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 .
The amendment filed on November 26, 2026 has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 2 and 9, before “the sensor” (line 3), should insert – based on --. 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.
Claims 2 and 9 are 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.
Claims 2 and 9, “identifying the welding tool location, based on the sensor comprises an ultrasonic, radio frequency, magnetic, or audio sensor” is not disclosed by the original description. For example, paragraph 0029 discloses “when executed, cause the processing circuitry to track a welding tool location using the one or more cameras” (paragraph 0029). The paragraph does not disclose that the processing circuitry tracks a welding tool location using an ultrasonic, radio frequency, magnetic, or audio sensor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniel et al. (US 2014/0042136) in view of Takayama (US 2015/0246406).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Daniel et al. discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium, system, and method (paragraph 0081, lines 5-20; Abstract), comprising machine readable instructions which, when executed by a processor (processor, paragraph 0034), cause the processor to:
track a welding tool location of a welding tool (paragraph 0069, lines 3-10) based on sensor data (paragraph 0097, lines 1-14) detected by the sensor (702, paragraph 0097, lines 1-6, 17-19), the sensor data relating to the welding tool, and the welding tool being configured to perform one or more welds (paragraph 0097, lines 1-6).
Daniel et al. does not disclose prohibit welding in response to determining a target weld location is more than a threshold distance from the welding tool location.
Takayama discloses determining that a target weld location (wire target position) is precisely matched (threshold distance is 0) with welding tool location (tool tip point) (paragraph 0062, line 3-4) for welding to be carried out at an accurate position (paragraph 0062, line 5). One of ordinary skill in the art would know that if the target weld location (wire target position) is not matched (threshold distance is 0) with the welding tool location (tool tip point), quality welding cannot be carried out. Accordingly, it would have been obvious in view of Takayama to prohibit welding in response to determining a target weld location is more than a threshold distance from the welding tool location (in response to the target weld location being not matched with the welding tool location, i.e., threshold distance is greater than 0).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Daniel et al. with prohibit welding in response to determining a target weld location is more than a threshold distance from the welding tool location as suggested by Takayama for the purpose of not compromising quality welding.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Daniel et al. discloses tracking the welding tool location (welding process, paragraph 0009, lines 3-13) comprises the sensor comprises a camera sensor (paragraph 0009, lines 11-12).
It is noted that tracking the welding tool location comprises identifying the welding tool location, based on the sensor data, in response to detecting activation of the welding tool, or the sensor comprises an ultrasonic, radio frequency, magnetic, or audio are alternative limitations since they are recited in the alternative form.
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Daniel et al. discloses machine readable instructions (paragraph 0034), which, when executed by the processor (paragraph 0034), cause the processor to identify a particular weld that should be performed next in an ordered sequence of welds (Abstract, lines 3-4); and Daniel et al. discloses a target weld location corresponding to the particular weld (weld location corresponds to weld, paragraph 0103, lines 11-12).
While Daniel et al. does not expressly disclose identify a target weld location corresponding to the particular weld, it would have been obvious to identify a target weld location corresponding to the particular weld since Daniel et al. discloses that weld location corresponds to weld (paragraph 0103, lines 11-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Daniel et al. with a target weld location corresponding to the particular weld for the purpose of identify the target weld location corresponding to the particular weld.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Daniel et al. discloses the target weld location is a location on a workpiece (weld on a workpiece, paragraph 0069, lines 3-8)
It is noted that the target weld location is at an intersection of two workpieces or the threshold distance is a non-zero distance are alternative limitations because they are recited in the alternative form.
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Daniel et al. discloses the target weld location is identified from an ordered sequence of welding locations corresponding to the ordered sequence of welds (paragraph 0111, lines 5-8).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Daniel et al. does not disclose determining whether the target weld location is more than the threshold distance from the welding tool location.
Takayama discloses determining whether the target weld location is more than the threshold distance from the welding tool location (determining whether the target weld location and the welding tool location coincides or not, where the threshold distance is 0, coincides).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Daniel et al. with determining whether the target weld location is more than the threshold distance from the welding tool location for the purpose of determining whether welding can be carried out at an accurate location, paragraph 0062, lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 16, Daniel et al. discloses the target weld location is a location on a workpiece (weld on a workpiece, paragraph 0069, lines 3-8), the threshold distance is a non-zero distance (thresholds, paragraph 0069, lines 13-19, the welding tool is a hand held welding tool (welding torch, paragraph 0108, line 9), and the welding tool location is a hand held (location of welding torch, paragraph 0108, line 9).
It is noted that the target weld location is at an intersection of two workpieces is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the alternative form.
Regarding claim 18, Daniel et al. discloses determining, via the processing circuitry (paragraph 0034), a performance score based on the welding tool location and the target weld location (paragraph 0070, lines 1-7).
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Daniel et al. in view of Takayama as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Hong (US 2003/0111450).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Daniel et al. discloses set a welding parameter of a welding-type power supply (paragraph 0097, line 21) and the welding tool location (paragraph 0097, line 14).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Daniel et al. further discloses the welding parameter comprises a voltage (paragraph 0097, line 9), a current (paragraph 0097, line 10), a wire feed speed (paragraph 0097, line 12), or a workpiece material type (paragraph 0097, line 11).
The limitation of the welding parameter comprises a gas type or a filler type are alternative limitations because they are recited in the alternative form.
Daniel et al. as modified by Takayama does not disclose set a welding parameter of a welding-type power supply based on the welding tool location.
Hong discloses setting a welding parameter of a welding-type power supply based on the welding tool location (paragraph 0041, lines 3-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Daniel et al. as modified with setting the welding parameter of a welding-type power supply based on the welding tool location as disclosed by Hong for the purpose of optimizing the use of the power supply to provide adequate power to the welding tool.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on November 26, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to objection to abstract have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the abstract has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and terminal disclaimer in response to the nonstatutory double patenting rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicants argue “Takayama does not appear to disclose or suggest (and the Office Action does not appear to allege Takayama discloses or suggests) prohibiting welding in response to Takayama's wire target position not precisely matching Takayama's tool tip point. Nor does Takayama appear to disclose, suggest, or otherwise contemplate prohibiting welding for any other reason.”
Examiner’s position is that it would have been obvious in view of Takayama to prohibit welding in response to determining a target weld location is more than a threshold distance from the welding tool location. Takayama discloses determining that a target weld location (wire target position is defined by ΔL, Figs. 5, 6, where ΔL defines a desired welding quality, paragraph 0034, lines 11-13) is precisely matched (threshold distance is 0 where 43 matches/coincides with the wire target position, see Fig. 6) with welding tool location (tool tip point 43) (paragraph 0062, line 3-4) for welding to be carried out at an accurate position (paragraph 0062, line 5). One of ordinary skill in the art would know that if the target weld location (wire target position) is not matched with the welding tool location (i.e., tool tip point 43 does not match/coincide with the wire target position, see Fig. 5; 43 shifts from the wire target position, paragraph 0034, lines 6-7), quality welding cannot be carried out. Accordingly, it would have been obvious in view of Takayama to prohibit welding in response to determining a target weld location is more than a threshold distance from the welding tool location (in response to the target weld location being not matched with the welding tool location, i.e., threshold distance is greater than 0, 43 is shifted from wire target position, see Fig. 5; paragraph 0034, lines 6-7).
Applicants further argue “Takayama discusses its tool tip point/target point 43 (alleged welding tool location) as defining Takayama's wire target position (alleged target weld location), so it is not clear if, how, and/or when Takayama's wire target position would ever not match Takayama's tool tip point. See, e.g., Takayama at [0033] ("the target point 43 defines the wire target position … During welding work, a position of the welding wire 4 is controlled so that the target point 43 (tool tip point) can coincide with the wire target position.") (emphasis added).”
Examiner’s position is that the wire target position is defined by ΔL (see Figs. 5). 6; paragraph 34, lines 11-13). Takayama discloses “[d]uring welding work, a position of the welding wire 4 is controlled so that the target point 43 (tool tip point) can coincide with the wire target position" (paragraph 0033, lines 7-9). When target point is controlled to coincide with the wire target position (Fig. 6; a position of the welding wire 4 is controlled so that the target point 43 (tool tip point) can coincide with the wire target position, paragraph 0033, lines 6-8), the wire target position would match the tool tip point 43. Accordingly, accurate welding can be carried out (paragraph 0062, lines 3-5)
Applicants further argue “[r]ather than prohibiting welding, Takayama seems to be directed to taking corrective measures if actual parameters do not meet target parameters”.
Examiner’s position is that taking corrective measures if actual parameters do not meet target parameters does not necessarily mean performing welding even if actual parameters do not meet target parameters.
Applicants further argue “even when the welding wire 4 has a habit of bending. the position of the tool tip point can be precisely matched with the wire target position, and welding work can be carried out at an accurate position. [Additionally], even when the welding torch 3 is deformed to bend after instructing the robot, interference can be prevented Takayama at [0062]”.
Examiner’s position is that Takayama discloses when “the position of the tool tip point can be precisely matched with the wire target position, … welding work can be carried out at an accurate position” (paragraph 0062, lines 3-5). Fig. 6 shows despite the bending of welding wire (4), the position of the tool tip point precisely matches with the wire target position, and welding work can be carried out at an accurate position. Fig. 6 is different from Fig. 5 where the welding wire bends and the tool tip point is not matched with the wire target position. Accordingly, welding work cannot be carried out at an accurate position. Thus, Takayama does not suggest a motivation to carry welding since the welding would not be at an accurate position, and therefore it would have been obvious to prohibit welding since the welding would not be at an accurate position.
Applicants further argue “Takayama does not disclose or suggest prohibiting welding in response to determining a target weld location is more than a threshold distance from a welding tool location, as set forth in claims 1-7, at least because Takayama discusses taking corrective measures (rather than prohibiting welding) if actual parameters do not meet target parameters.”
Examiner’s position, as discussed above, is that it would have been obvious to prohibit welding since the welding would not be at an accurate location in response to determining a target weld location is more than a threshold distance from a welding tool location (in response to 43 not coinciding with the target weld location, where the threshold distance is 0). While Takayama discloses taking corrective measures (controlling the welding wire so that the target point 43 (tool tip point) can coincide with the wire target position, paragraph 0033, lines 7-9), welding work cannot be carried out at an accurate position while the position of the tool tip point cannot be precisely matched with the wire target position (paragraph 0062, lines 3-5). Thus, it would have been obvious to prohibit welding if the position of the tool tip point cannot be precisely matched with the wire target position.
Applicants further argue “Takayama is directed to taking corrective measures rather than prohibiting welding if there is a mismatch in target/actual parameters. As far as Applicant is able to determine, Takayama never discloses or suggests prohibiting welding for any reason, be it due to mismatched target/tool locations or otherwise. Nor does the Office Action appear to cite to any portion of Takayama to support an allegation that that Takayama contemplates prohibiting welding in any way.”
Examiner’s position is that Takayama is directed to taking corrective measures (controlling the position of the welding wire so that the target point 43 (tool tip point) can coincide with the wire target position, paragraph 0033, lines 7-9). Takayama suggests a strong motivation to prohibit welding if the target point 43 (tool tip point) does not coincide with the wire target position because the welding could not be carried out at an accurate position, paragraph 0062, lines 3-5).
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are traversed in view of the grounds of rejection discussed above.
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 March 3, 2026