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 are pending.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitation “welding position calculation part”, “comparison and verification part”, “compensation part” and “calibration part” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. FIG. 2 shows those terms and specification paragraph 0056-0060 disclose those terms without any indication that it’s a hardware. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim limitation “welding position calculation part”, “comparison and verification part”, “compensation part” and “calibration part” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because FIG. 2 shows those terms and specification paragraph 0056-0060 disclose those terms without any indication that it’s a hardware. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1, the claim recites a welding quality inspection apparatus comprising a combination of “calculate…”, “calculate……..”, “determining…”, “generating…” and “calibration…” is a device, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “a welding position calculation part configured to calculate a first virtual welding position based on an actual welding position of a robot welding gun”; “comparison and verification part configured to: calculate a first error by comparing the first virtual welding position and a reference welding position of a drawing”, “determine that inspection is necessary when a magnitude of the first error is within a reference range” and “compensate the second error when the second error is a predetermined reference value or more”. These limitations - recite a mathematical and mental process – that is a concept which may be performed in the human mind, such as an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).) These claims may also be a recitation of a mathematical concept, i.e. a mathematical calculation. Notwithstanding the recitation of generic computer components, the Courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. As a broad term the step of calibation could be simple physics equations that may be evaluated in order to confirm or disconfirm the mental judgment of “compensation” and can be evaluated using pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “calibration part configured to, when a ratio of determining that inspection is necessary, by the comparison and verification part, is a preset criterion or more, generate a second virtual welding position based on the first virtual welding position by repeating calibration until the ratio of determining that inspection is necessary becomes less than the preset criterion; and a compensation part configured to extract a second error between the second virtual welding position and the reference welding position when the calibration is finished.”
Calibration is done based on determination and comparison of the data in order to determine reference value are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The limitation determines inspection, repeating calibration and compensation of error value at a high level of generality. Therefore, it is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed at an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “calibration and compensation” no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Receiving data by the processor as discuss above, represent mere data gathering and is insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, both of these elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional (see USPGPUB 20200376605 A1) and see 2106.05.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 12 similar limitations also rejected by same rational. Dependent claims did not recite any additional elements that would overcome the rejections. Therefore, dependent claims are also rejected.
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and listed on the attached PTO Form 892 but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seo USPGPUB 20200376605 A1 a welding quality inspection apparatus for inspecting the welding quality of a plurality of welding parts formed on the material through the upper electrode and the lower electrode of the welding gun includes a position detection unit for detecting a position of the upper electrode, a control unit generating a position table based on a signal detected by the position detection unit during a total welding time of welding the plurality of welding parts of the material, generating first position data for a first welding time and second position data for a second welding time of a spot welding time of each of the welding parts based on the position table, checking whether the welding parts are defective by using the first position data, the second position data, and reference data, and generating result data based on whether the welding parts are detective, and an output unit for outputting the result data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIAUL KARIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3279. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00-4:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571 272 4105. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ZIAUL KARIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights