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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on September 18, 2023 and May 16, 2024 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: typographical errors.
Claim 1 and 8 recite the following: “A method of monitoring welding technique for…” Specifically, the limitation is lacking an article (i.e. “a”). The Examiner reasonably believes the missing article is a typographical error. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim limitation as follows: “A method of monitoring a welding technique for…” Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-7 and 9-14 are also objected to based on their respective dependencies to claim 1 or 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claims 1 and 8 are directed to “a method” (i.e. “a process”), and claim 15 is directed to is directed to “a weld monitoring system” (i.e. “a machine”), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “monitoring a welding technique,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“determining, …, a base plate perpendicular vector based on first sensor data detected… during a first time period;
determining, …. a joint orientation vector based on the base plate perpendicular vector and second sensor data detected during a second time period…, the joint orientation vector being perpendicular to the base plate perpendicular vector, and a tool orientation vector of a welding-type tool tracked…;
tracking, during a third time period, …, the tool orientation of the welding-type tool using third sensor data detected… during the third time period; and
identifying…, a welding technique parameter value based on the tool orientation of the welding-type tool, the base plate perpendicular vector, and the joint orientation vector.”
Per claim 8:
“determining, …, a joint orientation vector based on first sensor data detected… during a first time period;
determining, …, a base plate perpendicular vector based on the joint orientation vector and second sensor data detected during a second time period…;
tracking, during a third time period, …, a tool orientation of the welding-type tool using third sensor data detected… during the third time period; and
identifying, …, a welding technique parameter value based on the tool orientation of the welding-type tool, the base plate perpendicular vector, and the joint orientation vector.”
Per claim 15:
“determine, a base plate perpendicular vector based on the first sensor data detected by the sensor system during the first time period,
determine a joint orientation vector based on the base plate perpendicular vector and second sensor data detected during a second time period by the sensor system, the joint orientation vector being perpendicular to the base plate perpendicular vector and a tool orientation of a welding-type tool tracked …,
track, during a third time period, the tool orientation of the welding-type tool using third sensor data detected… during the third time period, and
identify a welding technique parameter value based on the tool orientation of the welding-type tool, the base plate perpendicular vector, and the joint orientation vector.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed elements of “processing circuitry,” “memory circuitry,” “a sensor system,” and “a welding-type tool,” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “monitoring a welding technique,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “processing circuitry,” “memory circuitry,” “a sensor system,” and “a welding-type tool,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “processing circuitry,” is not described with any detail in the written description of the specification as originally filed. Regardless, “processing circuitry,” is best described in para. [0052] as follows:
“[0052] In some examples, the processing circuitry 204 comprises one or more processors, controllers, and/or graphical processing units (GPUs). In some examples, the processing circuitry 204 may comprise counter circuitry and/or clock circuitry. In some examples, the processing circuitry 204 may be configured to execute used to execute machine readable (and/or processor executable) instructions stored in memory 206.” As such, the Applicant’s claimed “processing circuitry,” is reasonably interpreted as either a processor or a computer which is reasonably interpreted to be a generic, well-known, and conventional data computing element.
Likewise, the Applicant’s claimed “memory circuitry,” is not described with any detail in the written description of the specification as originally filed. Regardless, “memory circuitry,” is best described in para. [0053] as follows:
“[0053] In the discussion below, certain items and/or information is sometimes described as being included, stored, and/or recorded in memory (and/or memory circuitry) as a shorthand for specifying that data representative of those items and/or information is included, stored, and/or recorded in memory. In the example of FIG. 2, the memory circuitry 206 includes (and/or stores) models 250 of different welding-type tools 108. In some examples, the tool models 250 may be rigid body models. While not shown in the example of FIG. 2, in some examples, the memory circuitry 206 may also include (and/or store) machine readable instructions comprising counter and/or clock programs. In some examples, the memory circuitry 206 may also include (and/or store) one or more of the thresholds discussed herein.” As such, the Applicant’s claimed “memory circuitry,” is reasonably interpreted as some form of memory which is reasonably interpreted to be a generic, well-known, and conventional data computing element.
Furthermore, the Applicant’s claimed “a sensor system,” is best described in para. [0018] as follows:
“[0018] In some examples, the first time period and the second time period comprise non-overlapping time periods. In some examples, the method further comprises providing feedback, via a user interface, based on the welding technique parameter value, the welding technique parameter value comprising a work angle value or a travel angle value of the welding-type tool. In some examples, the sensor system comprises a camera, an optical sensor, a motion sensor, a depth sensor, an RF sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, a magnetic sensor, an acoustic sensor, or an accelerometer.” As such, the Applicant’s written description of the claimed “a sensor system,” merely provides a laundry list of input devices which are reasonably interpreted to be generic, well-known, and conventional data computing elements.
Finally, the Applicant’s claimed “a welding-type tool,” is best described in para. [0026] as follows: “[0026] While shown as a welding torch or gun configured for gas metal arc welding (GMAW) in the example of FIG. 1, in some examples, the welding-type tool 108 may instead be a different kind of welding-type tool 108. For example, the welding-type tool 108 may be an electrode holder (i.e., stinger) configured for shielded metal arc welding (SMAW), a torch and/or filler rod configured for gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW), a welding gun configured for flux-cored arc welding (FCAW), and/or a plasma cutter. While shown as a live welding-type tool 108 in the example of FIG. 1, in some examples, the welding-type tool 108 may be a mock welding-type tool, and/or be configured for mock (as opposed to live) welding-type operations, such as for (e.g., virtual/augmented reality) weld training.” As such, the Applicant’s written description of the claimed “a welding-type tool,” merely provides a laundry list of any type of welding tool, which are reasonably interpreted to be ubiquitous, standard off-the-shelf equipment that is commercially available today.
Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment that is (1) generic, routine, conventional, and/or commercially available; and (2) does not provide anything significantly more. Thus, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1, 8 or 15. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 8 recite the limitation “processing circuitry.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 1 and 8, respectively. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the processing circuitry”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1 and 8. Therefore, claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-7 and 9-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1 or 8.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the welding-type tool.” The limitation is not originally introduced in claim 8. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 9-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 contain allowable subject matter. The closest prior art of record is U.S. PG Pub. 2023/0324178 to Becker. However, Per MPEP §2120, 35 U.S.C. §102 (b)(1)(A) EXCEPTIONS, provides the following:
(1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION. A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if—
(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
Here, Becker is the inventor of the instant application and the prior art reference which has an effective filing date less than a year before the instant application. Specifically, the Becker prior art reference application was filed on February 7, 2023, which is less than one year from the Applicant’s instant application effective filing date of August 30, 2023, thus preventing the Becker prior art reference to be used as prior art. Therefore, claims 1-20 are allowable subject matter, if no other statutory rejections remain. In the present case, claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 and claims 1-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715