DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Notice to the Applicant
Limitations appearing inside {} are intended to indicate the limitations not taught by said prior art(s)/combinations.
Response to Amendments
The Amendment filled 03/31/2026 in response to Non-Final Office Action mailed 01/09/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-8, 10, 12, 16, 21, 24, 27-30, 32,34, 38, 43, and 46 have been amended. Claims 2-3, 14, 25-26, and 36 have been newly canceled. Claims 9, 11, 13, 15, 17-20, 22-23, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39-42, and 44-45 are original. Rejections under 35 USC §112(b) have been withdrawn in light of amended claims. Rejection under 35 USC §101 is maintained.
Claims 1, 4-13, 15-24, 27-35, and 37-46 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments/remarks (See Remarks 03/31/2026 – page 13) with respect to claim interpretations and amended claims 1, 24, 24 and 43 language are acknowledged.
Applicant's arguments/remarks (See Remarks 03/31/2026 – page 15-24) with respect claims to 1-46 have been fully considered. However the rejection under 35 USC §101 is determined to be proper and is therefore maintained.
Applicant argues (See Remarks, page 19-20) that amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A prong 1), are integrated into a practical application (Step 2A prong 2), and that the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception (Step 2B). Regarding Step 2A prong 1, applicant argues that the claimed invention does not recite a mental process because the claimed features may not be practically performed in the human mind. Specifically, the disclosure teaches a multistage (i.e., two stage) image analysis (¶[0094]), first being image quality analysis and second being the weld analysis (¶[0095]). Per specification (¶[0097]) the first analysis outputs a qualitative performance indicator such as “weld acceptable” or “weld unacceptable”, without providing further details on the nature of the image analysis. The disclosure and claims are silent on how the image is processed/transformed by the computer/processor that yields a performance indicator differing from that performed in the human mind, e.g., a pixel-level analysis, contrast enhancement, or noise filtering are transformations or analysis which cannot be performed in the human mind. Furthermore, the claims present no limitations on speed, methodology or accuracy.
The claimed invention allegedly improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field with remote computing device or expert, eliminating the need for expert inspectors to be physically onsite. However, the courts did not find automating a manual activity sufficient to distinguish over prior art. In reVenner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Appellant argued that claims to a permanent mold casting apparatus for molding trunk pistons were allowable over the prior art because the claimed invention combined “old permanent-mold structures together with a timer and solenoid which automatically actuates the known pressure valve system to release the inner core after a predetermined time has elapsed.” The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.) (MPEP §2144.04(III)).
Applicant states that utilizing remote weld inspection performed at least in part by artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML), that may utilize a more powerful remote computing systems (¶[0009]) as needed, conveys sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the present claims as pertaining to a technological improvement (See Remarks, page 19.). However, mere recitation of generic AI that performs classification without any further details on the improvements to the AI itself is not considered significantly more. MPEP §2106.04(a)(1) provides non-limiting examples of claims that do not recite abstract ideas, and includes vii. a method of training a neural network for facial detection comprising: collecting a set of digital facial images, applying one or more transformations to the digital images, creating a first training set including the modified set of digital facial images; training the neural network in a first stage using the first training set, creating a second training set including digital non-facial images that are incorrectly detected as facial images in the first stage of training; and training the neural network in a second stage using the second training set. The claims recite using an AI/ML and a computer capable of running such a program, without additional features which is considered by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding Step 2A prong 2, applicant further argues (See Remarks, pages 19-20) that the claimed invention does not recite a mental process because the claimed features may not be practically performed in the human mind and that computer-based processes cannot be performed mentally. The claimed features include “determining whether the digital image conforms to image quality specifications”, “determine whether the weld shown in the digital image conforms to weld specifications” both at the computer terminal (first determination) and remotely (second determination), and “generate a digital ticket in response to the first determination … with a unique image identifier”. However, the disclosure does not provide sufficient detail for a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a computer for image analysis of a weld that would provide a result that differs from one that may be performed in the human mind.
A specific way of achieving a result is not a stand-alone consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. However, the specificity of the claim limitations is relevant to the evaluation of several considerations including the use of a particular machine, particular transformation and whether the limitations are mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(b), 2106.05(c), and 2106.05(f). For example, in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978), the Supreme Court noted that the "patent application does not purport to explain how to select the appropriate margin of safety, the weighting factor, or any of the other variables" in the claimed mathematical formula, "[n]or does it purport to contain any disclosure relating to the chemical processes at work, the monitoring of process variables, or the means of setting off an alarm or adjusting an alarm system." 437 U.S. at 586, 198 USPQ at 195. The Court found this failure to explain any specifics of how to use the claimed formula informative when deciding that the additional elements in the claim were insignificant post-solution activity and thus not meaningful enough to render the claim eligible. 437 U.S. at 589-90, 198 USPQ at 197. (MPEP §2106.04(d)(I)).
Features relied upon remote data collection and analysis of are insignificant post-solution activity (§MPEP 2106.05 (g)) and without improvements to the machines or softwares themselves, the claims recite a mere implementation of the task in a generic distributed system using well-known techniques.
Information Disclosure Statement
No Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) was filed; therefore, no applicant-submitted references were considered.
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, 4-13, 15-24, 27-35, and 37-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1) without additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2), and without amounting significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites an image analysis system. Thus the claim is directed to a process which is a statutory category of invention (MPEP §2106.03). (Step 1: YES)
Step 2A Prong 1 evaluates if the claim recites any judicial exception (MPEP §2106.04(a)). The claim recites: A method for producing a renovation element suited for renovating or replacing a staircase part, said method comprises:
Claim 1 recites:
a computer terminal and an
imaging device connected to the computer terminal; and
a weld analytics system located remotely from the computer terminal and imaging device;
wherein the weld analytics system and computer terminal are configured to exchange data with each other over a communication network;
wherein the computer terminal comprises a processor configured to: receive a digital image;
determine whether the digital image conforms to image quality specifications;
in response to a determination that the digital image conforms to image quality specifications: perform a first determination as to determine whether a weld shown in the digital image conforms to weld specifications;
generate a digital ticket in response to the first determination, the digital ticket comprising data comprising a unique image identifier (ID) and a first performance indicator representing a determination as to whether the weld shown in the digital image conforms to the weld specifications; and
send the digital image and the digital ticket to the weld analytics system;
in response to a determination that the digital image does not conform to image quality specifications, generate an alert that the digital image is a non-conforming image and refrain from performing the first determination as to determine whether the weld shown in the digital image conforms to weld specifications;
wherein the weld analytics system comprises a repository and a server, the server comprising a processor configured to:
in response to a determination by the processor of the computer terminal that the digital image conforms to the image quality specifications: receive the digital image and the digital ticket;
store the digital image in the repository;
perform a second determination as to determine whether the weld shown in the digital image conforms to weld specifications; and
generate and store a weld record in the repository in response to the second determination, wherein the weld record comprises data comprising the unique image ID and one or both of the first performance indicator and/or a second performance indicator representing a determination as to whether the weld shown in the digital image conforms to the weld specifications.
The USPTO has enumerated groupings of abstract ideas (See §MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)), defined as:
I) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
II) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
III) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind with or without physical aid (i.e., pen and paper, or by using a computer). These include an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion.
The limitations [F], [G] and [M] recite a mental process which is recognized by the court as an abstract idea (See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)). The limitations of making determinations on whether a digital image conforms to image quality specifications, and whether a weld conforms to specifications can be performed in the human mind using 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 (MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)). Additionally, performing a “digital measurement” is merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). (Step 2A Prong 1: YES)
Step 2A Prong 2 analysis evaluates weather the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of that exception according to MPEP §2106.04(d) by: 1) Identify additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and 2) If additional elements are identified, then evaluate the additional elements both individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
Additional elements include using a computer as a tool [A], [C], [D], [E], [K]. According to the specification a generic computer processor may be used in claim 1: “The term "processor" may comprise any programmable system 5 comprising systems using microprocessors, nanoprocessors or the like, reduced instruction set circuits (RISC), ASICs, logic circuits, and any other circuit or processor capable of executing the functions described herein. The term "database" may refer to either a body of data, a relational database management system (RDBMS), or to both. As used herein, a database may comprise any collection of data comprising hierarchical databases, relational databases, flat file databases, object-relational databases, object-oriented databases, and any other structured collection of records or data that is stored in a computer system. The above examples are example only, and thus are not intended to limit in any way the definition and/or meaning of the terms "processor" or "database" ” (¶[00132]). An ‘improvement cannot be to the judicial exception itself, i.e., ‘apply it’/automating an otherwise mentally/manually performed process, even if requiring the use of a computer as a tool (MPEP §2106.05(a)). Regarding limitation [O], adding a final step of storing data to a process that only recites computing the area of a space (a mathematical relationship) does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of computing the area (MPEP §2106.05(g)). For more information on formulating a subject matter eligibility rejection, see MPEP § 2106.07(a).
Under consideration is whether the invention is directed towards improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field. Additional limitations further include transmitting/receiving an image and digital ticket [I], [L] which are data gathering which the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP §2106.05(g)), and an imaging device [B] (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Recording, transmitting, and archiving digital images by use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any assertion that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining a camera and a cellular telephone, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747 (MPEP §2106.05(a)(I)(iv)). Regarding limitation [J], in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978), the Supreme Court noted that the "patent application does not purport to explain how to select the appropriate margin of safety, the weighting factor, or any of the other variables" in the claimed mathematical formula, "[n]or does it purport to contain any disclosure relating to the chemical processes at work, the monitoring of process variables, or the means of setting off an alarm or adjusting an alarm system." 437 U.S. at 586, 198 USPQ at 195. The Court found this failure to explain any specifics of how to use the claimed formula informative when deciding that the additional elements in the claim were insignificant post-solution activity and thus not meaningful enough to render the claim eligible. 437 U.S. at 589-90, 198 USPQ at 197 (MPEP §2106.04(d)(I)). The court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because the limitations are mere instructions to apply an exception. (Step 2A Prong 2: NO)
Step 2B analysis evaluates if the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements, as stated in Prong 2, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The invention provides elements for improving the field by enabling automated supervision of an abstract idea. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). (Step 2B: NO)
Claims 24 and 46 are similarly analyzed as analogous claim 1.
Claims 5, 13, merely adds details on the abstract idea of determination which can be performed in the human mind.
Claim 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 23 merely adds details regarding transmitting a signal and record keeping (archival). Regarding claim 10, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation (MPEP §2106.05(h))
Claims 15-16 merely add details on the imaging device which is considered extra-solution activity.
Claims 17-19 merely add AI/ML without providing improvements to the network structure. MPEP §2106.04(a)(1) provides non-limiting hypothetical examples of claims that do not recite (set forth or describe) an abstract idea including: vii. a method of training a neural network for facial detection comprising: collecting a set of digital facial images, applying one or more transformations to the digital images, creating a first training set including the modified set of digital facial images; training the neural network in a first stage using the first training set, creating a second training set including digital non-facial images that are incorrectly detected as facial images in the first stage of training; and training the neural network in a second stage using the second training set.
Claims 27-35, and 37-45 are similarly analyzed as analogous claims 4-7, 9-13, and 15-23 respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Manurung et al., (2012) teaches processing and measuring image quality, e.g., noise, sensitivity, spatial resolution (p 617) for use in non-destructive weld inspection applications (p 612), however the image quality measurement is completed after radiographed images have been enhanced in an image processing step (p 617, ¶2). While a report is generated, the report does not include an alert generated based on non-conforming image.
Boaretto et al., (2017) teaches automatic detection and classification of defects in radiographic images of welded joints obtained by exposure technique of double wall double image using multilayer perceptron to detect discontinuities and classify defects.
Li et al., (2020) teaches an online weld-quality inspection method for ultrasonic composite welding by combining artificial intelligence (AI) technologies with welding process signatures.
Hou (2020) reviews literature on AI weld defect detection from images highlighting challenges in automation.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANDHANA PEDAPATI whose telephone number is 571-272-5325. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-6pm (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, Chan Park can be reached at 571-272-7409. 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.
/CHANDHANA PEDAPATI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2669
/CHAN S PARK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights