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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant filed a Reply on 24 December 2025 that
amended claim 9 to provide a frame of reference for “internal” illuminator but did not amend claim 10 such that “external” continues to be considered a relative term and indefinite. As such, the 112(b) rejection has been overcome for claim 9 but not claim 10; moreover, new grounds of rejection have been applied to and are necessitated by the amendments to claims 9 and 10; and
amended independent claim 1 to include a subset of the options for the various “features of the subject item“, which were previously listed in now-cancelled claim 2 and the limitations of now-cancelled claim 3, but such amendment fails to distinguish over the applied art Meess;
amended independent claim 11 to include a subset of the options for the various “features of the subject item“, which were previously listed in now-cancelled claim 13, but such amendment fails to distinguish over the applied art Meess.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments solely consist of mere assertions that the applied art does not teach or suggest the amended limitations. No substantive reasoning, technical explanation, logic, rationale, or caselaw has been applied to support these assertions. Moreover, these assertions fail to address the evidence cited against claim 3 (now added to claim 1) thus further contributing to the unpersuasive nature of the Reply. It is suggested that explaining why and how the amendments distinguish over the applied art would be a more fruitful way to advance prosecution.
Still further, the laundry list of options for the various “features of the subject item“ added to independent claims 1 and 11 includes “a label”. Note that Applicant has chosen not to use the more limiting term in the specification of a “part label” but instead the broader term “label” which is commonly defined as “a slip (as of paper or cloth) inscribed and affixed to something for identification or description” Mirriam Webster and “a piece of paper of other material that gives information about the object it is attached to”, Cambridge English Dictionary. As such, Mees’ point markers are “labels” as broadly recited because they are affixed/attached to the object (subject item) by adhesively attaching them to the subject item wherein these adhesively applied point marker labels provide positional description information regarding the object as per [0069], [0076]-[0077], [0086], and Fig. 16B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Meess (US 20180130376 A1).
Claim 1
In regards to claim 1, Meese discloses an automated inspection system {see abstract, Figs. 1, 13, 14, 17 and cites below including an automated welding inspection system} comprising:
a camera configured to capture an image of a subject item
{Fig. 13, 17 including image/video capture device 470; Fig. 25 tracking system 526, capture image information step 550 [0072]-[0074] captures images of the object to be welded and the weld};
a processor in communication with the camera and programmed to recognize the subject item in the image
{system 400, including processor-based system 410 may include a coupon/workpiece recognition device that recognizes the subject item, [0112]-[0113]. See also spatial tracker 420 that may use Optitrack tracking tools for object tracking which may be incorporated into imaging hardware and software of logical processor based subsystem 410; Fig. 26, [0112]-[0114]}; and
wherein the processor is configured to determine, from the image, a presence, location, or characteristic of a feature of the subject item.
{various features of the subject item (completed weld 408D) such as color, shape, size, intensity are determined and compared against weld profiles which is a data set regarding a design configuration (e.g. ideal weld object, image database that includes stored models of known welding coupons and workpieces) as per [0069], [0108]-[0113] including identifying the type of the weld path, the length and orientation of the weld path to determine defects (presence, location and characteristics)},
wherein the feature of the subject item is one of: a weld stud, a weld stud backing, a weld nut, a weld nut backing, a clinch nut, a spot weld, a bracket, a label, a bar code, a QR code, a date stamp, a clip, a split, or a baffle attachment
{Note that Applicant has chosen not to use the more limiting term in the specification of a “part label” but instead the broader term “label” which is commonly defined as “a slip (as of paper or cloth) inscribed and affixed to something for identification or description” Mirriam Webster and “a piece of paper of other material that gives information about the object it is attached to”, Cambridge English Dictionary. As such, Mees’ point markers are “labels” as broadly recited because they are affixed to the object (subject item) by adhesively attaching them to the subject item wherein these adhesively applied point marker labels provide positional description information regarding the object as per [0069], [0076]-[0077], [0086],and Fig. 16B},
wherein the processor is further configured to present an augmented reality display as an overlay onto a live image of the subject item {see [0073]-[0074], [0082]-[0083] including face-mounted display 440a that delivers live full motion video of the welding environment and overlays virtual objects in real time (augmented reality display) per [0103]-[0110], Figs. 18, 22-24}.
Claim 4
In regards to claim 4, Meese discloses wherein the augmented reality display includes a live video feed showing the subject item {see [0073]-[0074], [0082]-[0083] including face-mounted display 440a that delivers live full motion video of the welding environment and overlays virtual objects in real time (augmented reality display) per [0103]-[0110], Figs. 18, 22-24}.
Claim 5
In regards to claim 5, Meese discloses wherein the augmented reality display includes the overlay presented onto a transparent layer, wherein the subject item is visible to a user through the transparent layer, with the overlay aligned with features of the subject item {see [0073]-[0074], [0082]-[0083] including face-mounted display 440a that delivers live full motion video of the welding environment and overlays aligned virtual objects in real time (augmented reality display) per [0103]-[0110], Figs. 18, 22-24, claim 10, [0063], [0086] wherein the overlay is a transparent layer as claimed}.
Claim 7
In regards to claim 7, Meese discloses
a portable computing device including the camera and a display screen
{Fig. 14 illustrates a portable embodiment including portable stand 520 with support column holding the tracking system including camera, display 430A and/or face mounted display device 440A in the welding helmet 440, [0072]-[0074]}; and
wherein the automated inspection system is configured to present an augmented reality image including one or more overlays onto a live image of the subject item
{see [0073]-[0074], [0082]-[0083] including face-mounted display 440a that delivers live full motion video of the welding environment and overlays aligned virtual objects in real time (augmented reality display) per [0103]-[0110], Figs. 18, 22-24
Claim 8
In regards to claim 8, Meese discloses wherein the overlays include: no confirmation icons, one or more confirmation icons indicating a feature being recognized as being present and non-defective, or an error icon indicating a missing or defective feature
{see Figs. 22 and 24 (copied below) including generating and overlaying virtual objects onto the real-world video captures by the helmet-mounted camera 470, [0104]-[0105], [0108]-][0111] including displaying virtual objects 900 that provides feedback to the user to aid in performing the welding operation such as quality of the weld. Fig. 24 illustrates an example that “reports the results of the determination regarding defective features” by changing the color, intensity, etc. of the virtual weld object 952 to indicate that the welding profile is too thin, includes a potential crack, has too much weld filler, the user has stopped short of completing the full weld length (missing weld, defective weld.}
PNG
media_image1.png
294
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Independent Claim 11
In regards to claim 11, Meese discloses a method for an automated inspection system, comprising:
tracking a subject item in 3-dimensional space using a feed from a camera viewing the subject item
{Fig. 13, 17 including image/video capture device 470; Fig. 25 tracking system 526, capture image information step 550, and process and correlate tracked data, image data step 530, 540 which tracks a subject item in 3-D space, [0072]-[0074], [0076]-[0082] including spatial tracker 420 that may use Optitrack tracking tools for object tracking which may be incorporated into imaging hardware and software of logical processor based subsystem 410; Fig. 26, [0112]-[0114]};
determining, by the automated inspection system, at least one of a presence, location, or a characteristic of one or more features of the subject item; comparing the at least one of the presence, location, or the characteristic of the one or more features of the subject item with a data set regarding a design configuration to determine if the one or more features are missing or defective
{various features of the subject item (completed weld 408D) such as color, shape, size, intensity are determined and compared against weld profiles which is a data set regarding a design configuration (e.g. ideal weld object, image database that includes stored models of known welding coupons and workpieces) as per [0069], [0108]-[0113] including identifying the type of the weld path, the length and orientation of the weld path to determine defects}; and
reporting the results of the determination regarding each of the one or more features being missing or defective
{see Figs. 22 and 24 (copied below) including generating and overlaying virtual objects onto the real-world video captures by the helmet-mounted camera 470, [0104]-[0105], [0108]-][0111] including displaying virtual objects 900 that provides feedback to the user to aid in performing the welding operation such as quality of the weld. Fig. 24 illustrates an example that “reports the results of the determination regarding defective features” by changing the color, intensity, etc. of the virtual weld object 952 to indicate that the welding profile is too thin, includes a potential crack, has too much weld filler, the user has stopped short of completing the full weld length (missing weld, defective weld
PNG
media_image1.png
294
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the feature of the subject item is one of: a weld stud, a weld stud backing, a weld nut, a weld nut backing, a clinch nut, a spot weld, a bracket, a label, a bar code, a QR code, a date stamp, a clip, a split, or a baffle attachment
{Note that Applicant has chosen not to use the more limiting term in the specification of a “part label” but instead the broader term “label” which is commonly defined as “a slip (as of paper or cloth) inscribed and affixed to something for identification or description” Mirriam Webster and “a piece of paper of other material that gives information about the object it is attached to”, Cambridge English Dictionary. As such, Mees’ point markers are “labels” as broadly recited because they are affixed to the object (subject item) by adhesively attaching them to the subject item wherein these adhesively applied point marker labels provide positional description information regarding the object as per [0069], [0076]-[0077], [0086],and Fig. 16B}.
Claims 14, 15, 18 and 19
The rejection of system claims 4, 5, 3, and 5 above applies mutatis mutandis to the corresponding limitations of method claims 14, 15, 18 and 19 respectively while noting that the rejection above cites to both device and method disclosures.
Claim 12
In regards to claim 12, Meese discloses detecting a part identification of the subject item {see [0068] identifying weld type, [0087], [0113] including spatial tracker 520 and/or logic of system 510 which automatically identifies the objects in the welding environment and the weld path (type, orientation, length, etc.).
Claim 20
In regards to claim 20, Meese discloses wherein the overlay includes: no confirmation icons, one or more confirmation icons indicating a feature being recognized as being present and non-defective, or an error icon indicating a missing or defective feature {see Figs. 22 and 24 (copied below) including generating and overlaying virtual objects (icons) onto the real-world video captures by the helmet-mounted camera 470, [0104]-[0105], [0108]-][0111] including displaying virtual objects 900 that provides feedback to the user to aid in performing the welding operation such as quality of the weld. Fig. 24 illustrates exemplary icons indicating defective features by changing the color, intensity, etc. of the virtual weld object 952 to indicate that the welding profile is too thin, includes a potential crack, has too much weld filler, the user has stopped short of completing the full weld length (missing weld, defective weld)}
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 6 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meese and Becker (WO 2015/105580).
Claims 6 and 17
In regards to claims 6 and 17, Meese is not relied upon to disclose wherein the processor is configured to generate an inspection report based on determining the presence, location, or characteristic of the feature of the subject item.
Becker is analogous art from the same field of automated inspection. See Fig. 23, [0118] including integrated welding inspection environment with AR displays.
Becker also teaches wherein the processor is configured to generate an inspection report based on determining the presence, location, or characteristic of the feature of the subject item {Fig. 16, [0103]-[0104] including display-menu driven selection of various elements such as welding data reports and generating an inspection report including discontinuity analysis, Fig. 21 [0115] based on the presence, location, or characteristic of the feature of the weld}.
It 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 to have modified Meese which already determines the presence, absence and location and characteristics of the weld to generate augmented reality display overlays including displaying weld defect presence, location and quality such that this information is presented in form of a report wherein the processor is configured to generate an inspection report based on determining the presence, location, or characteristic of the feature of the subject item as taught by Becker because a summary report such as that shown in Fig. 21 of Becker permits further correlation and determination of the source of the weld quality defects thus providing the welding trainee with valuable feedback as motivated by Becker in [0115], because there is a reasonable expectation of success, and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 16
In regards to claims 16, Meese discloses presenting a menu with a list of functions,
{See the face mounted display which has a menu for configuration and operation of the system as per [0074], [0087], [0091]
Becker also teaches presenting a menu with a list of functions, the functions including showing an inspection part list, starting a new inspection, continuing an existing inspection, or reviewing inspection reports
{Fig. 16, [0103]-[0104] including display-menu driven selection of various elements such as welding data reports and generating and showing/reviewing an inspection report including discontinuity analysis, Fig. 21 [0115] based on the presence, location, or characteristic of the feature of the weld}.
It 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 to have modified Meese which already employs a menu for configuration and operation of the system such that Becker’s menu functionality is used to present a menu with a list of functions, the functions including showing an inspection part list, starting a new inspection, continuing an existing inspection, or reviewing inspection reports as taught by Becker because a summary report such as that shown in Fig. 21 of Becker permits further correlation and determination of the source of the weld quality defects thus providing the welding trainee with valuable feedback as motivated by Becker in [0115], because there is a reasonable expectation of success, and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meese and Nickel (US 20190301845 A1).
Claims 9 and 10
In regards to claim 8, Meese discloses (claim 9) wherein the portable computing device further comprises an
Nickel is analogous art from the same field of automated inspection. See abstract, Figs. 10, 14A, 14B, 15, 17, 18 and their corresponding descriptions.
Nickel is one of many references demonstrating the conventional nature of locating a light source in a portable computing device for automated inspection including the broadly recited light source (illuminator). See light (laser 534) which illuminates the subject item and is an internal illuminator disposed within the portable computing device as illustrated in Figs. 4D-7C (copied above). Furthermore, Nickel’s light is also “an external illuminator removably attached to the portable computing device” as illustrated in the cited figures and [0072]-[0086]. See also [0056]-[0060] also teaching the equivalence of integrated as well as detachable components.
PNG
media_image2.png
860
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It 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 to have modified Meese which already discloses an illuminator to illuminate the subject item such that this illuminator is an internal illuminator disposed within the portable computing device and/or an external illuminator removably attached to the portable computing device as taught by Nickel because Nickel teaches that these conventional light locations are equivalents, because there is a reasonable expectation of success, and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of illumination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Antonelli (Dario Antonelli, Sergey Astanin, Enhancing the Quality of Manual Spot Welding through Augmented Reality Assisted Guidance, Procedia CIRP, Volume 33, 2015, Pages 556-561, ISSN 2212-8271,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.06.076) discloses an AR system for welding defect detection that displays various icons/symbols indicating welding spot quality as per Table 1, fig .4 copied below.
PNG
media_image3.png
386
558
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
416
524
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Zhou (Jianlong Zhou, Ivan Lee, Bruce Thomas, Roland Menassa, Anthony Farrant, and Andrew Sansome. 2011. Applying spatial augmented reality to facilitate in-situ support for automotive spot welding inspection. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Virtual Reality Continuum and Its Applications in Industry (VRCAI '11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1145/2087756.2087784) discloses an AR system for spot welding that projects overlays for locating welding locations as per Fig. 6 copied below.
PNG
media_image5.png
294
490
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Cammarata whose telephone number is (571)272-0113. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm EST.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at 571-272-7778. 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.
/MICHAEL ROBERT CAMMARATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights