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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/12/2026 has been entered.
Preliminary Remarks
This is a reply to the RCE filed on 05/12/2026, in which, claims 1 and 6 are amended. Claims 1-7 remain pending in the present application with claim 1 being independent claim.
When making claim amendments, the applicant is encouraged to consider the references in their entireties, including those portions that have not been cited by the examiner and their equivalents as they may most broadly and appropriately apply to any particular anticipated claim amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/12/2026 with respect to amended claims 1 and 6 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. - An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “unit” (or “step for”, “device”, “element”, “mechanism”, “module”, “means”, “engine”, “component”, “member”, “apparatus”, “machine”, “system”, “assembly”, “portion”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “unit” in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
The claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a display unit located to correspond to the position of the user's eyes and configured to transmit therethrough and to display the processed image… in claim 1; and
a path changing unit including a member that reflects the processed image provided from the video generating unit, wherein the path changing unit is configured to change a path of the processed image by the member and to guide the processed image … in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. (FP 7.30.06).
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claims 2-7 depend on claim 1 thus 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is also invoked.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaFlech (US 10701270 B1, hereinafter referred to as “LaFlech”) in view of Berends et al. (US 20200374510 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Berends”), further in view of Huh et al. (US 20200368840 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Huh ‘8840”), and further in view of Ye et al. (US 20220365406 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Ye”).
Regarding claim 1, LaFlech discloses a welding information providing apparatus comprising:
a body provided to be wearable by a user (see LaFlech, column 4, lines 1-5: “the present invention describes a light blocking welding helmet 10 which enables a user to perform welding operations by viewing a work piece indirectly through one (1) of a number of video input devices”);
a video generating unit including a display panel (see LaFlech, column 5, lines 19-23: “The viewing screen 122 is a video output device that is preferably located in the direct field of vision of a user 160”) and configured to generate and provide a processed image based on the video frame acquired by the first camera or the second camera (see LaFlech, column 4, lines 46-53: “The articulating stems 86 are interconnected, segmented, tubular structures used to support a camera 74, 78 in a spatially adjustable configuration relative to the shell 20. Any necessary wiring associated with a camera 74, 78 or the transmission of a video signal from a camera 74, 78 to any signal conditioning equipment is routed through the articulating stem 86 and the camera mount 72 it is attached to”); and
a display unit located to correspond to the position of the user's eyes and configured to transmit therethrough and to display the processed image provided from the video generating unit to the user (see LaFlech, column 5, lines 19-23: “The viewing screen 122 is a video output device that is preferably located in the direct field of vision of a user 160. The viewing screen produces an image 124 of what is captured by the selected camera 74, 76, or 78”),
wherein the first camera and the second camera are driven in a switching manner (see LaFlech, column 6, lines 33-35: “The angle or perspective of the work area can be modified for improved visibility by changing the camera selector switch 104 to view an image 124 from the right camera 74 or from the left camera 78”).
Regarding claim 1, LaFlech discloses all the claimed limitations with the exception of a camera unit including a first camera mounted on the body and configured to image a welding site in which welding work is not in progress to acquire a video frame and a second camera mounted in a position different from the first camera and configured to image a welding site in which welding work is in progress to acquire a video frame; wherein the camera unit further includes a light blocking cartridge located in front of the second camera, and wherein the light blocking cartridge includes a liquid crystal panel configured to block welding light and changes the degree of light blocking of the liquid crystal panel according to the intensity of light occurring at the welding site, and wherein the first camera and the second camera are arranged to face the same welding site and to face in directions that are not parallel to each other.
Berends from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses a camera unit including a first camera mounted on the body and configured to image a welding site in which welding work is not in progress to acquire a video frame and a second camera mounted in a position different from the first camera and configured to image a welding site in which welding work is in progress to acquire a video frame (see Berends, paragraph [0051]: “during welding and specifically during a period in which the welding arc is on, in each imaging assembly, such as the imaging assembly 300 of FIG. 3, images of the welding environment are acquired by the first camera 350 through the beam splitter 315, the high f-number first camera lens 305 and the filter 320. More generally, during periods of extreme brightness, images/video streams of a welding environment are captured using components in optical paths, which ultimately comprise much less light intensity than components and optical path comprising more light intensity. Conversely, during periods of relatively greater darkness and specifically during a period in which the welding arc is off, images of the welding environment are acquired by the second camera 360 through the beam splitter 315. More generally, during periods of darkness, images/video streams are captured using components in optical paths which ultimately comprise much more light intensity than components and an optical path comprising less light intensity”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Berends with the teachings as in LaFlech. The motivation for doing so would ensure the system to have the ability to use the system and method disclosed in Berends to acquire images of the welding environment using one of the camera during a period in which the welding arc is off and to acquire images of the welding environment using another camera during a period in which the welding arc is on thus including a first camera mounted on the body and configured to image a welding site in which welding work is not in progress to acquire a video frame and a second camera mounted in a position different from the first camera and configured to image a welding site in which welding work is in progress to acquire a video frame in order to capture images/video steams according to light intensity so that cameras can be selectively driven based on whether welding work is in progress.
Regarding claim 1, the combination teachings of LaFlech and Berends disclose all the claimed limitations with the exception of wherein the camera unit further includes a light blocking cartridge located in front of the second camera, and wherein the light blocking cartridge includes a liquid crystal panel configured to block welding light and changes the degree of light blocking of the liquid crystal panel according to the intensity of light occurring at the welding site, and wherein the first camera and the second camera are arranged to face the same welding site and to face in directions that are not parallel to each other.
Huh ‘8840 from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses wherein the camera unit further includes a light blocking cartridge located in front of the second camera (see Huh ‘8840, paragraph [0017]: “the at least one camera unit may include a light-shading cartridge installed on a front surface of a camera lens…”), and
wherein the light blocking cartridge includes a liquid crystal panel configured to block welding light (see Huh ‘8840, paragraph [0080]: “the automatic light-shading cartridge (not shown) may increase a degree of shading light of the cartridge by blackening based on welding light information detected through the sensor unit 140 … the automatic light-shading cartridge may include, for example, a liquid crystal display (LCD) panel in which a degree of blackening may be adjusted according to an alignment direction of the liquid crystal”) and changes the degree of light blocking of the liquid crystal panel according to the intensity of light occurring at the welding site (see Huh ‘8840, paragraph [0081]: “The degree of blackening of the automatic light-shading cartridge may be automatically adjusted according to the brightness of the welding light”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Huh ‘8840 with the teachings as in LaFlech and Berends. The motivation for doing so would ensure the system to have the ability to use the welding guiding system disclosed in Huh ‘8840 to include a light-shading cartridge installed on a front surface of a camera lens; and to increase a degree of shading light of the cartridge by blackening based on welding light information detected through the sensor unit wherein the degree of blackening of the automatic light-shading cartridge may be automatically adjusted according to the brightness of the welding light thus including a light blocking cartridge located in front of the second camera wherein the light blocking cartridge includes a liquid crystal panel configured to block welding light and changes the degree of light blocking of the liquid crystal panel according to the intensity of light occurring at the welding site in order to automatically adjust the degree of blackening of the light blocking cartridge according to the brightness of welding light so that a ghost phenomenon can be minimized or prevented.
Regarding claim 1, the combination teachings of LaFlech, Berends, and Huh ‘8840 disclose all the claimed limitations with the exception of wherein the first camera and the second camera are arranged to face the same welding site and to face in directions that are not parallel to each other.
Ye from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses wherein the first camera and the second camera are arranged to face the same welding site and to face in directions that are not parallel to each other (see Ye, FIG. 2A and 2B and paragraph [0059]: “the first camera component 200 a may be disposed in a first direction and the second camera component 200 b may be disposed in a second direction. As used herein, a direction in which a specific camera component is disposed may refer to a direction of an optical axis of the specific camera component … In such cases, the first direction and the second direction may form an angle on the corresponding plane”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Ye with the teachings as in LaFlech, Berends, and Huh ‘8840. The motivation for doing so would ensure the system to have the ability to use the connecting bracket and a camera system disclosed in Ye to dispose the first camera in a first direction and the second camera in a second direction and to form an angle on the corresponding plane of first direction and second direction thus arranging the first camera and the second camera to face the same site and to face in directions that are not parallel to each other in order to obtain images from the first camera and the second camera with different positions so that user can adjust the user’s field of view by adjusting the angle between the first camera and the second camera.
Regarding claim 3, the combination teachings of LaFlech, Berends, Huh ‘8840, and Ye as discussed above also disclose the welding information providing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the camera unit further includes a frame fixing the first camera and the second camera and mounting the first camera and the second camera on the body (see LaFlech, column 4, lines 41-45: “A right camera 74 is preferably mounted on an articulating stem 86 attached to a camera mount 72 on the right side of the shell 20. A left camera 78 is attached to another articulating stem 86 attached to a camera mount 72 on the left side of the shell 20”).
The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, the combination teachings of LaFlech, Berends, Huh ‘8840, and Ye as discussed above also disclose the welding information providing apparatus of claim 1, wherein an imaginary line extending in a longitudinal direction of the first camera and passing through the center of the lens of the first camera and an imaginary line extending in the longitudinal direction and passing through the center of the lens of the second camera form an angle of 5° to 11° (see Ye, FIG. 2A and 2B and paragraph [0060]: “the angle α between the first optical axis (e.g., as illustrated by line A in FIGS. 2A and 2B) of the first camera component 200 a and the second optical axis (e.g., as illustrated by line B in FIGS. 2A and 2B) of the second camera component 200 b may be in an angle range from 0° to 180°. In some embodiments, the angle α may be in an angle range from 0° to 90°. In some embodiments, the angle α may be in an angle range from 0° to 60°. In some embodiments, the angle α may be in an angle range from 0° to 30°. In some embodiments, the angle α may be in an angle range from 0° to 20°. In some embodiments, the angle α may be in an angle range from 0° to 15°. In some embodiments, the angle α may be in an angle range from 0° to 10°. In some embodiments, the angle α may be in an angle range from 0° to 5°. In some embodiments, the angle α may be in an angle range from 5° to 15°. In some embodiments, the angle α may be in an angle range from 10° to 15°. For example, the angle α may be 1°, 3°, 5°, 7°, 10°, 15°, 20°, 30°, 45°, 60°, 90°, 150°, or 180°”).
The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, the combination teachings of LaFlech, Berends, Huh ‘8840, and Ye as discussed above also disclose the welding information providing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first camera is located to protrude farther from the user than the second camera (see Ye, FIG. 2A and 2B and paragraph [0065]: “the first mounting surface 232 and the corresponding second mounting surface 234 may be consistently inclined to a certain angle (e.g., with respect to the horizontal plane), while the third mounting surface 236 and the corresponding fourth mounting surface 238 may be maintained. As another example, when driven by one or more motor devices, the first mounting surface 232 and the corresponding second mounting surface 234 may be consistently inclined to a first angle (e.g., with respect to the horizontal plane), and the third mounting surface 236 and the corresponding fourth mounting surface 238 may be consistently inclined to a second angle (e.g., with respect to the horizontal plane). The first angle may be different from the second angle”).
The motivation for combining the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaFlech, Berends, Huh ‘8840, and Ye as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kubo et al. (US 5701165 A, hereinafter referred to as “Kubo”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination teachings of LaFlech, Berends, Huh ‘8840, and Ye as discussed above disclose all the claimed limitations with the exceptions of the welding information providing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the light blocking cartridge includes a coating layer located on at least one surface of the liquid crystal panel and the coating layer performs an anti-reflection function.
Kubo from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses the welding information providing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the light blocking cartridge includes a coating layer located on at least one surface of the liquid crystal panel and the coating layer performs an anti-reflection function (see Kubo, column 8, lines 24-36: “on the light-releasing surface of the light-releasing-side polarizing element 13b that is exposed to the air layer, is formed a reflection-reducing coating layer 21 that functions as an anti-reflection section”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Kubo with the teachings as in LaFlech, Berends, Huh ‘8840, and Ye. The motivation for doing so would ensure the system to have the ability to use the liquid crystal panel having a reflection-reducing coating layer disclosed in Kubo to form a reflection-reducing coating layer that functions as an anti-reflection section thus including a coating layer located on at least one surface of the liquid crystal panel and the coating layer performs an anti-reflection function in order to form the coating layer so that the efficiency of the coating layer can decrease to cause a ghost phenomenon.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaFlech, Berends, Huh ‘8840, and Ye as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Huh et al. (US 20210085524 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Huh”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teachings of LaFlech, Berends, Huh ‘8840, and Ye as discussed above disclose all the claimed limitations with the exceptions of the welding information providing apparatus of claim 3, wherein the light blocking cartridge is coupled to the frame.
Huh from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses the welding information providing apparatus of claim 3, wherein the light blocking cartridge is coupled to the frame (see Huh, paragraph [0061]: “a cartridge unit 130 provided on the main body 160, at least one camera unit 110 mounted on a side of a front portion of the main body 160”. As seen from Fig. 2, main body 160 includes a frame fixing two cameras (camera units 110) and mounting the two cameras on the main body 160 wherein a light blocking cartridge 130 is coupled to the main body 160).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Huh with the teachings as in LaFlech, Berends, Huh ‘8840, and Ye. The motivation for doing so would ensure the system to have the ability to use the cartridge unit of the welding information providing device disclosed in Huh to increase a light-shielding degree through darkening based on welding light information sensed by the sensor unit wherein the cartridge unit may include a liquid crystal display (LCD) panel in which a degree of darkening may be adjusted according to an alignment direction of liquid crystals thus including a light blocking cartridge coupled to the frame and located in front of a camera wherein the light blocking cartridge includes a liquid crystal panel configured to block welding light in order to block welding light occurring when welding occurs by increasing the degree of light blocking of the cartridge.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaFlech, Berends, Huh ‘8840, and Ye as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hatanaka et al. (US 4783145 A, hereinafter referred to as “Hatanaka”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teachings of LaFlech, Berends, Huh ‘8840, and Ye as discussed above also disclose to the display unit (see LaFlech, column 5, lines 19-23: “The viewing screen 122 is a video output device that is preferably located in the direct field of vision of a user 160. The viewing screen produces an image 124 of what is captured by the selected camera 74, 76, or 78”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teachings of LaFlech, Berends, Huh ‘8840, and Ye as discussed above disclose all the claimed limitations with the welding information providing apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a path changing unit including a member that reflects the processed image provided from the video generating unit, wherein the path changing unit is configured to change a path of the processed image by the member and to guide the processed image.
Hatanaka from the same or similar fields of endeavor discloses the welding information providing apparatus of claim 1, further comprising:
a path changing unit including a member that reflects the processed image provided from the video generating unit, wherein the path changing unit is configured to change a path of the processed image by the member and to guide the processed image (see Hatanaka, column 2, lines 26-30: “it is preferable that the illuminance distribution be formed by an image-forming lens and an aperture plate which is located between the light source and the light valve and which are arranged on the optical path of the light source”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Hatanaka with the teachings as in LaFlech, Berends, Huh ‘8840, and Ye. The motivation for doing so would ensure the system to have the ability to use the for system and method for forming a dot-matrix picture disclosed in Hatanaka to form the illuminance distribution by an image-forming lens and an aperture plate which is located between the light source and the light valve and which are arranged on the optical path of the light source thus including a member that reflects the processed image provided from the video generating unit wherein the path changing unit is configured to change a path of the processed image by the member and to guide the processed image in order to change a path of the welding video so that the user can view the welding video passing through the display unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIENRU YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM EST.
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, THAI TRAN can be reached at 571-272-7382. 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.
NIENRU YANG
Examiner
Art Unit 2484
/NIENRU YANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2484
/THAI Q TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights