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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed June 10, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 2-3, 10-13, and 20 are noted as amended. In view of Applicant’s amendment to claims 10 and 20, new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are applied below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: “rendering a preview of the weld training simulation”. The claims as originally presented recite “displaying a rendering” and “the rendering comprising a preview” which does not positively or affirmatively recite actually rendering the preview/simulation as it omits the step of rendering leaving it assumed that the content is rendered but not claimed. While acceptable in the original claim set, Applicant’s amendments to claims 10 and 20, which depend from claims 1 and 11, now recite “the preview of the weld training simulation being rendered prior to the welding training simulation being conducted”. Therefore, the step/element of rendering the preview is now essential and must be positively recited and claimed.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claims 1 and 11.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the mobile electronic device”" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1 and 11 recite machines for performing a process, the process including the steps of conduct a weld training simulation [claim 1]; and receive one or more selections of the plurality of selectable settings of the weld training simulation. The recited steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are conducting a weld training simulation and receiving/making selections of a plurality of selectable settings. The recited steps, as drafted, are a process that is a method of applying an abstract idea, specifically mental processes (judgement (receiving one or more selections)) and/or certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of teaching (conduct a weld training simulation). If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, the limitations fall under the abstract ideas judicial exception and therefore recite ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 recite abstract ideas.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception or meaningfully limit the practice of the judicial exception. The additional elements are a device mount configured to mount the mobile electronic device to a welding helmet or a welding tool [claim 11]; a mobile electronic device; a display screen; processing circuitry; memory circuitry comprising computer readable instructions which, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to: display, on the display screen, a plurality of selectable settings of the weld training simulation; and display, on the display screen, a rendering based on the one or more selections, the rendering comprising a preview of the weld training simulation if the weld training simulation were conducted with the one or more selections. The additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity and instructions for applying the judicial exception with a generic computing device as, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional step(s) is/are merely displaying a plurality of input fields and displaying the results of a rendering step. Examiner notes that the rendering step is not explicitly claimed but under its broadest reasonable interpretation the rendering would be considered a mental process thus the display step is displaying the results of the process/analysis of the settings to generate the rendering. The other additional elements of a mobile electronic device, a display screen, processing circuitry, and memory circuitry are generic computer components for performing the above method, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements are generic components of a computing device used to apply the abstract idea. Further, paragraph 0029 of the specification states the mobile device may be a smartphone, tablet, PDA, eBook, etc. which are well-known, generic computing devices. As such, these additional elements are interpreted as merely instructions to apply the judicial exception. The additional element of a device mount is recited at a high level of generality and does not amount to a specific device or apparatus as it is a modification to the mobile electronic device and is merely generally linking the judicial exceptions wit welding hardware. Accordingly, the additional elements and steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional step(s) of displaying the selectable settings and displaying the rendering based on the selections is/are insignificant extra-solution activity performed during the abstract idea. The additional elements of a mobile electronic device, a display screen, processing circuitry, and memory circuitry used to perform the process are generic computing components/device used to apply the judicial exception and therefore fall under the “apply it” limitation of the judicial exception and do not amount to significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the limitations, taken in combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. The additional element of a device mount is generic and merely generally linking and does not provide a specific configuration or device for performing the judicial exceptions. As such, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the practice of the abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Therefore, claims 1 and 11 are not directed to eligible subject matter as they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are dependent from claims 1 and 11, respectively, and include all the limitations of the independent claims. Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea. The limitations of the dependent claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example:
The limitation of claim 2 recites the device mount discussed in relation to claim 1 and the limitation of claim 12 recites the welding helmet or tool which are recited at a high level of generality and do not amount to a practical application or significantly more as they do not transform the mobile electronic device into a specific device or apparatus for performing the judicial exception and are merely generally linking the device and judicial exceptions with welding tools/helmets. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claims 3-8 and 13-18 recite clarification of the types of data used/comprising the rendering and the selectable settings. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are merely defining/selecting a type of data to be manipulated which, per MPEP 2106.05(g), is insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 recite further abstract ideas including receiving one or more second selections being at least partially different from the first selections (mental process), adjusting the display of the rendering based on the differences (mental process), and conducting the weld training simulation based on the one or more selections (mental process; certain method of organizing human activity). As the limitations are further abstract ideas, the limitations cannot meaningfully limit or amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas of the independent claims. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
Accordingly, claims 2-10 and 12-20 are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more and are not drawn to eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Albrecht (US PGPub 20170200384).
With regard to claim 1, Albrecht teaches a weld training system [claim 11] (Abstract; Paragraph 0020; “weld training devices”), comprising:
a mobile electronic device configured to conduct a weld training simulation (Paragraphs 0024, 0030 teach the weld training device can be a tablet, smartphone, or laptop (mobile devices)), the mobile electronic device comprising:
a display screen (Abstract; Paragraphs 0034, 0044; “display device(s));
processing circuitry (Abstract; Paragraphs 0020, 0031; “processor”); and
memory circuitry comprising computer readable instructions which, when executed by the processing circuitry (Abstract; Paragraphs 0031, 0036 teach the system may include a machine readable storage device including machine readable instructions executed by the processor), cause the processing circuitry to:
display, on the display screen, a plurality of selectable settings of the weld training simulation (Figs. 2 and 4; Paragraphs 0038, 0039, 0047-0048, 0065 teach the system can display a plurality of selectable settings and parameters for the weld procedure),
receive one or more selections of the plurality of selectable settings of the weld training simulation (Figs. 2 and 4; Paragraphs 0038, 0039, 0047-0048, 0065 teach the system can receive the user inputs for the selections of the weld parameters and changes to the settings), and
display, on the display screen, a rendering based on the one or more selections, the rendering comprising a preview of the weld training simulation if the weld training simulation were conducted with the one or more selections (Paragraphs 0063-0065, 0067 teach the system can simulate the weld training as an animation including images of the results).
With regard to claim 3, Albrecht further teaches wherein the rendering comprises a static image (Paragraphs 0045, 0067 teach the system can display a modeled result as an image), an animation (Paragraphs 0063-0065 teach the system can simulate the weld training as an animation), or a previously recorded weld training simulation (Paragraph 0042 teaches the simulation may be based on a previous performance by the user), the rendering is of a welding tool (Fig 4; Paragraphs 0041, 0063 teaches the displayed animation is of a virtual weld operator and/or selected welding equipment including a welding torch or other tool), and the welding tool is also displayed on the display screen during the weld training simulation (Fig 4, Paragraphs 0063-0064 teach the animation/display can include a virtual weld operator and/or welding equipment (welding tool)).
With regard to claim 4, Albrecht further teaches wherein the plurality of selectable settings of the weld training simulation comprises a plurality of feedback guide settings (Per paragraph 0038 of the specification the guides can be for contact tip to work distance and/or travel speed; Albrecht Fig 4; paragraph 0065 teaches the selectable settings can include changing a travel speed and contact to work distance for the simulation) or a plurality of simulation exercise settings (Fig 2; Paragraphs 0047-0050 teach the user can design the weld procedure by selecting weld parameters (exercise settings)).
With regard to claim 5, Albrecht further teaches wherein the plurality of selectable settings comprises the plurality of feedback guide settings, the plurality of feedback guide settings comprising two or more of travel speed guide setting or a contact tip to work distance guide setting (Fig 4; Paragraph 0065 teaches the selectable settings can include changing a travel speed and contact to work distance for the simulation).
With regard to claim 9, Albrecht further teaches wherein the one or more selections comprise one or more first selections, and the memory circuitry comprises computer readable instructions which, when executed by the processing circuitry, further cause the processing circuitry to: receive one or more second selections of the plurality of selectable options, the one or more second selections being at least partially different from the one or more first selections, and adjust the display of the rendering based on one or more differences between the one or more first selections and the one or more second selections (Paragraphs 0050, 0062-0065 teach the user can select the parameters for a welding procedure (first selections) and the selections can be modified or replaced (second selections) or the user may change the parameters (second selections) using adjustment buttons thereby causing the system to update (adjust) the simulation based on the new (different) selections or rendering the simulation using the modified or replaced (different) parameters).
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 (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.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 11-15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albrecht in view of Hsu et al. (US PGPub 20160267806), hereinafter referred to as Hsu.
With regard to claim 2, Albrecht may not explicitly teach further comprising a device mount configured for attachment to a welding helmet or a welding tool. However, Hsu teaches a weld training system including a display and welding helmet wherein the display can be provided by a wireless communication device such as a smartphone wherein the device/display can be mounted to the welding helmet via clips (Paragraphs 0096, 0121, 0134).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Albrecht to incorporate the teachings of Hsu by incorporating the teaching of mounting a wireless communication device to a welding helmet of Hsu using the smartphone of Albrecht, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to simulated welding training systems and methods. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Albrecht by including a welding helmet and mounting the smartphone or other mobile/wireless communication device to the helmet for a user to view. Upon such modification, the method and system of Albrecht would include further comprising a device mount configured for attachment to a welding helmet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Hsu with Albrecht’s system and method in order to provide training using an operators existing equipment and practice and simulate a real work environment and piece (Hsu Paragraphs 0121-0123).
With regard to claim 11, Albrecht teaches a weld training system [claim 11] (Abstract; Paragraph 0020; “weld training devices”), comprising:
a mobile electronic device configured to conduct a weld training simulation (Paragraphs 0024, 0030 teach the weld training device can be a tablet, smartphone, or laptop (mobile devices)), the mobile electronic device comprising:
a display screen (Abstract; Paragraphs 0034, 0044; “display device(s));
processing circuitry (Abstract; Paragraphs 0020, 0031; “processor”); and
memory circuitry comprising computer readable instructions which, when executed by the processing circuitry (Abstract; Paragraphs 0031, 0036 teach the system may include a machine readable storage device including machine readable instructions executed by the processor), cause the processing circuitry to:
display, on the display screen, a plurality of selectable settings of the weld training simulation (Figs. 2 and 4; Paragraphs 0038, 0039, 0047-0048, 0065 teach the system can display a plurality of selectable settings and parameters for the weld procedure),
receive one or more selections of the plurality of selectable settings of the weld training simulation (Figs. 2 and 4; Paragraphs 0038, 0039, 0047-0048, 0065 teach the system can receive the user inputs for the selections of the weld parameters and changes to the settings), and
display, on the display screen, a rendering based on the one or more selections, the rendering comprising a preview of the weld training simulation if the weld training simulation were conducted with the one or more selections (Paragraphs 0063-0065, 0067 teach the system can simulate the weld training as an animation including images of the results).
Albrecht may not explicitly teach a device mount configured to mount the mobile electronic device to a welding helmet or a welding tool. However, Hsu teaches a weld training system including a display and welding helmet wherein the display can be provided by a wireless communication device such as a smartphone wherein the device/display can be mounted to the welding helmet via clips (Paragraphs 0096, 0121, 0134).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Albrecht to incorporate the teachings of Hsu by incorporating the teaching of mounting a wireless communication device to a welding helmet of Hsu using the smartphone of Albrecht, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to simulated welding training systems and methods. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Albrecht by including a welding helmet and mounting the smartphone or other mobile/wireless communication device to the helmet for a user to view. Upon such modification, the method and system of Albrecht would include a device mount configured to mount the mobile electronic device to a welding helmet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Hsu with Albrecht’s system and method in order to provide training using an operators existing equipment and practice and simulate a real work environment and piece (Hsu Paragraphs 0121-0123).
With regard to claim 12, Albrecht may not explicitly teach further comprising the welding helmet or the welding tool. However, as discussed above, Hsu teaches a weld training system including a display and welding helmet wherein the display can be provided by a wireless communication device such as a smartphone wherein the device/display can be mounted to the welding helmet via clips (Paragraphs 0096, 0121, 0134).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Albrecht to incorporate the teachings of Hsu by incorporating the teaching of mounting a wireless communication device to a welding helmet of Hsu using the smartphone of Albrecht, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to simulated welding training systems and methods. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Albrecht by including a welding helmet and mounting the smartphone or other mobile/wireless communication device to the helmet for a user to view. Upon such modification, the method and system of Albrecht would include further comprising the welding helmet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Hsu with Albrecht’s system and method in order to provide training using an operators existing equipment and practice and simulate a real work environment and piece (Hsu Paragraphs 0121-0123).
With regard to claim 13, Albrecht further teaches wherein the rendering comprises a static image (Paragraphs 0045, 0067 teach the system can display a modeled result as an image), an animation (Paragraphs 0063-0065 teach the system can simulate the weld training as an animation), or a previously recorded weld training simulation (Paragraph 0042 teaches the simulation may be based on a previous performance by the user), the rendering is of a welding tool (Fig 4; Paragraphs 0041, 0063 teaches the displayed animation is of a virtual weld operator and/or selected welding equipment including a welding torch or other tool), and the welding tool is also displayed on the display screen during the weld training simulation (Fig 4, Paragraphs 0063-0064 teach the animation/display can include a virtual weld operator and/or welding equipment (welding tool)).
With regard to claim 14, Albrecht further teaches wherein the plurality of selectable settings of the weld training simulation comprises a plurality of feedback guide settings (Per paragraph 0038 of the specification the guides can be for contact tip to work distance and/or travel speed; Albrecht Fig 4; paragraph 0065 teaches the selectable settings can include changing a travel speed and contact to work distance for the simulation) or a plurality of simulation exercise settings (Fig 2; Paragraphs 0047-0050 teach the user can design the weld procedure by selecting weld parameters (exercise settings)).
With regard to claim 15, Albrecht further teaches wherein the plurality of selectable settings comprises the plurality of feedback guide settings, the plurality of feedback guide settings comprising two or more of travel speed guide setting or a contact tip to work distance guide setting (Fig 4; Paragraph 0065 teaches the selectable settings can include changing a travel speed and contact to work distance for the simulation).
With regard to claim 19, Albrecht further teaches wherein the one or more selections comprise one or more first selections, and the memory circuitry comprises computer readable instructions which, when executed by the processing circuitry, further cause the processing circuitry to: receive one or more second selections of the plurality of selectable options, the one or more second selections being at least partially different from the one or more first selections, and adjust the display of the rendering based on one or more differences between the one or more first selections and the one or more second selections (Paragraphs 0050, 0062-0065 teach the user can select the parameters for a welding procedure (first selections) and the selections can be modified or replaced (second selections) or the user may change the parameters (second selections) using adjustment buttons thereby causing the system to update (adjust) the simulation based on the new (different) selections or rendering the simulation using the modified or replaced (different) parameters).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albrecht in view of Becker et al. (US PGPub 20170046977), hereinafter referred to as Becker.
With regard to claim 5, Albrecht may not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of feedback guide settings comprising two or more of a work angle guide setting and a travel angle guide setting. However, Becker teaches a welding simulation and training system and method including welding parameters and feedback including visual guides wherein the visual guides are based on the set parameters such that changing a parameter (a setting) would change the feedback guides wherein the parameters include a work angle and a travel angle (Paragraphs 0138, 0147, 0192-0193, 0306, 0320, 0325)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Albrecht to incorporate the teachings of Becker by incorporating the teaching of including work angle and travel angle parameters and providing feedback guides based on the parameter settings of Becker for the parameters and simulation of Albrecht, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to simulated welding training systems and methods. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Albrecht by coding the system to include travel angle and work angle parameters and providing visual graphics and feedback corresponding to the selected parameters. Upon such modification, the method and system of Albrecht would include wherein the plurality of feedback guide settings comprising two or more of a work angle guide setting and a travel angle guide setting. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Becker with Albrecht’s system and method in order to provide further simulation functionality to improve user learning and performance and provide users with relevant guides and visual aids.
With regard to claim 6, Albrecht may not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of selectable settings comprises the plurality of simulation exercise settings, the plurality of simulation exercise settings comprising a push weld setting and a drag weld setting. However, Becker further teaches the system can detect and critique a drag or push angle of a weld procedure and that push and drag angles are related to travel angle which is a parameter that can be set for the welding procedure (Paragraphs 0101, 0151, 0188, 0190).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Albrecht to incorporate the teachings of Becker by incorporating the teaching of including travel angle parameters including push or drag welding of Becker for the parameters and simulation of Albrecht, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to simulated welding training systems and methods. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Albrecht by coding the system to include travel angle including whether the parameter is for a push or drag weld. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware that certain welding processes are more typically performed with a drag or push welding angle and Albrecht does teach the parameters can include a welding process type. Upon such modification, the method and system of Albrecht would include wherein the plurality of selectable settings comprises the plurality of simulation exercise settings, the plurality of simulation exercise settings comprising a push weld setting and a drag weld setting. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Becker with Albrecht’s system and method in order to provide further simulation functionality to improve user learning and performance and provide users with relevant simulations.
With regard to claim 8, Albrecht, as discussed above, teaches wherein the plurality of selectable settings comprises a plurality of simulation exercise settings (Fig 2; Paragraphs 0047-0050 teach the user can design the weld procedure by selecting weld parameters (exercise settings)) but may not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of selectable settings comprises a plurality of simulation exercise settings and a plurality of user characteristic settings, and the display of the plurality of selectable simulation exercise settings is dependent upon which user characteristic setting of the plurality of user characteristic settings is selected. However, Becker further teaches the system includes an operator identification system and instructor functionality to confirm completion of a weld process, restrict training of an operator, and assign training to an operator (Paragraphs 0103-0104, 0158).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Albrecht to incorporate the teachings of Becker by incorporating the teaching of identifying an operator (user characteristic) and restricting or assigning training including parameters based on the operator (user setting) of Becker for the parameters and simulation of Albrecht, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to simulated welding training systems and methods. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Albrecht by coding the system to include identifying an operator or trainee and restricting the training of the operator to one or more selected welding configurations thereby limiting the welding parameters (exercise settings) based on the user identify (characteristic). Upon such modification, the method and system of Albrecht would include wherein the plurality of selectable settings comprises a plurality of simulation exercise settings and a plurality of user characteristic settings, and the display of the plurality of selectable simulation exercise settings is dependent upon which user characteristic setting of the plurality of user characteristic settings is selected. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Becker with Albrecht’s system and method in order to provide further simulation functionality to improve user learning and performance and allow users to only perform required or desired training.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albrecht in view of Bell et al. (US PGPub 20100311028), hereinafter referred to as Bell.
With regard to claim 7, Albrecht may not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of selectable settings comprises the plurality of user characteristic settings, the plurality of user characteristics settings comprising a left handed characteristic setting and a right handed characteristic setting. However, Bell teaches a surgical simulation system and method including an options menu giving the user the selectable option of changing the model and simulation between a right-handed or left-handed perspective (Paragraphs 0019, 0043).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Albrecht to incorporate the teachings of Bell by applying the technique of allowing a user to select a handedness perspective and modifying a simulated view of Bell as one of the welding procedure parameters of Albrecht, as, while the inventions are directed to different fields of training (welding and dental), both references and the claimed invention are directed to simulated training systems providing users with a simulated view of a training procedure and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Bell to improve Albrecht in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Albrecht by coding the system to include a left-handed and right-handed selectable option and modifying the view perspective of the welding operation based on a user’s selection. Upon such modification, the method and system of Albrecht would include wherein the plurality of selectable settings comprises the plurality of user characteristic settings, the plurality of user characteristics settings comprising a left handed characteristic setting and a right handed characteristic setting. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Bell with Albrecht’s system and method in order to allow a user to increase the realistic nature of the simulation by customizing the standpoint of the simulated procedure to account for the dominant hand that a user will use when conducting a procedure (Bell Paragraph 0043).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albrecht in view of Hsu and further in view of Ben-Naim (US PGPub 20150339942).
With regard to claim 10, Albrecht further teaches one or more welding arcs being simulated during the weld training simulation (Paragraph 0063 teaches the simulation animation illustrates an arc), but may not explicitly teach wherein the memory circuitry comprises computer readable instructions which, when executed by the processing circuitry, further cause the processing circuitry to conduct the weld training simulation based on the one or more selections, and one or more welding sounds or welding fumes being simulated during the weld training simulation. However, Hsu further teaches the simulated weld can be started based on receiving a trigger signal wherein the simulation is based in part on the determined or set welding parameters and wherein the simulation includes simulated welding sounds and fumes (Paragraphs 0066-0067, 0070, 0125-0126).
As discussed above, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Albrecht to incorporate the teachings of Hsu by incorporating the teaching of conducting a weld training based on the parameters and a trigger signal for starting and stopping the simulation of Hsu for the parameters and simulation of Albrecht, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to simulated welding training systems and methods. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Albrecht by coding the system to include receiving input and/or a trigger signal and conducting a welding training after completing the simulation in order to test a user’s welding skills or provide further teaching. Upon such modification, the method and system of Albrecht would include wherein the memory circuitry comprises computer readable instructions which, when executed by the processing circuitry, further cause the processing circuitry to conduct the weld training simulation based on the one or more selections, and one or more welding sounds or welding fumes being simulated during the weld training simulation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Hsu with Albrecht’s system and method in order to provide further training to the user and simulate a real work environment and piece (Hsu Paragraphs 0121-0123).
Albrecht in view of Hsu may not explicitly teach the preview of the weld training simulation being rendered prior to the welding training simulation being conducted. However, Ben-Naim teaches a system and method for generating and delivering adaptive tutorials including simulations wherein a user can preview a generated simulation based on the user-defined state prior to the tutorial and simulation executing (Paragraphs 0174-0177, 0184-0186).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Albrecht in view of Hsu to incorporate the teachings of Ben-Naim by applying the technique of generating and presenting a preview of a simulation before executing the training and simulation of Ben-Naim for the training and simulation of Albrecht in view of Hsu, as, while the references are directed to different field in general adaptive education versus welding training, both references and the claimed invention are directed to training/education systems using simulations with user defined settings and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to applying the technique of Ben-Naim to improve the system of Albrecht in view of Hsu in the same way by providing users previews of the simulation to adjust settings. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Albrecht in view of Hsu by generating a preview of the simulation based on the settings and parameters of Albrecht and Hsu and displaying the preview before a user chooses to start the training/simulation and allowing a user to adjust settings and parameters for the simulation and see the impacts in the preview. Upon such modification, the method and system of Albrecht in view of Hsu would include the preview of the weld training simulation being rendered prior to the welding training simulation being conducted. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Ben-Naim with Albrecht in view of Hsu’s system and method in order to allow a user to test and preview settings and parameters and preview the simulation (Ben-Naim Paragraphs 0174-0175).
Claim(s) 15-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albrecht in view of Hsu, as applied to claims 11 and 14 above, and further in view of Becker.
With regard to claim 15, Albrecht in view of Hsu may not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of feedback guide settings comprising two or more of a work angle guide setting and a travel angle guide setting. However, Becker teaches a welding simulation and training system and method including welding parameters and feedback including visual guides wherein the visual guides are based on the set parameters such that changing a parameter (a setting) would change the feedback guides wherein the parameters include a work angle and a travel angle (Paragraphs 0138, 0147, 0192-0193, 0306, 0320, 0325)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Albrecht in view of Hsu to incorporate the teachings of Becker by incorporating the teaching of including work angle and travel angle parameters and providing feedback guides based on the parameter settings of Becker for the parameters and simulation of Albrecht, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to simulated welding training systems and methods. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Albrecht in view of Hsu by coding the system to include travel angle and work angle parameters and providing visual graphics and feedback corresponding to the selected parameters. Upon such modification, the method and system of Albrecht in view of Hsu would include wherein the plurality of feedback guide settings comprising two or more of a work angle guide setting and a travel angle guide setting. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Becker with Albrecht in view of Hsu’s system and method in order to provide further simulation functionality to improve user learning and performance and provide users with relevant guides and visual aids.
With regard to claim 16, Albrecht in view of Hsu may not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of selectable settings comprises the plurality of simulation exercise settings, the plurality of simulation exercise settings comprising a push weld setting and a drag weld setting. However, Becker further teaches the system can detect and critique a drag or push angle of a weld procedure and that push and drag angles are related to travel angle which is a parameter that can be set for the welding procedure (Paragraphs 0101, 0151, 0188, 0190).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Albrecht in view of Hsu to incorporate the teachings of Becker by incorporating the teaching of including travel angle parameters including push or drag welding of Becker for the parameters and simulation of Albrecht, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to simulated welding training systems and methods. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Albrecht in view of Hsu by coding the system to include travel angle including whether the parameter is for a push or drag weld. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware that certain welding processes are more typically performed with a drag or push welding angle and Albrecht does teach the parameters can include a welding process type. Upon such modification, the method and system of Albrecht in view of Hsu would include wherein the plurality of selectable settings comprises the plurality of simulation exercise settings, the plurality of simulation exercise settings comprising a push weld setting and a drag weld setting. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Becker with Albrecht in view of Hsu’s system and method in order to provide further simulation functionality to improve user learning and performance and provide users with relevant simulations.
With regard to claim 18, Albrecht, as discussed above, teaches wherein the plurality of selectable settings comprises a plurality of simulation exercise settings (Fig 2; Paragraphs 0047-0050 teach the user can design the weld procedure by selecting weld parameters (exercise settings)) but Albrecht in view of Hsu may not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of selectable settings comprises a plurality of simulation exercise settings and a plurality of user characteristic settings, and the display of the plurality of selectable simulation exercise settings is dependent upon which user characteristic setting of the plurality of user characteristic settings is selected. However, Becker further teaches the system includes an operator identification system and instructor functionality to confirm completion of a weld process, restrict training of an operator, and assign training to an operator (Paragraphs 0103-0104, 0158).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Albrecht in view of Hsu to incorporate the teachings of Becker by incorporating the teaching of identifying an operator (user characteristic) and restricting or assigning training including parameters based on the operator (user setting) of Becker for the parameters and simulation of Albrecht, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to simulated welding training systems and methods. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Albrecht in view of Hsu by coding the system to include identifying an operator or trainee and restricting the training of the operator to one or more selected welding configurations thereby limiting the welding parameters (exercise settings) based on the user identify (characteristic). Upon such modification, the method and system of Albrecht in view of Hsu would include wherein the plurality of selectable settings comprises a plurality of simulation exercise settings and a plurality of user characteristic settings, and the display of the plurality of selectable simulation exercise settings is dependent upon which user characteristic setting of the plurality of user characteristic settings is selected. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Becker with Albrecht in view of Hsu’s system and method in order to provide further simulation functionality to improve user learning and performance and allow users to only perform required or desired training.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albrecht in view of Hsu, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Bell et al. (US PGPub 20100311028), hereinafter referred to as Bell.
With regard to claim 17, Albrecht in view of Hsu may not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of selectable settings comprises the plurality of user characteristic settings, the plurality of user characteristics settings comprising a left handed characteristic setting and a right handed characteristic setting. However, Bell teaches a surgical simulation system and method including an options menu giving the user the selectable option of changing the model and simulation between a right-handed or left-handed perspective (Paragraphs 0019, 0043).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Albrecht in view of Hsu to incorporate the teachings of Bell by applying the technique of allowing a user to select a handedness perspective and modifying a simulated view of Bell as one of the welding procedure parameters of Albrecht, as, while the inventions are directed to different fields of training (welding and dental), both references and the claimed invention are directed to simulated training systems providing users with a simulated view of a training procedure and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Bell to improve Albrecht in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Albrecht in view of Hsu by coding the system to include a left-handed and right-handed selectable option and modifying the view perspective of the welding operation based on a user’s selection. Upon such modification, the method and system of Albrecht in view of Hsu would include wherein the plurality of selectable settings comprises the plurality of user characteristic settings, the plurality of user characteristics settings comprising a left handed characteristic setting and a right handed characteristic setting. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Bell with Albrecht in view of Hsu’s system and method in order to allow a user to increase the realistic nature of the simulation by customizing the standpoint of the simulated procedure to account for the dominant hand that a user will use when conducting a procedure (Bell Paragraph 0043).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albrecht in view of Hsu, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Ben-Naim.
With regard to claim 20, Albrecht further teaches one or more welding arcs being simulated during the weld training simulation (Paragraph 0063 teaches the simulation animation illustrates an arc), but may not explicitly teach wherein the memory circuitry comprises computer readable instructions which, when executed by the processing circuitry, further cause the processing circuitry to conduct the weld training simulation based on the one or more selections, and one or more welding sounds or welding fumes being simulated during the weld training simulation. However, Hsu further teaches the simulated weld can be started based on receiving a trigger signal wherein the simulation is based in part on the determined or set welding parameters and wherein the simulation includes simulated welding sounds and fumes (Paragraphs 0066-0067, 0070, 0125-0126).
As discussed above, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Albrecht to incorporate the teachings of Hsu by incorporating the teaching of conducting a weld training based on the parameters and a trigger signal for starting and stopping the simulation of Hsu for the parameters and simulation of Albrecht, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to simulated welding training systems and methods. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Albrecht by coding the system to include receiving input and/or a trigger signal and conducting a welding training after completing the simulation in order to test a user’s welding skills or provide further teaching. Upon such modification, the method and system of Albrecht would include wherein the memory circuitry comprises computer readable instructions which, when executed by the processing circuitry, further cause the processing circuitry to conduct the weld training simulation based on the one or more selections, and one or more welding sounds or welding fumes being simulated during the weld training simulation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Hsu with Albrecht’s system and method in order to provide further training to the user and simulate a real work environment and piece (Hsu Paragraphs 0121-0123).
Albrecht in view of Hsu may not explicitly teach the preview of the weld training simulation being rendered prior to the welding training simulation being conducted. However, Ben-Naim teaches a system and method for generating and delivering adaptive tutorials including simulations wherein a user can preview a generated simulation based on the user-defined state prior to the tutorial and simulation executing (Paragraphs 0174-0177, 0184-0186).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Albrecht in view of Hsu to incorporate the teachings of Ben-Naim by applying the technique of generating and presenting a preview of a simulation before executing the training and simulation of Ben-Naim for the training and simulation of Albrecht in view of Hsu, as, while the references are directed to different field in general adaptive education versus welding training, both references and the claimed invention are directed to training/education systems using simulations with user defined settings and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to applying the technique of Ben-Naim to improve the system of Albrecht in view of Hsu in the same way by providing users previews of the simulation to adjust settings. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Albrecht in view of Hsu by generating a preview of the simulation based on the settings and parameters of Albrecht and Hsu and displaying the preview before a user chooses to start the training/simulation and allowing a user to adjust settings and parameters for the simulation and see the impacts in the preview. Upon such modification, the method and system of Albrecht in view of Hsu would include the preview of the weld training simulation being rendered prior to the welding training simulation being conducted. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Ben-Naim with Albrecht in view of Hsu’s system and method in order to allow a user to test and preview settings and parameters and preview the simulation (Ben-Naim Paragraphs 0174-0175).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed June 10, 2026, with regard to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s primary argument is that the claims do not recite abstract ideas. Examiner respectfully disagrees as discussed above in part as Applicant has not amended claim 1 which still recites conduct a weld training simulation and the step of “receive one or more selections of the plurality of selectable settings of the weld training simulation” under its broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed mentally whether as a selection by a user or a person observing the selections of another user. Further, as discussed above, while not positively recited, the claim limitations require the “rendering” of a simulation based on the selections which is a further mental process as it is a result of the analysis of the selections aside from the rendering being for display. Further, Applicant merely asserts the claims are patent eligible as it is “grounded in a limited and/or specific practical application” but does not provide substantiative arguments for the examiner to rebut. Examiner maintains, as discussed above, that the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed June 10, 2026, with regard to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 3-9 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are primarily directed to a definition of a “preview” which is not commensurate with the claim language of claims 1 and 11 but the addition of the mounting limitation to claims 2 and 11 do overcome the previously cited prior art as stated below and thereby prompting a new ground of rejection in view of Abrecht in view of Hsu. For the limitation of a “preview”, the training simulation of Albrecht is a simulation animation presenting the selected settings/parameters which corresponds with the instant application’s definition as paragraphs 0045 and 0108 state the rendering/preview can comprise an animation. Applicant is attempting to argue for a narrower definition of a “preview of a weld training simulation” that is not commensurate with the previous claim language. The argument is more in line with amendments made to claim 10 and 20 which now recite the “preview of the weld training simulation being rendered prior to the welding training simulation being conducted” which defines the preview as being prior to the training and does overcome the previous cited prior art but stands rejected as stated below in view of the newly cited Ben-Naim reference. Therefore, as claim 1 has not been amended and does not recite the limitations of the mounting and the preview being rendered prior to the training, claims 1 and 3-9 stand rejected under the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejection(s) per the previous Office Action and as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed June 10, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2 and 10-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive by virtue of applicant’s amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the newly cited combination of prior art.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 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 CORRELL T FRENCH whose telephone number is (571)272-8162. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-5pm; Alt Fri 7:30am-4pm 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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/CORRELL T FRENCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights