DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a “noise monitor” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding Claim 12, the claimed limitation “noise monitor” does not provide sufficient structure to perform the claimed function, and must rely on the Specification to disclose further structure that will perform the recited function. In the Specification, Applicant discloses, “an acoustic monitoring system 210 comprising broadband ultrasonic receivers 336 (e.g., comprising antennas and/or associated circuitry) and/or RF circuitry 338 (e.g., comprising RF antennas).”[Specification, Para. 62] Accordingly, the noise monitor will be understood to describe an acoustic monitoring system with broadband ultrasonic receivers and any equivalents thereof.
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 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.
Claim 7 and 11 is 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 7 is 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. Based on the dependency from Claim 4, it is unclear whether Applicant means to claim the response signal as ultrasonic (limiting the type of acoustic signal), or the triggering signal is an ultrasonic, rather than electromagnetic, signal. While the Specification discloses that both the triggering and response signals can be ultrasonic signal, ultrasonic signals are not an electromagnetic signal. [Specification, para. 14] As a result, it is unclear which disclosed embodiment is being claimed. For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be construed to mean that the response signal is ultrasonic as it is consistent with the disclosure, and claim dependencies.
Regarding Claim 11, the term “welding-based noise” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “welding-based noise” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The range of frequencies and energy/signal-types is wide, and varies greatly between different types of welding operations, a frequency range or metric for defining welding-based noise is necessary to provide sufficient detail to ascertain the scope of the claims. In the interest of compact prosecution, “welding-based noise,” will be construed as any acoustic signal generated as a result of a welding operation.
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.
Claims 1-11, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeifer et al. (US 2013/0208569), in view of Lowe et al. (US 2017/0208565).
Regarding Claim 1, Pfeifer discloses
A weld tracking system [Fig.1 (10)], comprising:
a plurality of tracking anchors [Fig. 5 (110), paras. 29, 37] (Examiner Note: Tracking anchors are construed as sensors that are arranged in the environment for position tracking of the welding device. Pfeifer discloses a sensor array (110) with known relative positions that surrounds the welding area for sensing signals emitted by the welding torch sensor (i.e. a tracking tag), and thus discloses this limitation.)
a welding device [Fig. 5 (26)] having the tracking tag attached to the welding device [Fig. 5 (150), para. 25, 35-37] (Examiner Note: Tracking tags will be construed as sensors disposed on the welding device for position tracking of the welding device. Pfeifer discloses a sound emitting device (150) disposed on the welding torch that emits signals to be sensed by the tracking anchors for position tracking of the welding device, and thus discloses this limitation.), and
a processing system [Fig. 2 (52), paras. 21, 27-8] configured to:
determine distances between each of the tracking anchors and the tracking tag [Fig. 3, paras. 31-32, 35, 37] (Examiner Note: Pfeifer discloses a travel speed monitoring device (52) that contains a processor (64) and determines the distance between the anchors and tags based on a time-of-flight calculation of the acoustic signal, and thus reads onto this limitation.), and
determine a location of the welding device based on predetermined locations of the plurality of tracking anchors [Fig. 3, paras. 27-28, 31, 45] and based on determined distances between the tracking tag on the welding device and corresponding ones of the plurality of tracking anchors [Fig. 3, paras. 27-28, 31, 45] (Examiner Note: Pfeifer discloses the location of the welding device is determined by trilateration based on the “known relative positions” of the sensor array (110) and the determined distances of the tag to each of the anchors in the sensor array (110), and thus reads onto this limitation.)
Pfeifer does not disclose each of the tracking anchors configured to:
transmit a triggering signal, and
transmit a response signal, or receive the response signal from a tracking tag;
the tracking tag configured to receive the triggering signal and receive the response signal, or receive the triggering signal and transmit the response signal in response to receiving the triggering signal and
a processing system configured to: determine distances based on a time between the response signal being received and the triggering signal being sent or received. (Examiner Note: While Pfeifer discloses that the sensor array (110), and welding torch sensor (150) can be transceivers to both send/receive signals for distance/position determination, it does not disclose the trigger-response relationship between the device signals. Similarly, while Pfeifer discloses a processing system for determining distances, it does not disclose a determination based on a trigger and response signal. (Para. 45))
However, Lowe teaches each of the tracking anchors configured to: transmit a triggering signal, and transmit a response signal, or receive the response signal from a tracking tag [Lowe: Paras. 39, 52, Fig. 2 (102), Fig. 3A (214, 212)] (Examiner Note: Lowe teaches a reference device (102) with a processing unit that “transmits an RF signal 124 and an acoustic signal 126 to the target device 104, respectively, via the RF transceiver 116A through the antenna 118A, and via the acoustic transmitter 120A.” (Para. 52) The RF and ultrasonic signals in Lowe are construed as triggering and response signals as the range measurement request is initiated by the RF signal, that is then determined based on the time of flight of the ultrasonic signal.); the tracking tag configured to receive the triggering signal and receive the response signal, or receive the triggering signal and transmit the response signal in response to receiving the triggering signal [Lowe: Paras. 43, 52, Fig. 2 (104), Fig. 3A (216, 222)] (Examiner Note: Lowe teaches a target device (104) with a processing unit that receives a trigger and response signal via a RF transceiver and ultrasonic acoustic receiver respectively to calculate the distance between the devices, and thus teaches this limitation.) and a processing system configured to: determine distances based on a time between the response signal being received and the triggering signal being sent or received. [Lowe: Paras. 54-59, Fig. 3A (226, 228)] (Examiner Note: Lowe teaches a processor that determines the distance between the target and reference devices by comparing the time between receiving the trigger signal, and the response signal, and thus teaches this limitation.)
Lowe is in the field of object positioning and range finding systems. Thus, Lowe is not in the same field of weld-tracking system. However, it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of the claimed invention is trying to solve, indoor position tracking of objects. The MPEP states that a reference that is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention) is considered analogous art, see [MPEP 2141.01(a)]. I. As such, King is analogous art as it satisfies the "reasonably pertinent" test.
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Lowe with Pfeifer in order to provide more accurate position determination. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Lowe could be combined with Pfeifer with a reasonable expectation of success as they both relate to indoor position tracking systems. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Lowe because an electromagnetic trigger signal helps ensure more accurate readings and reduces memory consumption of the device by providing more precise control of the sampling time to be analyzed. Accordingly, Claim 1 is rejected as obvious over Pfeifer in view of Lowe.
Regarding Claim 2, Pfeifer in view of Lowe discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Pfeifer further discloses, wherein the processing system [Pfeifer: Fig. 2 (52)] is configured to determine positions of the plurality of tracking anchors [Pfeifer: Fig. 2 (110)] based on a predetermined spatial relationship between the plurality of tracking anchors [Pfeifer: Para. 31, 45] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Pfeifer discloses the sensor array (110) that has “known relative positions.”) and based on a calibration process to determine positions of two or more of the plurality of tracking anchors in the predetermined spatial relationship with respect to a reference location [Pfeifer: Para. 45] (Examiner Note: Pfeifer discloses a method for self-calibration of the positions of the tracking sensors, where “it is possible to solve for the position of all array elements relative to the origin element by using trilateration techniques… where any two elements can define a coordinate system axis and any three elements can define a coordinate system plane.” Accordingly, Pfeifer discloses a system configured to determine the position of the array elements based on the known relative positions of the sensor array, and a self-calibration process to determine the positions of the 2 or more sensor elements relative to a reference sensor, and thus discloses this limitation.).
Regarding Claim 3, Pfeifer in view of Lowe discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Pfeifer further disclosers wherein the welding device is at least one of a welding torch [Pfeifer: Fig. 5 (26), para. 26], a welding helmet, safety glasses, or a welding fixture.
Regarding Claim 4, Pfeifer in view of Lowe discloses all of the limitations of claim Pfeifer further discloses, wherein the processing system is configured to determine the location of the welding device with respect to the reference location based on the positions of the plurality of tracking anchors. [Pfeifer: Para. 45] (Examiner Note: Pfeifer discloses the speed monitoring device is configured to determine the location of the welding device by trilateration based on the determined locations of the 2 or more array elements relative to a reference location (another array element), and thus discloses this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 5, Pfeifer in view of Lowe discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Pfeifer does not disclose wherein the triggering signal is an electromagnetic signal and the response signal is an acoustic signal.
However, Lowe further teaches, wherein the triggering signal [Lowe: Fig. 2 (124), para. 52] is an electromagnetic signal and the response signal [Lowe: Fig. 2 (126), para. 52] is an acoustic signal. (Examiner Note: As discussed above, the RF and ultrasonic signals in Lowe are construed as triggering and response signals as the range measurement request is initiated by the RF signal, that is then determined based on the time of flight of the ultrasonic signal.)
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Lowe with Pfeifer in order to improve accuracy and reduce operating costs of the distance tracking systems. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Pfeifer and Lowe could be combined with a reasonable degree of success as they both relate to indoor position tracking systems. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate an electromagnetic trigger signal with an acoustic response signal because acoustic tracking provides lower cost, less stringent operating requirements with lower error propagation compared to RF only position tracking systems. [Lowe: Para. 6] Accordingly, Claim 5 is rejected as obvious over Pfeifer in view of Lowe.
Regarding Claim 6, Pfeifer in view of Lowe discloses all of the limitations of claim 5. Pfeifer does not disclose wherein the triggering signal is a radio frequency signal.
However, Lowe further teaches, wherein the triggering signal is a radio frequency signal. [Lowe: Para. 52]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Pfeifer with the RF triggering signal taught in Lowe in order to provide a high-speed triggering signal. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Lowe could be combined with Pfeifer because they both relate to indoor tracking systems, and the use of RF triggering signals is well-known in the art. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the RF triggering signal taught in Lowe because a high-speed triggering signal allows for more precise control of sampling time, and time synchronization of signals, which improves the overall performance and accuracy of the positioning system. Accordingly, Claim 6 is rejected as obvious over Pfeifer in view of Lowe.
Regarding Claim 7, Pfeifer in view of Lowe discloses all of the limitations of claim 5. Pfeifer does not disclose wherein the triggering signal is an ultrasonic signal. (Examiner Note: Pfeifer discloses the acoustic signals can be ultrasonic, but does not disclose trigger-response signals. (Pfeifer: Para. 33))
However, Lowe further teaches, wherein the triggering signal is an ultrasonic signal. [Lowe: Para. 52] (Examiner Note: Referring to the 112(b) rejection above, Lowe discloses an ultrasonic response signal, and thus discloses this limitation.)
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Lowe with Pfeifer because one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the ultrasonic response signal taught in Lowe for the same reasons as applied to Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 8, Pfeifer in view of Lowe discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Pfeifer further discloses, wherein the welding device has a plurality of tracking tags attached to the welding device, [Paras. 37-38] (Examiner Note: Pfeifer discloses multiple tags (150) may be on the torch to determine the positions of 2 or more points on the welding torch.) and the processing system is configured to determine the location of the welding device based on measuring the locations of the plurality of tracking tags [Paras. 27-8] (Examiner Note: Pfeifer discloses the travel speed monitoring device (52) is configured to determine a 3-D position of the welding torch based on the relative time of flight calculations of signals from the sensor array (110), and thus discloses this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 9, Pfeifer in view of Lowe discloses all of the limitations of claim 8. Pfeifer further discloses, wherein the processing system is configured to determine an orientation of the welding device based on measuring the locations of the plurality of tracking tags on the welding device [Para. 38] (Examiner Note: Pfeifer discloses that multiple sensor tags (150) may be placed on different points of the welding torch such that the speed monitoring device (52) can determine the orientation of the torch with respect to the workpiece, and thus discloses this limitation.) and based on a rigid body model of the welding device and the plurality of tracking tags on the welding device. [Para. 38] (Examiner Note: A rigid model is construed as a “model representing the predetermined positions and orientations of the tracking tag(s) 204 with respect to the welding tool 102 and/or a triangulation technique.” (Specification, para. 53) Pfeifer discloses that the orientation is determined using the measured positions of the plurality of sensor tags (150) on the welding torch (26). Thus, Pfeifer necessarily discloses a rigid body model as defined by the Applicant, because the initial positions and orientations of the tags relative to the torch must be known in order to determine the torch orientation based on the change in position of the tags. Accordingly, Pfeifer discloses a speed monitoring device (52) configured to determine the orientation of the welding torch (26) based on the determined positions of the sensor tags (150) and a rigid body model of the device and tags, and thus discloses all of the limitations of the immediate claim.)
Regarding Claim 11, Pfeifer in view of Lowe discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Pfeifer further discloses, wherein the tracking tag or each of the tracking anchors [Fig. 5 (150, 110)] is configured to transmit having a frequency selected to avoid interference from welding-based noise. [Para. 37] (Examiner Note: Referring to the 112(b) rejection above, welding-based noise will be construed as any acoustic signal generated as a result of a welding operation. Pfiefer discloses the tracking tag (150) on the torch may be distinguishable from the sound emitted from the welding arc 12 produced via the welding torch 26. For example, the sound emitting device 150 may output a pulse, chirp, ultrasonic signal, or another sound that is identifiable with respect to time.” As different sounds emit at different frequencies, Pfeifer is understood to disclose a frequency selected to avoid welding based interference.)
Pfeifer does not disclose the response signal as an ultrasonic signal (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Pfeifer discloses tracking anchors and tags configured to transmit an ultrasonic signal, but does not disclose a trigger-response signal relationship. (Pfeifer: Para. 33))
However, Lowe teaches, the response signal as an ultrasonic signal. [Lowe: Paras. 39, 52, Fig. 2 (102), Fig. 3A (214, 212)] (Examiner Note: Lowe teaches a reference device (102) with a processing unit that “transmits an RF signal 124 and an acoustic signal 126 to the target device 104, respectively, via the RF transceiver 116A through the antenna 118A, and via the acoustic transmitter 120A.” (Para. 52) The RF and ultrasonic signals in Lowe are construed as triggering and response signals as the range measurement request is initiated by the RF signal, that is then determined based on the time of flight of the ultrasonic signal.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Pfeifer with Lowe because they would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Lowe for the same reasons as applied to Claim 2. Accordingly, Claim 11 is rejected as obvious over Pfeifer in view of Lowe.
Regarding Claim 17, Pfeifer in view of Lowe discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Pfeifer further discloses, wherein the welding device comprises:
three or more tracking tags spatially separated in a fixed rigid configuration; [Para. 38] (Examiner Note: Pfeifer discloses 2 or more tracking tags affixed to different points of the welding torch. As the welding torch is understood as a rigid structure, and the positional relationship between the tags are known, Pfeifer is understood to disclose 3 or more tracking tags in a fixed rigid configuration.)
two spatially separated tracking tags rigidly connected to each other, each of the tracking tags comprising an accelerometer configured to measure the angle of the tracking tag relative to gravity; or
a single tracking tag having an accelerometer and a gyroscope,
wherein the processing system is configured to determine a six-degree-of-freedom location and orientation of the welding device based on the three or more tracking tags, the two tracking tags, or the one tracking tag. [Paras. 20, 29, 38] (Examiner Note: The six degrees of freedom location and orientation is understood as the position and orientation of an object in 3-D space, based on an absolute coordinate system (earth as reference) or relative to a reference location. Pfeifer discloses the travel speed monitoring system is configured to track the “three-dimensional position of the welding torch,” and “orientation of the welding torch with respect to the workpiece,” and thus, discloses a determination of a six degrees-of-freedom location and orientation of the welding device.)
Regarding Claim 18, Pfeifer in view of Lowe discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Pfeifer further discloses, wherein the plurality of tracking anchors are affixed to one or more rigid structures [Paras. 15, 21] (Examiner Note: Pfeifer defines the sensor array as, “an arrangement of two or more elements (e.g., sensors, emitters) that may be located in fixed … positions relative to one another… located throughout the weld area,” where the weld area includes the weld cell and workpiece. As the weld area consists of rigid structures, like the floor and workpiece, Pfeifer is construed to disclose a plurality of anchors affixed to one of more rigid structures.) defining a rigid spatial relationship between the ones of the tracking anchors affixed to the respective rigid structure. [Paras. 31, 45] (Examiner Note: Pfeifer discloses that the sensors of the array are in “known relative positions,” where they “may be precisely positioned relative to one another in a known configuration.” This will be understood to disclose a rigid spatial relationship as it defines a fixed spatial relationship between each of the tracking anchors that is not be changed (i.e. rigid) without re-calibration of the positional relationships.)
Regarding Claim 19, Pfeifer in view of Lowe discloses all of the limitations of claim 18. Pfeifer does not disclose wherein the rigid structures are portable.
However, under MPEP 2144.04-V-A making portable is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over prior art unless there are new or unexpected results, and therefore, the claimed limitation is obvious.
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify Pfeifer in view of Lowe such that the rigid structures are portable because making portable is an obvious matter of design choice. [MPEP 2144.04-V-A] Applicant has not disclosed that making the rigid structure portable provides any unexpected results and one having ordinary skill in the art would expect that making the rigid structures portable would allow for a portable weld tracking system. Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art would expected the claimed rigid structure to work equally as well as the arrangement disclosed in the prior art, and thus, this limitation is an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 20, Pfeifer in view of Lowe discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Pfeifer further discloses, The weld tracking system as defined in claim 1, wherein the processing system is configured to determine, based on the location of the welding device and a rigid body model of the tracking tag and the welding device [Paras. 20-24, 27, 38] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Pfeifer discloses the speed monitoring device (52) is configured to determine the travel speed and orientation of the torch based on the change in position of the torch (based on time of flight calculations), and the known relative positions of the tags and anchors. This will be understood to disclose a determination based on the location of the welding device and a rigid body model, as the speed monitoring device (52) uses the location of the welding device, and a model of the predetermined orientation/position of the tags to determine the welding parameters.), at least one of a work angle, a travel angle, a travel direction, a travel speed, or a contact tip to work distance of a welding torch during a live welding operation or a simulated welding operation. [Paras. 14, 27, 38] (Examiner Note: Pfeifer discloses the speed monitoring system (52) is configured to determine travel speed, travel direction (inherent when speed and position known), and work angle based on the welding device location and a rigid body model of the tag and welding device during a live welding, and thus discloses this limitation.)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeifer et al. (US 2013/0208569) in view of Lowe (2017/0208565) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mathkar et al. (US 2018/0128589).
Regarding Claim 10, Pfeifer in view of Lowe discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Pfeifer further discloses, wherein the welding device is a welding torch. [Pfeifer: Fig. 5 (26)]
Pfeifer in view of Lowe does not disclose, the processing system is configured to determine a welding performance based on a plurality of locations of the welding device during a welding operation. (Examiner Note: Pfeifer discloses a processor configured to make determinations at a plurality of locations during the welding operation as it tracks velocity based on the detected change of position of the sensors, and specifically contemplates evaluation of welding performance based on the tracked welding parameters (Pfeifer: Para. 14), but does not explicitly disclose a processor configured to make a determination of welding performance.)
However, Mathkar discloses the processing system is configured to determine a welding performance based on a plurality of locations of the welding device during a welding operation. [Para. 5-7] (Examiner Note: Mathkar discloses the processor stores the plurality of position and orientation data recorded during welding, and compares the values to “a plurality of predefined acceptance limits of position and orientation characteristics to ensure quality control, or even validate the weld,” and thus teaches this limitation.)
Mathkar is in the same field of invention as the application because they both relate to weld tracking systems, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Mathkar with Pfeifer in view of Lowe in order to provide post-weld analysis scores and allow evaluation and training of welding performance. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Mathkar could be combined with Pfeifer in view of Lowe with a reasonable expectation of success as they both relate to weld tracking systems. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Mathkar because it “provides an affordable tool for measuring manual welding technique and comparing that technique to established procedures.” [Mathkar: Para. 4] Therefore, Claim 10 is rejected as obvious over Pfeifer, in view of Lowe, and further in view of Mathkar.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeifer et al. (US 2013/0208569) in view of Lowe (2017/0208565) and further in view of King et al. (20140160880, cited in IDS dated April, 2, 2024)
With respect to claim 12, Pfeifer in view of Lowe discloses all of the limitations of Claim 11.
Pfeifer in view of Lowe does not disclose a noise monitor configured to measure ultrasonic frequencies in an environment proximate to the tracking anchors and the tracking tag, and configured to transmit feedback representative of at least one of a preferred ultrasonic channel or ultrasonic frequency or a non-preferred ultrasonic channel or ultrasonic frequency. (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Pfeifer in view of Lowe discloses the use of tracking anchors/tags with an ultrasonic response signal and the selection of different ultrasonic frequencies to avoid interference, but does not disclose a noise monitor configured to transmit feedback representative of those frequencies.)
However, King discloses a noise monitor [King: Para. 50] (Examiner Note: Noting the 112(f) interpretation above, King discloses a device (102) comprising an ultrasonic transmitter (212) and receiver (214) and associated signal processing circuitry, and thus discloses this limitation. King is understood to disclose multiple tracking tags/anchors (i.e. mobile devices) configured with a noise monitor and tracking functionality.) configured to measure ultrasonic frequencies in an environment proximate to the tracking anchors [King: Fig. 1 (102)] and the tracking tag [King: Para. 50, Figs. 1 (104), 5 (501)] (Examiner Note: King discloses the mobile device (102/104) configured such that, “an ultrasound transmitter can search for a designated operating frequency band, while an ultrasound receiver can detect the level of occupancy in the band (501).” King is understood to disclose measuring ultrasonic frequencies in the area proximate to the tracking devices, and thus teaches this limitation.) , and configured to transmit feedback representative of at least one of a preferred ultrasonic channel or ultrasonic frequency [King: Paras. 46-7] (Examiner Note: King specifically discloses a range and criteria for preferred frequencies representative of bands that avoid interference.) or a non-preferred ultrasonic channel or ultrasonic frequency [King: Fig. 5 (502, 503, 305), Fig. 4A] (Examiner Note: King discloses that the device, after determining if the current frequency band is too noisy, and will transmit at a different, less-noisy frequency. The step of determining the noise level (502), can be understood as feedback loop representative of a preferred/non-preferred frequency/channel selected for avoiding interference. In other words, when the noise monitor determines that a signal is noisy, or not, it transmits feedback to the mobile device that they are in a non-preferred (noisy) or preferred (not) frequency band, and thus discloses this limitation.
King is in the field of mobile device ultrasonic ranging. Thus, King is not in the same field of weld-tracking system. However, it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of the claimed invention is trying to solve, mitigating interference with ultrasonic ranging device. The MPEP states that a reference that is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention) is considered analogous art, see [MPEP 2141.01(a)]. I. As such, King is analogous art as it satisfies the "reasonably pertinent" test.
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of King with Pfeifer in view of Lowe in order to avoid interference and improve sensor resolution. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that King could be combined with Pfeifer in view of Lowe with a reasonable expectation of success as they both relate to ultrasonic ranging devices. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of King with Pfeifer in view of Lowe because “it is preferable that the frequency bands in which the ultrasound signals operate have low occupancy from any narrow or wideband interference sources,” and improves the resolution of the position tracking system. [King: Para. 50] Accordingly, Claim 12 is rejected as obvious over Pfeifer, in view of Lowe, and further in view of King.
Regarding Claim 13, Pfeifer, in view of Lowe and King discloses all of the limitations of Claim 12.
Pfeifer, in view of Lowe and King, as applied to claim 12, does not disclose wherein the plurality of tracking anchors are configured to transmit the triggering signal having data representative of the at least one of a preferred ultrasonic channel or ultrasonic frequency or a non-preferred ultrasonic channel or ultrasonic frequency, and the tracking tag is configured to select an ultrasonic channel to transmit the response signal based on the data in the triggering signal. (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Pfeifer in view of Lowe, discloses a plurality of tracking anchor and tags configured to send/receive trigger/response signals, but does not disclose the transmission and selection of an ultrasonic channel based on data in the triggering signal. (Pfeifer: Paras. 35-37; Lowe: Para. 52))
However, King further teaches the plurality of tracking anchors [King: Fig. 1 (102), Para. 35] (Examiner Note: King discloses any number of devices, “in close proximity can establish a de facto communication network, using ultrasound signals to determine range of devices, … [and] to transfer relevant data, depending on the capabilities of the devices,” and thus discloses a plurality of tracking anchors.) are configured to transmit the triggering signal having data representative of the at least one of a preferred channel or frequency or a non-preferred channel or frequency [King: Paras. 34, 41, Fig. 5 (305)] (Examiner Note: King discloses the devices (102, 104) can be configured as initiating and responding devices, and thus discloses a trigger-response signal relationship. King further discloses that, after determining a frequency band is too noisy, the devices can switch to a new frequency and transmit the triggering signal. As the selected frequency of the trigger signal can be understood as data representative of a preferred ultrasonic channel (preferred for less interference), King discloses this limitation.), and the tracking tag is configured to select a channel to transmit the response signal based on the data in the triggering signal. [King: Paras. 34, 41, 50] (Examiner Note: Similarly as above, King discloses the receiving device (104) is configured to transmit a signal in response to the triggering signal in the same, less noisy frequency band, and thus discloses this limitation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Pfeifer, in view of Lowe, with King, in order to provide a tracking system configured to avoid interference. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of King could be incorporated with Pfeifer in view of Lowe as they both relate to ultrasonic tracking systems. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of King because it allows the weld tracking tags and anchors to be configured to avoid interference and improve the overall accuracy of the position tracking system. Accordingly, Claim 13 is rejected as obvious over Pfeifer in view of Lowe and further in view of King.
Regarding Claim 14, Pfeifer, in view of Lowe, and further in view of King discloses all of the limitations of Claim 12.
Pfeifer, in view of Lowe and King, as applied to claim 12, does not disclose wherein the tracking tag or each of the tracking anchors is configured to receive the feedback from the noise monitor and select an ultrasonic channel to transmit the response signal based on the feedback.
However, King further teaches, wherein the tracking tag or each of the tracking anchors [King: Fig. 1 (102), para. 35] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, King discloses there can be a plurality of initiating devices (102), and thus teaches a plurality of tracking anchors.) is configured to receive the feedback from the noise monitor and select an ultrasonic channel to transmit the response signal based on the feedback [King: Para. 50] (Examiner Note: King discloses that the device (102) receives feedback that an occupied frequency band is too noisy, and then transmits at a new frequency based on this feedback, and thus discloses this limitation. As the trigger-response signal relationship is relative to the initiating device, the anchor transmitting a signal in response to the feedback will be construed to teach the response signal based on the feedback. Furthermore, both devices are configured to be the initiating device, so a responding device is also configured to select a new frequency and transmit the response signal based on the feedback.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Pfeifer, in view of Lowe, with King, in order to provide a tracking system configured to detect potential interference. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of King could be incorporated with Pfeifer in view of Lowe as they both relate to ultrasonic tracking systems. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of King because it allows the noise monitor to be implemented in the weld tracking system in order to avoid interference and improve the overall accuracy of the position tracking system. Accordingly, Claim 14 is rejected as obvious over Pfeifer in view of Lowe and further in view of King.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeifer et al. (US 2013/0208569) in view of Lowe (2017/0208565 and King et al. (US 2014/0160880) and further in view of Mathkar et al. (US 2018/0128589).
Regarding Claim 15, Pfeifer, in view of Lowe, discloses all of the limitations of Claim 11.
Pfeifer, in view of Lowe, does not disclose, wherein the tracking tag or each of the tracking anchors is configured to select an ultrasonic channel to transmit the response signal based on a table having ultrasonic frequency data associated with at least one of a welding parameter or a welding process. (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Pfeifer in view of Lowe, discloses a plurality of tracking anchor and tags configured to send/receive trigger/response signals, but does not disclose the transmission and selection of an ultrasonic channel based on data in the triggering signal. (Pfeifer: Paras. 35-37; Lowe: Para. 52))
However, King teaches the tracking tag or each of the tracking anchors is configured to select an ultrasonic channel to transmit the response signal based on a table having ultrasonic frequency data. [King: Paras. 46-7, 50] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, King discloses devices configured to transmit a signal based on a selected ultrasonic frequency. King further discloses a range, and criteria, for preferred ultrasonic signals, are provided for frequency switching, and thus also teaches a table having ultrasonic frequency data.)
King is in the field of mobile device ultrasonic ranging. Thus, King is not in the same field of weld-tracking system. However, it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of the claimed invention is trying to solve, mitigating interference with ultrasonic ranging device. The MPEP states that a reference that is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention) is considered analogous art, see [MPEP 2141.01(a)]. I. As such, King is analogous art as it satisfies the "reasonably pertinent" test.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Pfeifer, in view of Lowe, with King, in order to provide a tracking system configured to avoid interference with nearby welding operations. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of King could be incorporated with Pfeifer in view of Lowe as they both relate to ultrasonic tracking systems. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of King because it allows weld tracking system to switch frequencies to avoid interference with nearby welding operations and improve the overall accuracy of the position tracking system.
King does not teach frequency data associated with at least one of a welding parameter or a welding process.
However, Mathkar teaches a table having frequency data associated with at least one of a welding parameter or a welding process [Mathkar: Paras. 28, 43, 53, Fig. 10 (1004)] (Examiner Note: Mathkar discloses “a table of interference sources and corresponding suggested frequencies to best overcome those sources.” Mathkar further teaches that adjacent tracking systems, and “arcing and other welding operations” are common interference sources. Accordingly, Mathkar is understood to teach frequency data associated with adjacent tracking systems and arcing/welding operations, and thus, teaches this limitation.)
Mathkar is in the same field of invention as the application because they both relate to weld tracking systems, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Pfeifer, in view of Lowe and King, with a table having ultrasonic frequency data associated with at least one of a welding parameter or a welding process in order to reduce interference caused by proximate welding processes. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Makhtar could be applied to Pfeifer in view of Lowe and King as they both relate to welding tracking systems, and the principles of frequency interference from welding processes is equally applicable to ultrasonic tracking systems. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the frequency table taught in Mathkar because it allows precise interference avoidance based on specific welding processes, and increases the overall resolution of the tracking device. Accordingly, Claim 15 is rejected as obvious over Pfeifer in view of Lowe, and further in view of King and Mathkar.
Regarding Claim 16, Pfeifer, in view of Lowe, discloses all of the limitations of Claim 11.
Pfeifer in view of Lowe does not disclose wherein the plurality of tracking anchors are configured to:
determine, based on a table having ultrasonic frequency data associated with at least one of a welding parameter or a welding process, at least one of a preferred ultrasonic channel or ultrasonic frequency or a non-preferred ultrasonic channel or ultrasonic frequency; and
transmit the triggering signal having data representative of the at least one of a preferred ultrasonic channel or ultrasonic frequency or a non-preferred ultrasonic channel or ultrasonic frequency, and the tracking tag is configured to select an ultrasonic channel to transmit the response signal based on the data in the triggering signal.
However, King teaches wherein the plurality of tracking anchors are configured to: determine, at least one of a preferred ultrasonic channel or ultrasonic frequency or a non-preferred ultrasonic channel or ultrasonic frequency [King: Paras. 46-7, 50, Fig. 5 (502)] (Examiner Note: King specifically discloses a range and criteria for preferred frequencies representative of bands that avoid interference. King further teaches that the devices are configured to determine the level of occupancy of the band, and if its too high, they will switch to another frequency. As low occupancy band of ultrasonic frequency is understood as a preferred frequency, King discloses the devices are configured to determine whether the occupied frequency band is preferred (low occupancy) or not preferred (noisy), and thus teaches this limitation.); and
transmit the triggering signal having data representative of the at least one of a preferred ultrasonic channel or ultrasonic frequency or a non-preferred ultrasonic channel or ultrasonic frequency [King: Paras. 46-7, 50, Fig. 5 (503, 305)] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, the selected frequency of the trigger signal can be understood as data representative of a preferred ultrasonic channel (preferred for less interference). As the initiating device (102) is configured to transmit at a low occupancy ultrasonic frequency, or switch to a new frequency if determined too noisy, it will be understood to teach transmitting a preferred ultrasonic frequency.), and the tracking tag is configured to select an ultrasonic channel to transmit the response signal based on the data in the triggering signal [King: Paras. 34, 41, 50] (Examiner Note: King discloses the receiving device (104) is configured to transmit a signal in response to the triggering signal in the same, less noisy frequency band, and thus teaches this limitation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Pfeifer, in view of Lowe, with King, in order to provide a tracking system configured to avoid interference with nearby welding operations. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of King could be incorporated with Pfeifer in view of Lowe as they both relate to ultrasonic tracking systems. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of King because it allows the tracking tags to switch frequencies to avoid interference with nearby welding operations and improve the overall accuracy of the position tracking system.
King does not teach frequency data associated with at least one of a welding parameter or a welding process.
However, Mathkar teaches a table having frequency data associated with at least one of a welding parameter or a welding process [Mathkar: Paras. 28, 43, 53, Fig. 10 (1004)] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Mathkar teaches frequency data associated with adjacent tracking systems and arcing/welding operations, and thus, teaches this limitation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Pfeifer, in view of Lowe and King, with a table having ultrasonic frequency data associated with at least one of a welding parameter or a welding process, because they would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Mathkar for the same reasons as applied to Claim 15. Therefore, Claim 16 is rejected as obvious over Pfeifer, in view of Lowe and King, and further in view of Mathkar.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Meess et al. (US 2018/0130377) and Albrecht (US 2015/0321292) each disclose weld-position tracking systems configured with weld performance analysis.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Michael Chambers whose telephone number is (571)272-2614. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm.
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.
JMC
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
05/29/2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights