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 . Claims 1-20 filed on 1/23/2024 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 1/23/2024 have been reviewed and are considered acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 1/23/2024 has been reviewed and is considered acceptable.
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 towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites, “(ii) navigate the user to: a) a first screen if the user chooses to activate the free form mode; and b) a second screen if the user chooses to activate the path mode;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes limitations of navigating a user to a particular screen based on a choice made by the user which is an action that can reasonably be performed in the human mind/with pen and paper and thus falls within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 further recites, “(iii) automatically switch between the free form mode and the path mode.”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds limitations of adjusting values two swap between two operable modes without providing a positive limitation of operating the system in the adjusted mode and thus just merely applies the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 1 includes the additional limitations of, “(a) providing a tele-manufacturing system that includes manufacturing equipment and at least one sensor positioned in a manufacturing environment, at least one manual controller that receives motion input from a user of the manual controller, and at least one processor with control software that mathematically transforms the motion input into corresponding motion commands that are sent to the manufacturing equipment;”, “(b) connecting the at least one processor to the manufacturing equipment and the at least one manual controller;”, “(c) configuring the at least one processor to: (i) display a plurality of action choices to the user on a main screen user interface, wherein the plurality of action choices comprises:”, and “a) activating a free form mode, wherein the free form mode enables the user to move the manufacturing equipment at will; and b) activating a path mode, wherein the path mode directs the manufacturing equipment to perform manufacturing commands;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, provides a plurality of limitations which describe physical components of the system and how they are interconnected and further discloses a display system and a plurality of actions that are presented to a user and their corresponding functions, which just generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Finally, the limitations of, “a manual controller”, “a processor”, and “a user interface”, as generally recited represent merely generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering user input data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is thus rejected using the same rationale as provided above.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-16, and 18-20 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 8, 11, and 19, each include further limitations of a user making selections, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, include further limitations that can reasonably be performed using the human mind/with pen and paper and thus fall within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 2, 4, 11, 15, and 19, each include limitations of, display of data, enabling various modes, and directing user’s to various screens, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just merely apply the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, claims 4 and 16, include limitations of receiving manufacturing data, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Finally, claims 3, 5, 7, 9-10, 12-13, 18, and 20, each include limitations of describing where a user is directed based upon selections, display of countdown timers, types of action choices, and details that the equipment is welding equipment, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering manufacturing data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
***Examiner’s Note: the office would like to mention that claims 6 and 17 each include limitations that if incorporated into independent form in their entirety, and sufficiently incorporated into the existing limitation, could overcome the current rejection. In particular, the act of activating/deactivating equipment in response to the selected modes demonstrates operation of the equipment based on the desired operating mode, which would represent significantly more than the abstract idea.***
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-6, 9-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albrecht et al. (US PGPUB 2110290765) in view of Niedereder et al. (US PGPUB 20040232128).
Regarding Claims 1 and 14; Albrecht teaches; A method for switching between operational modes in a tele-manufacturing system, comprising: (Albrecht; at least paragraph [0014]; disclose a welding system and method for swapping and operating the welding equipment between a plurality of modes)
(a) providing a tele-manufacturing system that includes manufacturing equipment and at least one sensor positioned in a manufacturing environment, (Albrecht; at least paragraph [0015]; disclose various sensors (i.e. GPS, infrared radiation, etc.) positioned in the manufacturing environment)
at least one manual controller that receives motion input from a user of the manual controller, and at least one processor with control software that mathematically transforms the motion input into corresponding motion commands that are sent to the manufacturing equipment; (Albrecht; at least paragraphs [0005] and [0014]; disclose a robotic welding device (i.e. manufacturing equipment) that receives control instructions from control circuitry which includes manual inputs from an operator)
(b) connecting the at least one processor to the manufacturing equipment and the at least one manual controller; and (Albrecht; at least Fig. 1; discloses a disclosure showing the connection of the manufacturing equipment to the controller and processor)
(c) configuring the at least one processor to: (i) display a plurality of action choices to the user on a main screen user interface, wherein the plurality of action choices comprises: (Albrecht; at least Fig. 4; paragraphs [0032]-[0034]; disclose wherein the system includes a user interface which allows a user to select from a manual mode or and automatic mode)
a) activating a free form mode, wherein the free form mode enables the user to move the manufacturing equipment at will; and (Albrecht; at least paragraphs [0032]-[0034]; disclose a manual mode (i.e. free form mode) which allows the user to take control and operate the welding equipment)
b) activating a path mode, wherein the path mode directs the manufacturing equipment to perform manufacturing commands; (Albrecht; at least paragraphs [0032]-[0034]; disclose wherein if an auto mode is selected (i.e. path mode) the robotic welding robot is operated according to a set welding procedure automatically)
(iii) automatically switch between the free form mode and the path mode. (Albrecht; at least paragraphs [0032]-[0034]; disclose wherein the system automatically switched between the chosen modes).
Albrecht appears to be silent on; (ii) navigate the user to: a) a first screen if the user chooses to activate the free form mode; and
b) a second screen if the user chooses to activate the path mode; and
However, Niedereder teaches; (ii) navigate the user to: a) a first screen if the user chooses to activate the free form mode; and (Niedereder; at least Figs. 2-3; paragraphs [0061]-[0064]; disclose a welding operation user interface system and method that allows a user to choose from a list of modes (i.e. manual mode) which then takes them to a subsequent, unique second screen)
b) a second screen if the user chooses to activate the path mode; and (Niedereder; at least Figs. 2-3; paragraphs [0061]-[0064]; disclose wherein each mode selection from the main screen takes a user to a subsequent (i.e. second, third, etc.) unique screen enabling options for the user based on the chosen mode).
Albrecht and Niedereder are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area of, welding mode selection and control systems.
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of navigating an operator to different screens based on mode selections as taught by Niedereder with the disclosed invention of a manual/auto mode selection welding system as taught by Albrecht in order to make a more user-friendly experience for navigating multiple mode selections with welding equipment as taught by Niedereder (paragraph [0062]).
Claim 14 includes the additional limitations taught by the combination of Albrecht and Niedereder in, c) changing the at least one manual controller; (Albrecht; at least paragraphs [0032]-[0034])
c) a third screen if the user chooses to change the at least one manual controller; (Niedereder; at least Figs. 2-3; paragraphs [0061]-[0064]).
Regarding Claims 2 and 15; the combination of Albrecht and Niedereder teach; The method of claim 1, wherein within the first screen, the processor is configured to: (a) enable the free form mode upon the user’s command; (Albrecht; at least paragraphs [0032]-[0034])
(b) display real-time video data of the free form mode to the user; and (Niedereder; at least paragraph [0060])
(c) direct the user to the second screen if the user chooses to activate the path mode. (Niedereder; at least Figs. 2-3; paragraphs [0061]-[0064]).
Regarding Claim 3; the combination of Albrecht and Niedereder teach; The method of claim 2, wherein the processor directs the user back to the main screen user interface if the user does not enable the free form mode. (Niedereder; at least paragraph [0020]).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14; the combination of Albrecht and Niedereder teach; The method of claim 1, wherein within the second screen, the processor is configured to: (a) receive the manufacturing commands and manufacturing parameter data from the user; and (Albrecht; at least paragraphs [0032]-[0034]).
(b) direct the user to a live manufacturing screen if the user is ready for the manufacturing equipment to perform the manufacturing commands. (Niedereder; at least paragraph [0020]).
Regarding Claim 5; the combination of Albrecht and Niedereder teach; The method of claim 4, wherein the processor directs the user back to the main screen user interface if the user is not ready for the manufacturing equipment to perform the manufacturing commands. (Niedereder; at least paragraph [0020]).
Regarding Claims 6 and 17; the combination of Albrecht and Niedereder teach; The method of claim 4, wherein within the live manufacturing screen, the processor is configured to: (a) display real-time video data of the path mode to the user; (Niedereder; at least paragraph [0060])
(b) activate the manufacturing equipment in the manufacturing environment; and (c) deactivate the manufacturing equipment when a manufacturing end-point is reached. (Albrecht; at least paragraphs [0032]-[0035]).
Regarding Claim 9; the combination of Albrecht and Niedereder teach; The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of action choices further comprises changing the at least one manual controller. (Albrecht; at least paragraphs [0032]-[0034]).
Regarding Claim 10; the combination of Albrecht and Niedereder teach; The method of claim 9, wherein the processor is further configured to navigate the user to a third screen if the user chooses to change the at least one manual controller. (Niedereder; at least Figs. 2-3; paragraphs [0061]-[0064]).
Regarding Claims 11 and 19; the combination of Albrecht and Niedereder teach; The method of claim 10, wherein within the third screen, the processor is configured to: (a) display all available manual controller options to the user; (b) receive user selection of a new manual controller from the available manual controller options; (c) connect the new manual controller to the processor; and (d) direct the user back to the main screen user interface once the new manual controller is connected. (Niedereder; at least Figs. 2-3; paragraphs [0020] and [0061]-[0064]).
Regarding Claim 12; the combination of Albrecht and Niedereder teach; The method of claim 11, wherein the processor directs the user back to the main screen user interface if the user chooses not to change the selected manual controller. (Niedereder; at least paragraph [0020]).
Regarding Claims 13 and 20; the combination of Albrecht and Niedereder teach; The method of claim 1, wherein the manufacturing equipment includes welding equipment. (Albrecht; at least Fig. 1; paragraph [0004]).
Claims 7-8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albrecht et al. (US PGPUB 2110290765) in view of Niedereder et al. (US PGPUB 20040232128) in further view of Webb et al. (US PGPUB 20050115433).
Regarding Claims 7 and 18; the combination of Albrecht and Niedereder appear silent on; The method of claim 6, wherein the processor displays a countdown to the user before activating the manufacturing equipment in the manufacturing environment.
However, Webb teaches; The method of claim 6, wherein the processor displays a countdown to the user before activating the manufacturing equipment in the manufacturing environment. (Webb; at least paragraph [0011]; disclose a system and method which includes a system for activating a device (i.e. welding equipment as taught by Albrecht and Niedereder) wherein the system includes providing a display of a countdown prior to activation of the device).
Albrecht, Niedereder, and Webb are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area of, device monitoring and control systems.
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of using a countdown timer prior to activation of a device as taught by Webb with the disclosed invention of a manual/auto mode selection welding system as taught by Albrecht and Niedereder in order to provide failsafe control system as taught by Webb (paragraph [0011]).
Regarding Claim 8; the combination of Albrecht, Niedereder, and Webb teach; The method of claim 7, wherein the user can selectively abort the countdown and prevent the processor from activating the manufacturing equipment. (Webb; at least paragraph [0011]-[0013]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sammons et al. (US PGPUB 20140061169): disclose a configurable user interface for a welding system.
Becker (US PGPUB 20160125764): disclose a system and method for capturing and recording a plurality of welding procedures wherein the system is further capable of replying or providing live feeds of the welding operations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights