DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-16 are presented for examination.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/22/23 was considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 “object” should be -- object. --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification, as originally filed, does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that inventors were in possession of these limitations at the time of filing, provide description for “the machine learning is selected from the group of: deep learning, nearest neighbour, naive Bayes, decision trees, linear regression, support vector machines (SVM) and neural networks”. The limitation “the machine learning is selected from the group of: deep learning, nearest neighbour, naive Bayes, decision trees, linear regression, support vector machines (SVM) and neural networks” is all undefined in the specification. It is unclear what is actually being described and thus what is actually being claimed to the point where one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to make or use the invention.
Claims 1-16 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 limitations “the type of the welding object(s)” in lines 4-5, “the pose” in line 8. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-16 rejected because they incorporate the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim 15 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 15 This claim contains both apparatus (system) and method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 112 (b). See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “wherein the robotic welding system is configured to execute the welding path.” is indefinite since it occurs when processor to generate and then allowed system to execute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Specifically, independent claim 1 is 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.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a method (A computer implemented method for automatic detection and/or planning of a welding task in a welding environment). which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
The limitations “identifying the type of the welding object(s) by means of artificial intelligence employing a machine learning algorithm, wherein the machine learning algorithm has been trained on real and simulated 3D data of known welding objects”, etc. The limitations above, as drafted, is a process or function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. This process is a mental process as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), because the recited processing is simple enough to be practically performed in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The claim further recites “automatically detecting welding object(s) in the scanning data, determining the pose of each detected welding object” which are directed to insignificant extra‐solution activities, specifically mere data processing, and necessary outputting. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are thus insignificant extra‐solution activities. When viewed individually or on combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Do the limitations add elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the limitations do not add elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As recited above, the additional elements “obtaining scanning data from a scan of the welding environment” amount to insignificant extra‐solution activities, specifically mere data processing, and necessary outputting. These additional elements, when considered separately or in combination, are well‐understood, routine and conventional activities in the field (as shown in the court case, mere data gathering is considered routine and conventional activities. See In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196‐97 (CCPA 1982)) and do not add inventive concept into the claim.
Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 2-14 and 16:
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16, they depend on claim 1 and therefore recite the same abstract idea and additional elements of claim 1. The claims 2-14 and 16 recited other new limitations but they too can be practically performed in human’s mind hence are mental processes based abstract idea. Please note that a narrower abstract idea is still an abstract idea as in this case since the limitations of the claim 2-14 and 16 are more narrowing the abstract idea of the claim 1. Therefore, the claims 2-14 and 16 fail to provide a practical application and an inventive step. Furthermore, the claims 2-14 and 16 do not contain additional limitations that integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception. The claims 2-14 and 16 are not patent eligible.
12. Examiner's note: To qualify as a § 101 statutory process, the claim should positively recite the particular machine to which it is tied, for example by identifying the apparatus that accomplishes the method steps, or positively recite the subject matter that is being transformed, for example by identifying the material that is being changed to a different state.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
13. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
14. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chang et al. (Chang), US publication no. 2020/0114449.
As per claim 1, Chang teaches a computer implemented method for automatic detection and/or planning of a welding task in a welding environment [figure 4],
the method comprising the steps of: obtaining scanning data from a scan of the welding environment [para 30]; automatically detecting welding object(s) in the scanning
data, and identifying a type of the welding object(s) by means of artificial intelligence employing a machine learning algorithm [102, figure 1; para 25], wherein the machine learning algorithm has been trained on real and simulated 3D data of known welding objects; and determining a pose of each detected welding object [figure 4; para 30].
Chang teaches:
[0030] In some embodiments, and referring now to FIG. 4, another embodiment consistent with a weld path generation process is provided. The method may include providing 402 one or more robots or robotic systems and scanning 404 a welding area using one or more three dimensional sensor devices associated with the one or more robots to generate a scanned welding area. The system may include a processor
configured to receive 406 the scanned welding area and to generate 408 a three dimensional point cloud based upon, at least in part the scanned welding area. The processor may be further configured to perform processing 410 on the three
dimensional point cloud in a two-dimensional domain. The processor may be further configured to generate one or more three dimensional welding paths and to simulate 412 the one or more three dimensional welding paths.
As per claim 2, Chang teaches a supervised learning algorithm is used to detect and identify the welding object(s) [para 25, 29, 30].
As per claim 3, Chang teaches an unsupervised learning algorithm is used to detect and identify the welding object(s) [para 29, 30].
As per claim 4, Chang teaches the machine learning is selected from the group of: deep learning, nearest neighbour, naive Bayes, decision trees, linear regression,
support vector machines (SVM) and neural networks [figure 16, para 30, 44, 52, 53].
As per claim 5, Chang teaches the known welding objects are selected from the group of: profiles, bars, stiffeners, brackets, collar plates, inserts, cutouts, waterholes, welding seams, plate connections, chamfers, tacks, gaps, plate thickness, bevels and scallops [figures 5, 7; para 31, 36].
As per claim 6, Chang teaches the step of generating an unordered point cloud from the scanning data obtained from the scan of the welding environment and utilizing the point cloud directly as input to the machine learning algorithm [figure 4; para 6, 28, 29].
As per claim 7, Chang teaches the machine learning algorithm is configured for semantic segmentation of the scanning data such that each pixel/voxel in the scanning data is classified from a predefined set of classes and wherein the detection of the welding objects is provided by means of the semantic segmentation [para 6, 28, 29].
As per claim 8, Chang teaches the predefined set of classes comprise the following 3D objects: profiles, bars, stiffeners, brackets, collar plates, inserts, cutouts,
waterholes, welding seams, plate connections, chamfers, tacks, gaps, plate thickness, bevels, scallops [figures 5, 7; para 31, 36].
As per claim 9, Chang teaches the obtained scanning data is 2D data [para 26, 30].
As per claim 10, Chang teaches the obtained scanning data is 3D data [para 26, 30].
As per claim 11, Chang teaches the scanning data obtained from the scan of the welding environment is in the form of frame data and wherein stitched scene-data
from individual frames of the frame data are generated [para 26, 30, 36].
As per claim 12, Chang teaches data points of the stitched scene-data from the individual frames are down-sampled or compressed before generation of a point cloud [para 6, 28, 29].
As per claim 13, Chang teaches of outlying data points of the stitched scene-data from the individual frames are removed prior to generation of a point cloud,
such as by means of random sample consensus [para 6, 28, 29].
As per claim 14, directed to a system comprising a computer-readable storage medium storing the instructions to perform the method of steps executed by the system as set forth in claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove.
As per claim 15, Chang discloses a robotic welding system for operating in a welding environment [figures 1, 2], comprising:
a welding machine comprising at least one welding gun for welding material together in an automatic or semiautomatic manner [para 28]; an automated motion generating mechanism for moving the welding gun of the welding machine while welding the material [para 26-28]; a scanner for scanning at least part of the welding environment to generate scanning data [para 30]; and a processing unit configured for executing the method according to claim 1 based on scanning data from the scanner thereby generating a welding path, wherein the robotic welding system is configured to execute the welding path [figure 4; para 29-30].
As per claim 16, Chang teaches the step of generating a welding path for each detected welding object [para 25, 30].
15. Examiner's note: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. MPEP 2141.02 VI: “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS."
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Wang, CN 111390915, teaches an AI-based automatic welding path identification method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN CAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3664. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00 am-3:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-9. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHUN CAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115