DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is non-final and is in response to the claims filed November 6, 2024. Claims 1-7 are currently pending, of which claims 1-7 are currently rejected.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1, at Step 1, the claim is directed to the statutory category of invention of a system.
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim is directed towards a mental process. The claim language has been reproduced below:
An information presentation system of an identifier managed by a welding system, the information presentation system comprising:
a memory; and
a processor configured to select, from information on identifiers stored in the memory and assigned to a plurality of original workpieces each having an identification sign, one of the identifiers as an identifier of a welded workpiece formed by welding the plurality of original workpieces, and designate the one of the identifiers selected as the identifier of the welded workpiece (mental process – evaluation and observation); and
after the processor selects the identifier of the welded workpiece and a reading device reads one of the identification signs, the processor is configured to issue an alert when the read identification sign corresponds to the identifier that has not been designated as the identifier of the welded workpiece (mental process – observation, evaluation, and judgment).
An information presentation method of an identifier managed by a welding system, the information presentation method comprising:
selecting, from information on identifiers assigned to a plurality of original workpieces, information on an identifier of a welded workpiece to be produced by a welding process using the plurality of original workpieces (mental process, observation); and
after the selecting, outputting an alert in a case in which, among identification signs on which information on identifiers arranged in the plurality of original workpieces are readable, an identification sign corresponding to an identifier that has not been selected is read by a reading device, and presenting the information on the identifier that has been selected in a case in which an identification sign corresponding to the identifier that has been selected is read by the reading device (mental process, observation, evaluation).
Each of these limitations are mental processes that could be performed with the assistance of pen and paper. That is, other than the recitation of the welding process itself and the general workpieces, nothing in the claim elements cannot be performed by an operator merely observing the workpieces and reporting their findings. For example, a welder could merely look at parts and check their identifications and confer with other welders/supervisors to ensure that the correct parts are being selected. If a part is not proper, they can alert the other welders in the factory (or other human users in the process).
At Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements are bolded above. Those elements do not appear to be more than mere instructions to apply an exception. Even though a welding process is claimed, this is both an “apply it” scenario and a general linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h).
At Step 2B, there are no additional elements claimed that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Claim 2 is directed to the mental process of reading information (mental process, observation). This could merely be one person ensuring that the pieces for a weld operation are all labeled and prepared. Under Steps 2A Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3 is directed to the mental process of alerting if the workpiece can’t be identified (mental process, observation and evaluation). This could merely be one person telling another that the piece was damaged or cannot be read during or after the welding. Under Steps 2A Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4 is directed to the mental process of reading information (mental process, observation). This could merely be one person reading/observing the identified parts on a welded product. Under Steps 2A Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5 is directed to the mental process of alerting if the workpiece can’t be identified (mental process, observation and evaluation). This could merely be one person telling another that the piece is not properly labeled (or has other labeling issues). Under Steps 2A Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6 is directed to the mental process of reading (mental process, observation and evaluation). This could merely be one user telling another where a piece is located in the process and the issues therewith. Under Steps 2A Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 is directed to the mental process of reading (mental process, evaluation and judgment). This could merely be one user telling another what the main identifier is on the welded workpiece. Under Steps 2A Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim would be allowable if the other issues under 35 USC §101 are overcome. Specifically, the prior art discusses workpiece identification, but does not disclose this identification in the context of welded components made up of multiple workpieces with separate identifications, as well as the concept of the identifier and whether or not it has been designated as the identifier. Additionally, this is what distinguishes the claims in the present application from potential double patenting rejections to U.S. 12,174,620 B2, which claims that the identified has not been designated as readable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ivkovich (U.S. 2021/0405620) discloses welding identification of parts that are repeatedly used within a time period, including via RFID (See Ivkovich Fig. 1 and paras. [0035] and [0050-52]); and
Ottnad et al. (U.S. 2020/0201295) discloses identifying workpieces for sorting, including updating and removing identifications of groups of workpieces (See Ottnad paras. [0054-58]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Klicos whose telephone number is (571)270-5889. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/NICHOLAS KLICOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights