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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on June 12, 2026 for the patent application 18/239,953 originally filed on August 30, 2023. Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-17 and 19 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending. The first office action of January 16, 2026 is fully incorporated by reference into this Final Office Action.
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; and
providing feedback…based on the welding technique parameter value.”
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; and
providing feedback…based on the welding technique parameter value.”
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,” “a welding-type tool,” and “a user interface,” 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,” “a welding-type tool,” and “a user interface,” 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.
Also, 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.
Finally, the Applicant’s claimed “a user interface,” is best described in para. [0027] as follows:
“[0027] In the example of FIG. 1, the welding-type tool 108 is shown being held by an operator 110 wearing a welding helmet 112 near the training stand 102. In some examples, the welding helmet 112 may include a display screen and/or one or more other user interface (UI) devices (e.g., knobs, buttons, levers, switches, touch screens, microphones, speakers, haptic devices, lights, eye trackers, etc.). In some examples, the welding helmet 112 may also include one or more of the sensors 104.”
As such, the Applicant’s written description of the claimed “a user interface,” merely provides a laundry list of any type of interface, which is 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 8-14 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.
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.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on June 12, 2026 related to claims 1-20 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
The Claim Objections
The Applicant respectfully argues “Applicant has amended claims 1 and 8 to address this objection. As amended claims 1-14 are unobjectionable. Applicant therefore requests withdrawal of the objections, and reconsideration of the claims.”
The Examiner respectfully agrees. As such, the argument is persuasive. Therefore, the objection to claims 1-14 are withdrawn.
The Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Applicant respectfully argues “First, the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter because the claims do not recite an abstract idea. To the extent the Office Action interprets the preamble of Applicant's claims as reciting an abstract idea, Applicant has amended the preamble to address this interpretation.
Applicant further notes that the body of the claims do not recite any of the proscribed certain methods of organizing human activity. Additionally, the claims could not be practically performed entirely in the human mind, at least because of the need for sensor data and a welding-type tool to perform the claimed invention.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, amending the preamble alone does not cure the claim of the rejection. Second, the abstract idea is related to following rules or instructions, which are categorized as “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Also, MPEP §2106 under “II. Certain Methods Of organizing Human Activity,” certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. As applied in this case, a person interacting with a computer for “providing feedback” related to “a welding technique,” reasonably constitutes identifying the Applicant’s claims as an abstract idea in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity.” As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Second, even if the claims did recite an abstract idea (which they do not), the claims are still patent eligible at least because any alleged abstract idea is implemented and/or integrated in a limited practical application.
For example, the integration of the welding-type tool in the claims grounds the claims in a practical application. While the Office Action seems to dismiss the welding-type tool as a conventional data gathering computer element, Applicant notes that welding-type tools are neither conventionally used as computer elements nor conventionally used as data gathering elements.
Though the Office Action appears to dismiss the portions of the claims involving the welding-type tool as being pre or post solution activity, Applicant notes that the welding-type tool is involved in every paragraph of claim 1 except for the very beginning and very end, which is more or less the opposite of pre or post solution activity.
Applicant thus submits that even if the claims did recite an abstract idea (which they do not), the claims are still patent eligible at least because any alleged abstract idea is implemented and/or integrated in a limited practical application, as evidenced at least by the integration of the welding-type tool discussed above.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Applicant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include:
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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first five bulleted factors and, as described above in the rejection, the Applicant’s claims are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, the Applicant’s broadly claimed “a welding-type tool” provides no advancement in tooling related to welding. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Third, even if the claims did recite an abstract idea (which they do not), and the abstract idea was not integrated into practical application (which it is), the claims would still be patent eligible at least because the claims recite something more than the alleged abstract idea.
In particular, Applicant submits that the claims set forth an improvement to a technical field and/or unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, as evidenced by the fact that the claims have been found to be novel and non-obvious over the closest available prior art (see Allowable Subject Matter section below).
While the Office Action alleges that the claimed "processing circuitry,' 'memory circuitry,' 'a sensor system,' and 'a welding-type tool,' are well-known, and conventional elements" (Office Action at 5), Applicant notes that "[e]ven if one or more additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity when considered individually, the combination of additional elements may amount to an inventive concept." MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(3) (citations omitted).
In view of the above, Applicant submits that the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter. Applicant therefore requests withdrawal of the rejections, and reconsideration of the claims.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant has an abstract idea of “monitoring a welding technique,” and fails to provide any sufficient structure to demonstrate any improvement in a generic computer system (i.e. significantly more) than the abstract idea itself.
Second, the Applicant is misconstruing the proper analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The lack of prior art, clearing the claims of any 35 U.S.C. §§102 or 103 rejections, is not evidence of subject-matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101. As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are not withdrawn.
The Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The Applicant respectfully argues “Applicant has amended claims 1 and 8 to address these rejections. As amended claims 1-14 satisfy all aspects of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Applicant therefore requests withdrawal of the rejections, and reconsideration of the claims.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant has not amended to address the rejection of claim 8 with regard to “the welding-type tool” As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections of claims 8-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are not withdrawn.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. 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 Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:00. 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, 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights