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 .
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 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a judicial exception; i.e., an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons detailed below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per claim 1, first, one must consider whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 is directed to a method. Thus, claim 1 falls within a statutory category (Step 1).
Second, an evaluation is made as to whether the claim recites a judicial exception (Step 2A). Under the first prong, an evaluation is made whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, a law of mature, or a natural phenomenon. To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 1 recites mental processes (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III) in the following steps:
“determining … a first joint characteristic vector …”;
“determining … a second joint characteristic vector …”;
“tracking … the tool orientation … using third sensor data …”; and
“identifying … a welding technique parameter value …”
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2). The additional recited elements of “processing circuitry,” “sensor system,” “welding-type tool” add no more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. There is no particular machine integration beyond field-of-use. Although “sensor system” and “welding-type tool” are mentioned, the claim does not require the sensor system be integrated with or attached to the tool in any specific configuration, nor does it constrain the processing to a particular machine that is integral to the performance of the method. This is a generic environment/field-of-use limitation (monitoring in a welding context) coupled with data collection and analysis.
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea (mathematical concepts/mental processes) into a practical application. The additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, generic computer/sensor implementation, and field-of-use
Third, an evaluation is made whether additional elements are significantly more (Step 2B). The recited “processing circuitry” is generic computer hardware performing routine data processing functions. The “sensor system” is recited at a high level of generality (no specific hardware configuration, algorithmic detail, or unconventional arrangement). Tracking tool orientation via sensor data and calculating vectors/parameter values are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the sensing/industrial monitoring arts.
For the same reasons detailed above, claims 2-4, 6-7 recite additional mental processes and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As claims 8-11, 13-14, the method claims are rejected by the same rationale as stated above.
As per claims 15-18, 20, the system claims fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C 101 and follow the same rationale as above.
Suggestions
In order to overcome the 101 rejection, Examiner suggests the following claim drafting strategy:
Recite a specific sensor architecture and attachment geometry.
Integrate the computed parameter into a control/feedback mechanism.
Recite a particular machine and transformation to move beyond mere data manipulation.
Replace results-oriented language with concrete steps and constraints: define the calibration steps with specific tool orientations relative to gravity and workpiece planes, angular tolerances, and timing windows, and require the slope determination be computed from those constrained vectors.
Limit the scope to the specific welding context and architecture disclosure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 13, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN E BREENE whose telephone number is (571)272-4107. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at (571)272-4483. 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.
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights