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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on August 10, 2026 for the patent application 18/874,288 filed on December 12, 2024. Claims 1 and 3-7 are amended. Claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 8 and 9 are new. Claims 1 and 3-9 are pending. The first office action of May 12, 2026 is fully incorporated by reference into this Final Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 3-9 are 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.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 1 is directed to “a welding assistance device” (i.e. a machine), claim 6 is directed to “a welding assistance method” (i.e. a process), and claim 7 is directed to “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “assistance information,” in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“acquiring welding data including a plurality of parameters indicating a welding state;
selecting normal data that is k1-th normal data close to the acquired welding data among pieces of the normal data of the learning model and calculating a distance between the selected k1-th normal data and the acquired welding data as a abnormality degree of the welding data;
extracting, as an optimal condition range, pieces of normal data that are k2-th to k3-th normal data farther from the acquired welding data than the selected k1-th normal data;
setting a recommendation range of a value of at least one parameter included in the welding data based on the optimal condition range; and
outputting assistance information including the recommendation range.”
Per claim 6:
“a step of acquiring welding data including a plurality of parameters indicating a welding state;
selecting normal data that is k1-th normal data close to the acquired welding data among pieces of the normal data of a learning model and calculating a distance between the selected k1-th normal data and the acquired welding data as a abnormality degree of the welding data, wherein the learning model is constructed by learning normal data including welding data of n parameters indicating a welding state and collected during a period in which the welding state is normal, and defines a normal space in an n-dimensional space;
extracting, as an optimal condition range, pieces of normal data that are k2-th to k3-th normal data farther from the acquired welding data than the selected k1-th normal data;
a step of setting a recommendation range of a value of at least one parameter included in the welding data based on the optimal condition range; and
a step of outputting assistance information including the recommendation range.”
Per claim 7:
“a step of acquiring welding data including a plurality of parameters indicating a welding state;
a step of selecting normal data that is k1-th normal data close to the acquired welding data among pieces of the normal data of a learning model and calculating a distance between the selected k1-th normal data and the acquired welding data as a abnormality degree of the welding data, wherein the learning model is constructed by learning normal data including welding data of n parameters indicating a welding state and collected during a period in which the welding state is normal, and defines a normal space in an n-dimensional space;
a step of extracting, as an optimal condition range, pieces of normal data that are k2-th to k3-th normal data farther from the acquired welding data than the selected k1-th normal data;
a step of setting a recommendation range of a value of at least one parameter included in the welding data based on the optimal condition range; and
a step of outputting assistance information including the recommendation range.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “a welding assistance device,” “a processor,” “a storage,” and “a memory,” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “assistance information,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a welding assistance device,” “a processor,” “a storage,” and “a memory,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Moreover, the element of “a welding assistance device,” is best described in para. [0023] as follows: “[0023] The welding assistance device 10 includes a processor 11, a memory 12, a storage 13, and a communication interface 14.” This element is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and as a commercially available product having generic computer components as part of a generic computer which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment.
Likewise, the elements of “a processor,” “a storage,” and “a memory,” are best described in paras. [0024], [0031] and [0032] as follows:
“[0024] The processor 11 operates in accordance with a predetermined program to exhibit functions as an acquisition unit 110, a determination unit 111, an extraction unit 112, a setting unit 113, an output unit 114, and a learning unit 115.”
“[0031] The memory 12 has a memory area necessary for the operation of the processor 11.”
“[0032] The storage 13 is a so-called auxiliary storage device and is, for example, a hard disk drive (HDD) or a solid-state drive (SSD). The welding data collected from the data logger 30, the learned learning model M, and the like are recoded in the storage 13.”
These elements are also reasonably interpreted as generic computer components as part of a generic computer which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment.
Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment that is (1) generic, routine, conventional, and/or commercially available; and (2) does not provide anything significantly more. Thus, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 3-5, 8 and 9 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 3-5, 8 and 9 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1. Therefore, claims 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s remarks filed on August 10, 2026 related to claims 1 and 3-9 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Applicant respectfully argues “Applicant submits that according to the above-mentioned features (a) and (b), the invention recited in the amended claim 1 can obtain the current welding status (i.e., abnormality) more accurately by evaluating how far the acquired wilding data configured is away from the k1-th normal data in the normal space in an n-dimensional space.
Further, an optimal condition range of a value of the parameter is not fixed, but dynamically moved in response to the change in one of the n parameters according to a relationship between each of the parameters. The invention recited in the amended claim 1 can, according to the feature (c), follow such a dynamically-movable optimal condition range according to the acquired welding data and appropriately set a recommendation range of the parameter for showing to a welder.
As explained above, the presently amended claim 1 includes useful, concrete and meaningful features (a)-(c) that can improve the technological process of welding for obtaining the abnormality more accurately and appropriately setting the recommendation range that is dynamically moved in response to each of n parameters of the acquired welding data.
Thus, the Applicant respectfully submits that the presently amended claim 1 as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the exception (Steb 2A Prong 2).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, as previously described above, the Applicant’s claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “assistance information,” in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Further, the claims merely use a computer as a tool to carryout the abstract idea.
Second, the Applicant’s argument is misguided as to the proper analysis of a “Practical Application” as required under Step 2A, Prong 2. Specifically, the Applicant’s argument appears to describe claimed utility, which is not the test. Instead, the Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Applicant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include:
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first five bulleted factors and, as described above in the rejection, the Applicant’s claims are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Moreover, the computer functionality is improved by shortening the processing time as described by paragraph [0047] of the specification below.
[0047] In this manner, the welding assistance device 10 can suggest an appropriate value for stabilizing the welding quality to the welder for each parameter. As a result, the welding assistance device 10 can stabilize the welding quality and suppress the occurrence of defects regardless of the degree of proficiency of the welder. In addition, the welding assistance device 10 can shorten the processing time in the determination unit 111 and the extraction unit 112 and can quickly feed back the recommendation range to the welder, by using the same learning model M for the calculation of the abnormality degree and the extraction of the optimal condition range R.
Therefore, the presently amended claim 1 contains an improvement to the functioning of a computer. Thus, the subject matter of claim 1 is patent eligible (MPEP 2106.05(a)).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s “improvement to the functioning of a computer” is misguided. As provided in para. [0047] the “improvement” is appreciated by mankind and not technology.(i.e. “In this manner, the welding assistance device 10 can suggest an appropriate value for stabilizing the welding quality to the welder for each parameter.”). As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Moreover, paragraphs [0048] and [0049] of the specification reproduced below describe very specific improvement in the welding technology which can be achieved by the specific combination and arrangement of the claimed elements in the presently amended claim 1.
[0048] In addition, the determination unit 111 selects the k1-th normal data Pk1 from the welding data X among pieces of the normal data P included in the learning model M and calculates the distance between the selected normal data Pk1 and the welding data X, as the abnormality degree. The extraction unit 112 extracts, as the optimal condition range R, the k2-th to k3-th normal data Pk2 to Pk3 farther from the welding data X than the normal data Pk1.
[0049] In this manner, in the calculation of the abnormality degree, the welding assistance device 10 can use the normal data Pk1 that is relatively close to the welding data X to suppress an occurrence of a situation in which the abnormality degree that is determined to be excessively abnormal is calculated. On the other hand, in the extraction of the optimal condition range R, the welding assistance device 10 can appropriately extract a range of the normal data P in which the density of the normal data P is high (indicating a more stable welding state). Accordingly, the welding assistance device 10 can appropriately set the recommendation value of each parameter based on the optimal condition range R, and thus can more stabilize the welding quality.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s “calculation of the abnormality degree,” is not an advancement in technology. Specifically, the Applicant’s specification provides calculating to be carried out on a generic, well-known, and conventional computer processor throughout the written description of the specification as originally filed.
Specifically, the Applicant’s specification alludes to the fact that the claims are directed to the use of mathematical calculations and statistical modeling. Courts have long held that mathematical algorithms for performing calculations, without more, are patent ineligible under § 101. See, e.g., Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 595 (1978) (“[I]f a claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose, the claimed method is nonstatutory.” (internal citation omitted)); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972) (finding claims patent ineligible because they “would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself”) (See, e.g., the CAFC’s opinion in In Re: Board Of Trustees Of The Leland Stanford Junior University, slip. op., page 9). Further, the different use of a mathematical calculation, even one that yields different or better results, does not render patent eligible subject matter. (See, e.g., the CAFC’s opinion in In Re: Board Of Trustees Of The Leland Stanford Junior University, slip. op., page 11). As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Applicant would like to draw the Examiner's attention to relevant rule, "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" (MPEP 2106.05(a)).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, arguments regarding “improvements realized by the claim over the prior art” are best suited for arguing rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The test for 35 U.S.C. § 101 subject-matter eligibility requires claims to be examined using the “two-part Mayo test” for determining subject-matter eligibility, as previously performed above. As such, the argument is not proper for facilitating a 35 U.S.C. § 101 subject-matter eligibility discussion. Second, the Applicant is misconstruing the proper analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Here, the Applicant is merely using the computer as a tool to carry out the abstract idea. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Moreover, the subject matter of claim 1 is significantly more (Step 2B). In other words, claim 1 is herein amended such that an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05).
Moreover, MPEP 2106.05 further presents example of limitations that the courts have found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception that: Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, e.g., a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
According to MPEP 2106.05, in Step 2B, examiners should:
Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements, and if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
As described above, the presently amended claim 1 includes the feature inter alia:
(a) a learning model is constructed by learning normal data including welding data of n parameters indicating a welding state and collected during a period in which the welding state is normal, and defines a normal space in an n-dimensional space
(b) selecting normal data that is k1-th normal data close to the acquired welding data among pieces of the normal data of the learning model and calculating a distance between the selected k1-th normal data and the acquired welding data as a abnormality degree of the welding data
(c) extracting, as an optimal condition range, pieces of normal data that are k2-th to k3-th normal data farther from the acquired welding data than the selected k1-th normal data.
According to the feature of the presently amended claim 1, the above-described specific improvements can be achieved.
Therefore, the feature of the presently amended claim 1 is new, unique and unconventional. Thus, the subject matter of the presently amended claims is eligible. Withdrawal of the outstanding 101 rejection is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously described above, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a welding assistance device,” “a processor,” “a storage,” and “a memory,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional elements. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Furthermore, MPEP 2106.07(a) (Formulating and Supporting Rejections For Lack Of Subject Matter Eligibility) clearly provides that:
For Step 2B, the rejection should explain why the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the identified judicial exception. For instance, when the examiner has concluded that certain claim elements recite well understood, routine, conventional activities in the relevant field, the examiner must expressly support the rejection in writing with one of the four options specified in Subsection III.
Thus, if the Examiner still alleges that combination of claimed elements is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, Applicant respectfully requests that appropriate forms of support in writing is presented which include one or more of the following: (a) A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); (b) A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in Subsection II below as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); (c) A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); and (d) A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant (1) has misconstrued the requirements of “Berkheimer,” and (2) is expressly urged to review MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which will explain that the Examiner’s has satisfied his evidentiary burden by citing the Applicant’s written description of the specification as originally filed. Finally, the Applicant’s claimed elements are reasonably interpreted as ubiquitous standard equipment within modern computer networking and does not provide anything significantly more. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Lastly, if the Examiner still maintains the rejection, the Examiner is encouraged to suggest claim elements according to MPEP 2106.07(a) II below:
In the event a rejection is made, it is a best practice for the examiner to consult the specification to determine if there are elements that could be added to the claim to make it eligible. If so, the examiner should identify those elements in the Office action and suggest them as a way to overcome the rejection.
In view of the foregoing amendments and accompanying remarks, it is submitted that all pending claims are in condition for allowance. A prompt and favorable reconsideration of the rejection and an indication of allowability of all pending claims are earnestly solicited.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 1 and 3-9 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive and for the reasons stated here and above, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 are not withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313)446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:00.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached on (571) 270-7625. 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.
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights