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 .
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; 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 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. 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. 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 limitations of claims 2-8 and 12-18 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) 1-5, 9, 11-15, and 19 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 claims 1 and 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).
With regard to claims 2 and 12, 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).
With regard to claims 3 and 13, Albrecht further teaches wherein 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).
With regard to claims 4 and 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 claims 5 and 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 claims 9 and 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 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) 5-6, 8, 10, 15-16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albrecht in view of Becker et al. (US PGPub 20170046977).
With regard to claims 5 and 15, 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 claims 6 and 16, 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 claims 8 and 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 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.
With regard to claims 10 and 20, Albrecht 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. However, Becker further teaches the operator may perform a welding operation and/or simulation and can start and/or stop a training using an input such as a welding tool (Paragraphs 0096, 0111, 0187-0188, 0276).
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 conducting a weld training or a weld test based on the parameters using a welding tool 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 the welding tool as an input device and conducting a welding training or weld test 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. 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 training to the user or to test the user’s welding skills.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 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 claims 7 and 17, 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).
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected.
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