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.
Response to Amendment
1. This office action is in response to the amendments/arguments submitted by the Applicant(s) on 04/30/2026.
Response to Arguments
I. Status of the Claims
2. Claims 1-2 are still pending.
3. Applicant's amendments to claims are accepted because do not introduce new matter pursuant to MPEP 2163.
4. The drawings filed on 06/27/2024 have been accepted.
II. Objections
5. Applicant's arguments with respect to the objections have been fully considered and found persuasive. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
II. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101
6. Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and found not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been maintained.
7. Page 5-6, the Applicant(s) argues that “Specifically, Applicant has amended claim I to clarify that the method obtains the amount of contraction of the nugget formed between a pair of overlapped steel plates. Claim 1 defines an expansion period in which the nugget expands during application of the electrical signal, and a contraction period in which the nugget contracts after applying the electrical signal. Claim 1 recites that nugget expansion amounts in the expansion and contraction periods are obtained, and the amount of contraction of the nugget is determined from comparing the maximum and minimum values of the expansion amounts during the contraction period. Finally, the method recites that the spot-welding is determined to be poor if the amount of contraction of the nugget is below a certain threshold amount ... Applicant respectfully submits that at least claim 1, as amended, is not directed to mathematical-calculations/mental steps. Claim 1, as amended, recites several physical steps such as forming a nugget between the pair of steel plates, applying a pair of electrodes with an electric current, and applying pressure to the pair of steel plates. These are clearly not steps that can be performed in a human mind or are mathematical-calculations. ...”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the additional limitations of the claims relative to are simply well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, therefore, do not amount to significantly more and fall in the concept of extra-solution activities and a field of use pursuant to the 2106.05(b) III. WHETHER ITS INVOLVEMENT IS EXTRA-SOLUTION ACTIVITY OR A FIELD-OF-USE; 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity; and 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
7.1. Argument in support to response to number 7 above.
2106.05(b) Particular Machine, … III. WHETHER ITS INVOLVEMENT IS EXTRA-SOLUTION ACTIVITY OR A FIELD-OF-USE, Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more ... Examiners may find it helpful to evaluate other considerations such as the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and the field of use and technological environment consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)), when making a determination of whether an element (or combination of elements) is a particular machine …
When determining whether a machine recited in a claim provides significantly more, the following factors are relevant.
I. THE PARTICULARITY OR GENERALITY OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE MACHINE OR APPARATUS
The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines). One example of applying a judicial exception with a particular machine is Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 40 USPQ 199 (1939). In this case, a mathematical formula was employed to use standing wave phenomena in an antenna system. The claim recited the particular type of antenna and included details as to the shape of the antenna and the conductors, particularly the length and angle at which they were arranged. 306 U.S. at 95-96; 40 USPQ at 203. Another example is Eibel Process, in which gravity (a law of nature or natural phenomenon) was applied by a Fourdrinier machine (which was understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web. Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923).
2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high
level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility …
III. WHETHER ITS INVOLVEMENT IS EXTRA-SOLUTION ACTIVITY OR A FIELD-OF-USE, Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility ...
2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process ... An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent … As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional …
In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the court, the analysis and test to determine add to significantly more than the abstract-idea by whether the additional elements are claiming a specifically identified particular device with sufficient particular structure (i.e. dimensions, shape, length, angles of arrangements, etc.) and not the general and basic structure of any and all machines, and/or, whether said additional elements fall into the concept of insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception either pre-solution or post-solution activities, which includes that such additional elements to be recited at a high level of generality that are no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, or, if the additional elements.
With regards to the particularity of a machine, the instant application does not claim a particular machine, it simply claims a pair of electrodes that sandwich steel plates and a pair of electrodes with a high degree of generality that could not be considered a particular machine/devices. For example, see KANAI Pub. No.: US 2020/0290146 hereinafter mentioned as “Kanai”, Fig. 1, see the pair of plates 10. Also see [0016] and [0041]); see Taniguchi et al. Pub. No.: US 2018/0038402 hereinafter mentioned as “Taniguchi”, Fig. 1 and paragraph [0043]).
With regards to the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity that includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity, the instant application, the independent claims simply recites the additional claim elements/limitations “An inspection method for spot welding in which an electrical current is applied to a pair of electrodes that sandwich steel plates, the method comprising: forming a nugget between the pair of steel plates by applying the pair of electrodes with an electric current while applying pressure to the pair of steel plates ...” (hereinafter mentioned as the “Routine-Devices-Activities-Of-The-Industry”), which are insignificant extra-solution activities that fall into the category of well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known to the systems and a methods for inspecting spot welding industry.
The prior art supports that additional elements and even some of the abstract ideas are extra solution activities (Pre-solution and Post-solution) as follows:
Kanai discloses an inspection method for spot welding in which an electrical current is applied to a pair of electrodes that sandwich steel plates (abstract), the method comprising:
forming a nugget between the pair of steel plates (Fig. 1, see the pair of plates 10. Also see [0016] and [0041]) by applying the pair of electrodes (Fig. 1, see the electrodes 12 and 14. Also see [0016]) with an electric while applying pressure current (see [0016]) to the pair of steel plates (Fig. 1, see the pair of plates 10. Also see [0016] and [0041]);
obtaining expansion amounts of the nugget during an expansion period and a contraction period (see [0042] and [0062]),
wherein the expansion period is defined as a period in which the nugget expands during application of the electrical current (see [0042]), and
wherein the contraction period is defined as a period in which the nugget contracts after applying the electrical current (see [0042]);
determining that the spot welding is poor when the contraction amount of the nugget is equal to or below a discrimination threshold (see [0062]).
Furthermore, the claims at issue as a whole are simply directed to gathering and analyzing collected information about a signal with conventional techniques, which have similarities in a general way with the case of TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48 where the courts have indicated that “Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result” are not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology.
Therefore, the independent claim(s) simply recite the insignificant extra-solution activity related to inspection method for spot welding in which an electrical current is applied to electrodes, which is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity to the monitoring of spot welding that is performed using well well-understood and routine structure to said industry such as sensors, processors/microprocessors, data collection, etc., which do not amount to an inventive concept.
In light of the foregoing, the claims are not patent eligible because in summary the additional element or combination of elements as whole fall into the concept(s) of “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity” to the judicial-exception/Abstract-idea and “well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry”, which do not amount to an inventive concept.
8. Pages 6-7, the Applicant(s) argues that “Finally, Deputy Commissioner Kim's MEMORANDUM notes that "[a]n important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology or a technical field is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem in a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome." … Applicant respectfully submits that claim I covers a particular solution to a problem to spot welding in a particular way by particularly obtaining a contraction amount and determining if the contraction amount is below a discrimination threshold to achieve a desired outcome of determining whether the spot welding is poor. Claim 1 is in contrast to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. Finally, the MEMORANDUM states that "The examiner is reminded to consult the specification to determine whether the disclosed invention improves technology or a technical field, and evaluate the claim to ensure it reflects the disclosed improvement." Id. Applicant respectfully submits that the present claim I clearly recites the improvement in the spot-welding field described in the specification. Specifically, as described above and in the specification, with the claimed invention, poor spot welding can be detected despite large disturbances by obtaining a contraction amount by comparing maximum and minimum values of the expansion amounts of the formed nugget during the contraction period, and determining whether this contraction amount is less than a certain discrimination threshold. As is apparent, present claims 1-2 define eligibility subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Examiner is respectfully requested to reconsider and withdraw the rejection ofrecord.”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim(s) are not patent eligible pursuant to the MPEP 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field, and MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.
8.1. Argument in support to response to number 8 above.
2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field, In determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether the claim "purport(s) to improve the
functioning of the computer itself" or "any other technology or technical field." … Thus, an examiner
should evaluate whether a claim contains an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other
technology or technical field at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, as well as when considering whether the
claim has such self-evident eligibility that it qualifies for the streamlined analysis …
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01.
After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"). The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification). In making this determination, it is critical that examiners look at the claim "as a whole," in other words, the claim should be evaluated "as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps." When performing this evaluation, examiners should be "careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims" by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1100.
An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
During examination, the examiner should analyze the "improvements" consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement. Generally, examiners are not expected to make a qualitative judgement on the merits of the asserted improvement. If the examiner concludes the disclosed invention does not improve technology, the burden shifts to applicant to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology. Any such evidence submitted under 37 CFR 1.132 must establish what the specification would convey to one of ordinary skill in the art and cannot be used to supplement the specification. See, e.g. MPEP § 716.09 on 37 CFR 1.132 practice with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). For example, in response to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, an applicant could submit a declaration under § 1.132 providing testimony on how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the disclosed invention as improving technology and the underlying factual basis for that conclusion.
II. IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD
The courts have also found that improvements in technology beyond computer functionality may demonstrate patent eligibility. In McRO, the Federal Circuit held claimed methods of automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation using computer-implemented rules to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, because they were not directed to an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316, 120 USPQ2d at 1103. The basis for the McRO court's decision was that the claims were directed to an improvement in computer animation and thus did not recite a concept similar to previously identified abstract ideas. Id. The court relied on the specification's explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated. 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1101. The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process. 837 F.3d at 1314, 120 USPQ2d at 1102. The McRO court also noted that the claims at issue described a specific way (use of particular rules to set morph weights and transitions through phonemes) to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters, rather than merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, and thus were not directed to an abstract idea. 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1101. …
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception.
Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include:
i. A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334,115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
ii. Using well-known standard laboratory techniques to detect enzyme levels in a bodily sample such as blood or plasma, Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1355, 1362, 123 USPQ2d 1081, 1082-83, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48;
iv. Delivering broadcast content to a portable electronic device such as a cellular telephone, when claimed at a high level of generality, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. Amazon.com, 838 F.3d 1266, 1270, 120 USPQ2d 1210, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
v. A general method of screening emails on a generic computer, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1315-16, 120 USPQ2d at 1358-59;
vi. An advance in the informational content of a download for streaming, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1263, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and
vii. Selecting one type of content (e.g., FM radio content) from within a range of existing broadcast content types, or selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform (e.g., buffering content) from within a range of well-known, routine, conventional functions performed by the hardware, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016). …
In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP, the analysis and test to determine that an invention is actually an improvement to an existing technology requires to meet two steps. The first-step is determining whether or not “a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification” (hereinafter mentioned as the “First-Step”) regardless the word “improvement” is explicitly set forth. The second-step is determining whether or not “the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology” (hereinafter mentioned as the “Second-Step”), which is done by evaluating the full scope of the claim under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) where the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The aforesaid steps are to be evaluated by the Examiner with regards to whether a claim contains an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
Regarding to the First-Step, the specification by the Applicant(s) it appears to contain a technical explanation describing with sufficient detail how to implement the invention such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize any technological improvements except for instructions well known instructions to perform the functions/methods.
Regarding to the Second-Step, the full scope of the claim does not contain an improvement(s) to neither the functioning of a computer nor to any other technology or technical field with sufficient details that could be recognized by one ordinary skilled in the art.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the claim recites the Judicial-Exception/Abstract-Idea related to “obtaining expansion amounts of the nugget during an expansion period and a contraction period, wherein the expansion period is defined as a period in which the nugget expands during application of the electrical current, and wherein the contraction period is defined as a period in which the nugget contracts after applying the electrical current; obtaining a contraction amount of the nugget by comparing maximum and minimum values of the expansion amounts during the contraction period; and determining that the spot welding is poor when the contraction amount of the nugget is equal to or below a discrimination threshold” with the “Routine-Devices-Activities-Of-The-Industry” above mentioned. Therefore, the claim is not implemented into a practical application.
With respect to Step 2B, the claim simply recites the “Routine-Devices-Activities-Of-The-Industry” above mentioned. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than said Judicial-Exception/Abstract-Idea.
Furthermore, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform (“apply it”) the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology, however, the instant claims only include instructions to perform the method with routine devices pertinent to the industry and nothing more. Furthermore, the claim neither express any unconventional technical solution, nor identifies any realized technical improvements over the prior art, which needs to be included from the discussion of the specification.
Furthermore, by evaluating the full scope of the claim under BRI as a whole, the Examiner concludes that the claim has not-enough particular details to be considered an improvement to a particular practical application. Additionally, it doesn’t even recite anything to reflect the component/steps related to the “Unclaimed-Improvements”, which are still insufficient to overcome the 101 rejection.
Furthermore, in order for an invention to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery, and the claim(s) at issue does not include anything more than just instructions to be performed by the general computer and data gathering.
Furthermore, the claims at issue as whole are simply directed to gathering and analyzing collected information about a signal with conventional techniques, which has similarities with the case of TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48 where the courts have indicated that “Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result” are not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology.
In light of the foregoing, the claims are not patent eligible because the Examiner has concluded that the disclosed invention neither contains an improvement to the functioning of a computer nor to any other technology or technical field at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
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.
9. 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.
10. Claim 1 is directed to “obtaining expansion amounts of the nugget during an expansion period and a contraction period, wherein the expansion period is defined as a period in which the nugget expands during application of the electrical current, and wherein the contraction period is defined as a period in which the nugget contracts after applying the electrical current; obtaining a contraction amount of the nugget by comparing maximum and minimum values of the expansion amounts during the contraction period; and determining that the spot welding is poor when the contraction amount of the nugget 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 a pair of electrodes that sandwich steel plates, the method comprising: forming a nugget between the pair of steel plates by applying the pair of electrodes with an electric current while applying pressure to the pair of 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 and/or mere instructions apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Independent claim 1 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
10.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 1 is directed to an inspection method for spot welding, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a process (Step 1: YES).
10.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites: “obtaining expansion amounts of the nugget during an expansion period and a contraction period, wherein the expansion period is defined as a period in which the nugget expands during application of the electrical current, and wherein the contraction period is defined as a period in which the nugget contracts after applying the electrical current; obtaining a contraction amount of the nugget by comparing maximum and minimum values of the expansion amounts during the contraction period; and determining that the spot welding is poor when the contraction amount of the nugget is equal to or below a discrimination threshold”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed with the help of a pen and paper. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
10.2.2. 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 because the pair of electrodes that sandwich steel plates and a pair of electrodes are not claimed with sufficient specificity, and does not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, the inspection for spot welding context, is simply linking the claim to a technological environment, industry or field of use but does not explain with sufficient details so one ordinary skilled in the art could determine an improvement in the inspection for spot welding technology. 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 the technologies using position sensors for inspection for spot welding technology, etc., and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea (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 for inspecting spot welding).
10.3. 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 a pair of electrodes that sandwich steel plates, the method comprising: forming a nugget between the pair of steel plates by applying the pair of electrodes with an electric current while applying pressure to the pair of steel plates ...” of which when evaluated individually and as a whole, it is concluded that are/is simply mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea and/or routine and/or 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, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references used response 7 above, prior art made of record below, and on the IDS). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole do 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).
11. 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 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-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.
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) CLARK (Pub. No.: US 2023/0398642) teaches “Method of manufacturing a dome comprising: providing a plurality of components; joining a first and a second component together, joining the first and second components together comprising: positioning the first component and the second component in an initial position in which the first surfaces of components are angled from each other by a first angle; melting a volume of material extending between the first and the second component, the volume of material increasing in thickness from the second surfaces to the first surfaces; and the volume of material cooling and solidifying so as to join the first component and the second component together” (Abstract).
b) HASEGAWA (Pub. No.: US 2011/0180518) teaches “A resistance welding method, which resistance-welds a pair of workpieces by gripping the workpieces with a pair of electrode tips under a prescribed welding pressure, and supplies a welding current through the electrode tips to the workpieces, includes the steps of detecting a change in an amount of expansion of a nugget produced in the workpieces, along a direction in which the electrode tips grip the workpieces therebetween, determining whether the detected change is smaller than a threshold value or not, and gradually increasing the welding current flowing through the workpieces after the detected change is judged as being smaller than the threshold value” (Abstract and Fig. 2).
c) KANAI (Pub. No.: US 2021/0331269) teaches “A resistance welding control system includes an electrode displacement detector, a temperature estimation information acquiring unit, and a temperature estimation unit. The electrode displacement detector detects a positional displacement between opposite electrodes while the electrodes are supplying electricity between the electrodes to perform resistance welding of welding members held between the electrodes. At least one of the electrodes is movable toward or apart from the other electrode” (Abstract and Fig. 1).
d) Lee (Pub. No.: US 2003/0234239) teaches “A system and method for assessing the quality of spot weld joints between pieces of metal includes an ultrasound transducer probing a spot weld joint. The ultrasound transducer transmits ultrasonic radiation into the spot weld joint, receives corresponding echoes, and transforms the echoes into electrical signals” (Abstract and Fig. 4).
e) Kanjo (Pub. No.: US 2001/0015346) teaches “An inter-welding electrode moving amount detecting method includes the below steps: moving a driving section of electrode driving means having the driving section connected to at least one of a pair of electrodes provided to a welding gun; detecting an inter-welding electrode moving amount due to expansion/contraction of a nugget when a member to be welded is pressed, electrified and welded by the pair of electrodes; and obtaining the Inter-welding electrode moving amounts by adding a moving amount of the driving section to an electrode moving direction due to the expansion/contraction of the nugget during welding and a deflection (alternatively, a strain amount) of the welding gun due to a pressing force” (Abstract and Figs. 2-6).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALVARO E. FORTICH whose telephone number is (571) 272-0944. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon thru Fri from 8:00am to 5pm.
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
Prosecution Insights