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 .
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 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.
Title Objection
1. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
2. Claim 1-2 is 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.
3. Claim 1 is directed to “calculating a contraction amount of the steel plates at the electrodes from a welding force and an inter-electrode displacement amount after the end of application of the electrical current to the electrodes; and determining that the spot welding is poor when the contraction amount is equal to or below a discrimination threshold”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a general purpose processor. The additional elements “An inspection method for spot welding in which an electrical current is applied to electrodes that sandwich steel plates” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Dependent claim 1 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
3.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 1 is directed to a method for spot welding, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a process (Step 1: YES).
3.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites: “calculating a contraction amount of the steel plates at the electrodes from a welding force and an inter-electrode displacement amount after the end of application of the electrical current to the electrodes; and determining that the spot welding is poor when the contraction amount is equal to or below a discrimination threshold”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
3.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 1 does not claim a particular machine, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, it does not provide any particular context, thus, do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field of use. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies including but not limited to systems and a methods fir resistance welding control. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application. The claim is just linking said judicial-exception/abstract-idea to the technological field relative to systems and a methods fir resistance welding control).
3.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites the additional element(s) “An inspection method for spot welding in which an electrical current is applied to electrodes that sandwich steel plates”, which are/is simply routine and conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, electrodes and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see prior art made of record below and on the IDS). Therefore, the claim does not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
4. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “wherein expansion amounts of the steel plates are calculated at the electrodes from the welding force and time variation of the inter-electrode displacement amount from the start of the application of the electrical current to the electrodes to the end of the application of the electrical current to the electrodes, and the contraction amount is calculated from the difference between the maximum value and the minimum value of the expansion amounts”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
5. The prior art of record does not anticipate the limitations of the independent claims.
Furthermore, there is not any obvious motivation for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine some and/or all of the features of the prior art of record to achieve the features of the independent claim(s).
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please note that any strikethrough portion of the claim language below is not taught by corresponding prior art.
a) SAWANISHI (Pub. No.: US 2018/0281102, which was submitted via IDS) teaches inspection method for spot welding in which an electrical current is applied to electrodes that sandwich steel plates (Fig. 2, see resistance spot welding power source 1, the electrodes 7, and the metal sheets 8 to welded. Also see [0085] and [0091]), the method comprising:
determining that the spot welding is poor when (see [0096] and [0061]).
b) NOMURA (Pub. No.: US 2019/0275606) teaches inspection method for spot welding in which an electrical current is applied to electrodes that sandwich steel plates (Figs. 1-2, see the resistance spot welding, the electrodes 2 and 3, the current adjustment device 5 and the aluminum sheet materials W1-W2. Also see abstract, [0040] and [0046]), the method comprising:
calculating (Fig. 2, see electrode displacement measurement unit 200. Also see [0040], [0046] and [0061]); and
determining that the spot welding is poor when (see abstract).
c) KANAI (Pub. No.: US 2021/0331269) teaches inspection method for spot welding in which an electrical current is applied to electrodes that sandwich steel plates (Figs. 1-2, see the resistance spot welding, the electrodes 12 and 14, and the welding members 10. Also see abstract, [0020]-[0021] and [0032]), the method comprising:
calculating (Fig. 2, see S1-S8. Also see [0023])
determining that the spot welding is poor when (Fig. 2, see S8. Also see abstract and [0029]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO E. FORTICH whose telephone number is (571) 272-0944. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday from 8:30am to 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Huy Phan, can be reached on (571)272-7924. 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.
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858