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 .
Priority
Current application, US Application No. 19/367,349 filed on 10/23/2025, is a Continuation of US Application No. 19249288 filed on 06/25/2025, which is a continuation of US Application No. 19/237,662 filed on 06/13/2025, which is a continuation of US Application No. 18/990,121 filed on 12/20/2024, which is a continuation of US Application No. 18/988,120 filed on 12/19/2024.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the application filed on 10/23/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: As per claim 1, the limitations “to capture a temperature measurement” and “to capture a vibration measurement” should be replaced with “to measure a temperature (data)” and “to measure a vibration (data)”, respectively, or with an appropriate phrases for clarity.
As per claims 1 and 17, The limitation “to instruct an advanced manufacturing machine to move the at least one workpiece” should be replaced with “to instruct a controller of an advanced manufacturing machine to align the machine’s subcomponent (or part) with the at least one workpiece“ or with an appropriate phrase for clarity and for being consistent with the specification (see specification – advanced manufacturing machine 501, enable real-time adjustments to a torch to maintain proper alignment with a joint despite variations in workpiece 502 geometry [00213-00214, Fig. 5], controller [00256-00268, Fig. 6]).
As per claim 9, the limitations “capturing a temperature measurement” and “capturing a vibration measurement” should be replaced with “measuring a temperature (data)” and “measuring a vibration (data)”, respectively, or with an appropriate phrases for clarity.
The limitation “instructing by the at least one computer processor a controller for an advanced manufacturing machine to move the workpiece” should be interpreted as “instructing, by the at least one computer processor, a controller of an advanced manufacturing machine to align the machine’s subcomponent (or part) with the workpiece” for clarity and for being consistent with the specification as explained in claim 1 above.
As per claims 2-8, 9-16 and 18-20, claims are also objected because base claims are objected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The current application includes limitations in claims 1, 3-5, 9, 11 and 17-20 that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because of the following reasons:
Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 11 and 17-20 include a limitation/element that use generic placeholders, various engines that are coupled with functional language, configured to “curate”, “link”, “fuse”, “determine”, “create”, or “adjust” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The physical structure of carious engines is interpreted as a general computer/processor sub components (see specification – a computer processor includes separate engines [0092, Fig. 1B], sensor data fusion, advanced manufacturing [00213, Fig. 5]).
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. As per claim 1, the limitations “the at least one inference engine is operable to determine at least one inference from the curated temperature measurement data and the curated vibration measurement data, and the at least one validation engine is operable to validate the curated temperature measurement data and the curated vibration measurement data” are ambiguous because the specification discloses determining inference from the fused data and validating the fused data, which describes the current limitations properly according to the context of the claim limitations (see specification - fusing the data, drawing an inference, validating the fused data, and/or optionally storing the fused data [0040], fusing the captured sensor data to the set of known sensor data, thereby creating a new unique set of data, infer statistical relevance of the new unique set of data, and mathematically validate the fused data [0046], Fusion Inference, Fusion Validation [Fig. 1A Fusion Inference, Fusion Validation]).
Although some locations in the specification recites the same phrase as the claimed limitations, i.e. inferencing and validation are based on the curated first measurement data and the curated second measurement, looking at the context of the claim limitations, being based on the fused data for the inferencing and validating appears to be the correct interpretation for the limitations.
For the sake of the examination, the limitations are interpreted as “the at least one inference engine is operable to determine at least one inference from a fused data which is obtained by fusing the curated temperature measurement data and the curated vibration measurement data, and the at least one validation engine is operable to validate the fused data” for clarity.
The limitations “the at least one temperature property and/or the at least one temperature sub-property includes at least one first data point of the at least one workpiece´ and “the at least one vibration property and/or the at least one vibration sub-property includes the at least one first data point of the at least one workpiece and/or at least one second data point of the at least one workpiece” are ambiguous because the recited properties and sub-properties are not clearly described in the claims, not to mention about lacking description on the difference between the properties and the sub-properties. Besides, it is not clear how both the properties and the sub-properties can include the same at least one first data points of the at least one workpiece and/or the same at least one second data points of the at least one workpiece.
According to the dependent claims 2 and 3, the at least one first data points of the at least one workpiece appears to be a timestamp and the at least one second data points of the at least one workpiece appears to be a common period of time. It is not clear how the timestamp or the common period of time can be data points of the workpiece. First, the measurement of the workpiece is not recited having been measured over time. Second, the time stamp and/or the common period of time cannot be a measurement data of the at least one workpiece.
For the sake of examination, the limitation “the at least one temperature property and/or the at least one temperature sub-property includes at least one first data point of the at least one workpiece” is interpreted as “the at least one temperature property and/or the at least one temperature sub-property includes an independent variable value of at least one first data point of the at least one workpiece measured over time” and
the limitation “the at least one vibration property and/or the at least one vibration sub-property includes the at least one first data point of the at least one workpiece and/or at least one second data point of the at least one workpiece” is interpreted as and “the at least one vibration property and/or the at least one vibration sub-property includes the independent variable value of the at least one first data point of the at least one workpiece measured over time and/or at least one range of the independent variable value of the at least one second data points of at least one workpiece measured over time”.
As per claim 9, the limitations “determining by the at least one inference engine at least one inference from the curated temperature measurement data and the curated vibration measurement data, and validating by the at least one validation engine the curated temperature measurement data and the curated vibration measurement data” are ambiguous because of the same reason explained in claim 1 above.
The limitations “the at least one temperature property and/or the at least one temperature sub-property includes at least one first data point of the at least one workpiece” and “the at least one vibration property and/or the at least one vibration sub-property includes the at least one first data point of the at least one workpiece and/or at least one second data point of the at least one workpiece” are ambiguous because of the same reason explained in claim 1 above.
As per claim 15, the limitation “wherein the at least one temperature property, the at least one temperature sub-property, the at least one vibration property, and/or the at least one vibration sub-property are not associated with time” is ambiguous because the parent claim 9 recites “the at least one temperature property and/or the at least one temperature sub-property includes at least one first data point of the at least one workpiece” and “the at least one vibration property and/or the at least one vibration sub-property includes the at least one first data point of the at least one workpiece and/or at least one second data point of the at least one workpiece”, which are treated as being ambiguous because it is not clear how both the properties and the sub-properties can include the same at least one first data points of the at least one workpiece and/or the same at least one second data points of the at least one workpiece, as explained in the claim 1 above.
Furthermore, no further explanation can be found in the specification for the phrase “not associated with time” (see specification - the system is operable to fuse static sensor data ‘i.e., data not associated with time’ [0051], which is for the fusion and not for the curation). So the limitation appears lacking description support from the specification under 35 USC 112(a), If the first data points and/or the second data points are not associated with time, it is curious what these data points could be.
As per claim 17, the limitations “the at least one inference engine is operable to determine at least one inference from the curated temperature and the curated vibration, and the at least one validation engine is operable to validate the curated temperature and the curated vibration” are ambiguous because of the same reason explained in claim 1 above.
The limitations “wherein the at least one temperature property and/or the at least one temperature sub-property includes at least one first data point of the at least one workpiece” and “wherein the at least one vibration property and/or the at least one vibration sub-property at least one second data point of the at least one workpiece” are ambiguous because of the same reason as explained in claim 1 above.
As per claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20, claims are also rejected because base claims 1, 9 and 17 are rejected.
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 nonstatutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
“A system for sensor data fusion for sensor management and utilization in advanced manufacturing, (1.A) comprising:
at least one computer processor including a memory; (1.B.1)
at least one curation engine, at least one link engine, at least one fusion engine, at least one inference engine, and at least one validation engine; (1.B.2)
at least one temperature sensor operable to capture a temperature measurement of at least one workpiece, creating temperature measurement data; (1.C.1)
and at least one vibration sensor operable to capture a vibration measurement of the at least one workpiece, creating vibration measurement data; (1.C.2)
wherein the at least one computer processor is operable to analyze the temperature measurement data and the vibration measurement data; (1.B.3)
wherein the at least one curation engine is operable to curate the temperature measurement data and the vibration measurement data, the at least one link engine is operable to link the curated temperature measurement data and the curated vibration measurement data, the at least one fusion engine is operable to fuse the curated temperature measurement data and the curated vibration measurement data, the at least one inference engine is operable to determine at least one inference from the curated temperature measurement data and the curated vibration measurement data, and the at least one validation engine is operable to validate the curated temperature measurement data and the curated vibration measurement data; (1.B.4)
wherein the at least one curation engine is operable to curate the temperature measurement data by categorizing the temperature measurement data into at least one temperature property and/or at least one temperature sub-property; (1.B.5)
wherein the at least one temperature property and/or the at least one temperature sub-property includes at least one first data point of the at least one workpiece; (1.B.5.1)
wherein the at least one curation engine is operable to curate the vibration measurement data by categorizing the vibration measurement data into at least one vibration property and/or at least one vibration sub-property; (1.B.6)
wherein the at least one vibration property and/or the at least one vibration sub-property includes the at least one first data point of the at least one workpiece and/or at least one second data point of the at least one workpiece; (1.B.6.1)
wherein the at least one curation engine is operable to calculate a degree of certainty that the at least one temperature property and/or the at least one temperature sub-property is correlated to the at least one vibration property and/or the at least one vibration sub-property; (1.B.7)
wherein the at least one computer processor is operable to instruct an advanced manufacturing machine to move the at least one workpiece; (1.B.8)
and wherein the advanced manufacturing machine welds the at least one workpiece. (1.B.9)”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (Machine - System).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion).
For example, highlighted limitations/steps (1.A), and (1.B.3) - (1.B.7) are treated by the Examiner as belonging to Mathematical Concept grouping or a combination of Mathematical Concept and Mental Process groupings as the limitations include Mathematical Calculations, or show Mathematical Relationship combined with optional Mental evaluations/judgements.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements: (Side Note: duplicated elements are not repeated)
In Claim 1: “A system”, “at least one computer processor including a memory”, “at least one curation engine, at least one link engine, at least one fusion engine, at least one inference engine, and at least one validation engine”, “at least one temperature sensor operable to capture a temperature measurement of at least one workpiece, creating temperature measurement data”, “at least one vibration sensor operable to capture a vibration measurement of the at least one workpiece, creating vibration measurement data”, “the at least one computer processor is operable to instruct an advanced manufacturing machine to move the at least one workpiece” and “the advanced manufacturing machine welds the at least one workpiece”;
In Claim 9: “A method”;
As per claim 1, the additional element in the preamble “A system” is not a meaningful limitation because the limitation simply links the system with the abstract idea and also with an intended field of application. The limitations “at least one computer processor including a memory” and “at least one curation engine, at least one link engine, at least one fusion engine, at least one inference engine, and at least one validation engine” represent standard computer/processor components in the art and they are not particular.
The limitations “at least one temperature sensor operable to capture a temperature measurement of at least one workpiece, creating temperature measurement data” and “at least one vibration sensor operable to capture a vibration measurement of the at least one workpiece, creating vibration measurement data” represent standard data collection steps in the art and only add insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception.
The limitations “the at least one computer processor is operable to instruct an advanced manufacturing machine to move the at least one workpiece” and “the advanced manufacturing machine welds the at least one workpiece” represents typical manufacturing processing steps in the art, but fails to link with the judicial exception, thus failing to integrate a practical application at step 2A prong 2.
As per claim 8, the additional element in the preamble “A method” is not a meaningful limitation because the limitation simply links the system with the abstract idea and also with an intended field of application.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements as a whole do not reflect an improvement to the computer technology or other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. No particular machine or real-world transformation are claimed. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Under Step 2B analysis, the above claims fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as shown in the prior art of record.
The limitations/elements listed as additional elements above are well understood, routine and conventional steps/elements in the art according to the prior art of record. (See Ottnad, Sigl, Cella, and others in the list of prior art cited below)
Claims 1-20, therefore, are not patent eligible.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9 and 17, respectively, of US Patent No. 12,487,564 B2 (reference). Although the corresponding claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation of current claim is anticipated by the reference claim.
Claims 2, 13 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 13 and 19, respectively, of US Patent No. 12,487,564 B2 (reference). The corresponding claims at issue are identical.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 and 14, respectively, of US Patent No. 12,487,564 B2 (reference). The corresponding claims at issue are identical.
Claims 4, 11 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4, 11 and 20, respectively, of US Patent No. 12,487,564 B2 (reference). The corresponding claims at issue are identical.
Claims 5, 16 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5, 16 and 19, respectively, of US Patent No. 12,487,564 B2 (reference). The corresponding claims at issue are identical.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of US Patent No. 12,487,564 B2 (reference). The corresponding claims at issue are identical.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7 and 10, respectively, of US Patent No. 12,487,564 B2 (reference). The corresponding claims at issue are identical.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of US Patent No. 12,487,564 B2 (reference). The corresponding claims at issue are identical.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of US Patent No. 12,487,564 B2 (reference). The corresponding claims at issue are identical.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of US Patent No. 12,487,564 B2 (reference). The corresponding claims at issue are identical.
Notes with regard to Prior Art
The prior arts made of record are provided as a support for the rejections under 35 USC 101 rejections.
Ottnad (US 20190244309 A1) discloses uses of temperature sensors and vibrations sensors in manufacturing operation for moving and welding workpieces (manufacturing, vibration sensors, moving mobile units, combining several sensors for welding, temperature sensors ([0136-0174, Figs. 1-3]).
Sigl (WO 2018034823 A1) discloses welding a workpiece moving a torch using temperature and speed sensor during manufacturing process ([0079-0083])
Cella (US 20220108262 A1) discloses use of vibration sensor and temperature sensor for manufacturing workpiece and welding ([0014—0017, 0142, 0203-0219, 3029]).
Cella (US 20210157312 A1, US 20230111071 A1, US 20230135882 A1) also disclose use of vibration sensor and temperature sensor for welding workpiece.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS KAY, whose telephone number is (408) 918-7569. The examiner can normally be reached on M, Th & F 8-5, T 2-7, and W 8-1.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOUGLAS KAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857