and further teaches wherein the welding tool (230 comprises the sensor system (Wallace; 160; para. 0023 and Figures 1-2) and the sensor system comprises an inertial measurement unit comprising an accelerometer (para. 0034; inertial sensors including one or more accelerometers), a gyroscope, or a magnetometer (magnetic sensors-para. 0034), and the sensor data comprises data detected by the inertial measurement unit.
Regarding claim 18, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 11, and further teaches wherein the feedback device comprises a display device (Wallace; Fig. 4; GUI 135; display screen 135-para. 0027), an audio device, or a vibration device.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace in view of Penrod and in further view of Rozymarynowski (US20140166631).
Regarding claim 5, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 3, except for the feedback device comprising a vibration device of the welding tool.
Rozymarynowski relates to welding torches and is concerned with providing information to a torch. Rozymarynowski teaches the welding torch (Fig. 2; 28) having a feedback device (32) that is configured to provide information to the operator (para. 0016; (e.g., voltage, current, power levels, over heating data, arc length, polarity, air pressure, warning data, training data, status data, etc.).) and comprises a vibration device that provides tactile feedback (para. 0016).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Wallace, as modified by Penrod, with Rozymarynowski, by adding to the welding torch of Wallace, with the vibration device disposed on/in the welding torch of Rozymarynowski, for in doing so would provide an additional means of providing information to a welding operator (i.e., providing information on a display on a welding power supply of Wallace vs. providing visual and/or haptic feedback on the torch held by an operator).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace in view of Penrod and in further view of Pfeifer (US2013/0206741).
Regarding claims 7-8, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied to claim 1, except for wherein the sensor system comprises a depth sensor, and the sensor data comprises data detected by the depth sensor (claim 7) and wherein tracking the tool positions and the tool orientation of the welding tool comprises emitting a visible pattern, via the depth sensor, and observing a reflection of the visible pattern (claim 8).
Pfeifer relates systems and methods for sensing the position of a welding torch relative to the welding helmet during welding (abstract) and teaches using a depth sensor (Fig. 4; sensor system 130) such that tracking the position and orientation of the welding torch (26) comprises emitting a visible pattern (para. 0039; “illustrated emitter 132 is configured to emit a light, structured light pattern, sound, wavelength of energy, or other detectable signal 136 toward the weld area 58”), via the depth sensor, and observing a reflection of the visible pattern (“…the sensor is configured to detect a portion 138 of the signal 136 that is reflected from a surface of the welding torch 26…”) (“ As the welding torch 26 is moved relative to the welding helmet 56 (e.g., arrow 140), the portion 138 of reflected signal may change based on the changing surface of the welding torch 26. Based on the detected reflection, the travel speed monitoring device 52 may determine a position of the welding torch 26 relative to the welding helmet 56. The sensor module 130 may utilize techniques including, but not limited to, radar, LIDAR, ultrasonic echo location, pattern recognition, and modulated light intensity.”) [Here, sensor system 130 tracks the relative position of torch 26 by emitting a visible light pattern (that is, at least, visible to receiver 134) and observing the reflection of the visible pattern. In this manner, the sensor system tracks the movement of the welding torch and, similarly, constitutes a depth sensor].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Wallace, as modified by Penrod, with Pfeifer, by replacing the relative location of the sensor system of Wallace, to be implemented into/onto the helmet in order to ascertain the position of the welding tool relative to the helmet as taught by Pfeifer, for in doing so would allow the welding operator/user to maintain an unobstructed view of the welding torch, ensuring a consistent line of sight for the sensor system for determining a welding tool position (Pfeifer, para. 0017).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace in view of Penrod and in further view of Conrardy (US2011/0117527).
Regarding claims 9-10, Wallace teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied to claim 1, except for wherein the sensor system comprise a camera sensor, and the sensor data comprises image data detected by the camera sensor, the image data representative of one or more images (claim 9) and wherein tracking the tool positions and the tool orientation of the welding tool comprises identifying the tool position or the tool orientation based on a rigid body model of the welding tool, and an arrangement of markers shown on the welding tool in the one or more images (claim 10).
Conrardy relates to a system and method of providing multidimensional position and feedback of a welding gun to a user (abstract) and teaches wherein the sensor system (Figs. 2-3) comprise a camera sensor (camera 100), and the sensor data comprises image data detected by the camera sensor (para. 0028, capturing images of target 98 using the camera), the image data representative of one or more images (para. 0028) and wherein tracking the tool positions and the tool orientation of the welding tool (90) comprises identifying the tool position or the tool orientation based on a rigid body model of the welding tool, and an arrangement of markers shown on the welding tool in the one or more images (para. 0027; at least one target 98 is mounted on welding tool 90. Camera 100 captures images of the target in order to generate position and orientation data) (para. 0028; “The input aspect of image capture step 110 includes capturing images of target 98 with one or more off-the shelf high-speed-vision cameras such as, for example, those operating at greater than 100 frames per second and having a gigabit-Ethernet connection, while the output aspect typically includes creating of an image file at over 100 frames per second. The input aspect of image processing step 112 includes analyzing individual images of the target looking for a match to a known "trained" object (i.e., the calibrated target).”) (para. 0029; “The object recognition module is operative to train the system to recognize a known object (target 98) and for then using target 98 to calculate positional and orientation data for welding gun 90 as an actual manual weld is completed by a trainee.”) [Here, images of the welding tool 90, including one or more targets 98, is captured by the camera 100. The captured images are then compared to a calibrated object in order to determine the position and orientation of the welding gun. The calibrated object is considered a rigid body model in that the calibrated object is a “trained” object that the actual welding gun is compared to. Accordingly, the “trained” object, or calibrated target, is a rigid body model that is used to compare actual images to stored values.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Wallace, as modified by Penrod, with Conrardy, by replacing the sensor system used for tracking the position and orientation of a welding tool and adding to the processing circuitry receiving sensor data of Wallace with the camera capturing images and tracking the position/orientation of the welding tool based on a model of the welding tool and an arrangement of markers captured by the camera of Conrardy, for in doing so would provide an alternative system for tracking welding tool movement and determining relative positions of the welding tool during use. In this case, using a camera to capture multiple images of the welding tool in real time to be used to generate positional information of the welding tool would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as using a camera in such a manner is a known technique and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this technique to the system/method of Wallace. Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yields nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143-I-A and 2143-I-D.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace in view of Penrod and in further view of Becker (US20140263224).
Regarding claim 15, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied to claim 14, except for the welding tool to comprise the processing circuitry.
Wallace teaches the welding tool and processing circuitry being separate structures.
Becker relates to a welding training system in which the welding tool (Fig. 3; 14) comprising processing circuitry (para. 0043; processing circuitry 52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Wallace, as modified by Penrod, with Becker, by modifying the relative positioning of the processing circuitry of Wallace with processing circuitry including with the welding tool of Becker, for in doing so would amount to a mere rearrangement of parts that would not have modified the operation of the device (i.e., the device of Wallace would still function as intended). See MPEP 2144.04-VI-C.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace in view of Penrod and in further view of Pfeifer (US2013/0206741).
Regarding claim 17, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied to claim 11, except for wherein the sensor system comprises a depth sensor, and the sensor data comprises data detected by the depth sensor, wherein the depth sensor is configured to emit a visible pattern, and the processing circuitry is configured to track the tool positions or the tool orientation using an observed reflection of the visible pattern.
Pfeifer relates systems and methods for sensing the position of a welding torch relative to the welding helmet during welding (abstract) and teaches using a depth sensor (Fig. 4; sensor system 130) such that tracking the position and orientation of the welding torch (26) comprises emitting a visible pattern (para. 0039; “illustrated emitter 132 is configured to emit a light, structured light pattern, sound, wavelength of energy, or other detectable signal 136 toward the weld area 58”), via the depth sensor, and observing a reflection of the visible pattern (“…the sensor is configured to detect a portion 138 of the signal 136 that is reflected from a surface of the welding torch 26…”) (“ As the welding torch 26 is moved relative to the welding helmet 56 (e.g., arrow 140), the portion 138 of reflected signal may change based on the changing surface of the welding torch 26. Based on the detected reflection, the travel speed monitoring device 52 may determine a position of the welding torch 26 relative to the welding helmet 56. The sensor module 130 may utilize techniques including, but not limited to, radar, LIDAR, ultrasonic echo location, pattern recognition, and modulated light intensity.”) [Here, sensor system 130 tracks the relative position of torch 26 by emitting a visible light pattern (that is, at least, visible to receiver 134) and observing the reflection of the visible pattern. In this manner, the sensor system tracks the movement of the welding torch and, similarly, constitutes a depth sensor].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Wallace, as modified by Penrod, with Pfeifer, by replacing the relative location of the sensor system of Wallace, to be implemented into/onto the helmet in order to ascertain the position of the welding tool relative to the helmet as taught by Pfeifer, for in doing so would allow the welding operator/user to maintain an unobstructed view of the welding torch, ensuring a consistent line of sight for the sensor system for determining a welding tool position (Pfeifer, para. 0017).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace in view of Penrod and in further view of Conrardy (US2011/0117527).
Regarding claims 19-20, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 11, except for a welding stand, wherein the welding stand comprises the sensor system, the sensor system comprise a camera sensor, and the sensor data comprises image data detected by the camera sensor, the image data representative of one or more images (claim 19) and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to track the tool positions or the tool orientation based on a rigid body model of the welding tool, and an arrangement of markers shown on the welding tool in the one or more images (claim 20).
Conrardy relates to a system and method of providing multidimensional position and feedback of a welding gun to a user (abstract) and teaches a welding stand (Fig. 1; stand 20), the welding stand (20) comprising the sensor system (camera 100) wherein the sensor system comprises a camera sensor (camera 100), and the sensor data comprises image data detected by the camera sensor (para. 0028, capturing images of target 98 using the camera), the image data representative of one or more images (para. 0028) and wherein tracking the tool positions and the tool orientation of the welding tool (90) comprises identifying the tool position or the tool orientation based on a rigid body model of the welding tool, and an arrangement of markers shown on the welding tool in the one or more images (para. 0027; at least one target 98 is mounted on welding tool 90. Camera 100 captures images of the target in order to generate position and orientation data) (para. 0028; “The input aspect of image capture step 110 includes capturing images of target 98 with one or more off-the shelf high-speed-vision cameras such as, for example, those operating at greater than 100 frames per second and having a gigabit-Ethernet connection, while the output aspect typically includes creating of an image file at over 100 frames per second. The input aspect of image processing step 112 includes analyzing individual images of the target looking for a match to a known "trained" object (i.e., the calibrated target).”) (para. 0029; “The object recognition module is operative to train the system to recognize a known object (target 98) and for then using target 98 to calculate positional and orientation data for welding gun 90 as an actual manual weld is completed by a trainee.”) [Here, images of the welding tool 90, including one or more targets 98, is captured by the camera 100. The captured images are then compared to a calibrated object in order to determine the position and orientation of the welding gun. The calibrated object is considered a rigid body model in that the calibrated object is a “trained” object that the actual welding gun is compared to. Accordingly, the “trained” object, or calibrated target, is a rigid body model that is used to compare actual images to stored values.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Wallace, as modified by Penrod, with Conrardy, by replacing the sensor system used for tracking the position and orientation of a welding tool and adding to the processing circuitry receiving sensor data of Wallace with the camera, mounted on the welding stand, capturing images and tracking the position/orientation of the welding tool based on a model of the welding tool and an arrangement of markers captured by the camera of Conrardy, for in doing so would provide an alternative system for tracking welding tool movement and determining relative positions of the welding tool during use. In this case, using a camera to capture multiple images of the welding tool in real time to be used to generate positional information of the welding tool would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as using a camera in such a manner is a known technique and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this technique to the system/method of Wallace. Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yields nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143-I-A and 2143-I-D.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 12:00-8:00 PM (ET).
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.
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights