DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a Final office action in response to the communications received on May 22, 2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 11 and 17 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
Applicant amendments to claims 1, 11 and 17 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but not found persuasive. Applicant argues:
The method steps are no longer capable of merely being performed mentally or with pen and pencil. The additional elements recite a specific improvements by receiving, generating and viewing specific power tool performance metrics.
Examiner’s Response: Not being able to perform something manually or in the human mind is not enough to confer eligibility or show an improvement to the computer or the technology. In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. Examiners should review the specification to determine if applicant is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process. On the instant case, the computer components are recited at a high level of generality as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Merely using a general computer component to replace or automate human work is not enough to confer eligibility. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform a method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.”
Regarding Claims 1, 11 and 17, the claims recite receiving, generating and displaying information corresponding to a power tool which is a mental process (observation/evaluation) and the limitations regarding generating metrics encompasses a mathematical concept. The limitations on receiving identification information, displaying information, receiving a selection, determining metrics and displaying a report could be all performed by a human with the help of paper and pencil. Other than reciting a mobile device, a short-range transceiver, a processor and a user interface, nothing in the claim precludes the steps for being performed by a human with the help of paper and pencil. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mental process. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that even in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computers to perform the data gathering steps for receiving, generating, displaying and determining information amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. As disclosed on paragraph 0130 of Applicant’s specification the technology used is known Bluetooth technology. There is no new technology or any technological improvement involved. The invention is simply using generic computer elements as a tool to apply the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-10, 12-16 and 18-20, these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the components, processing steps and the information used. These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over prior art and would be allowed if 101 rejections are overcome. Best prior art on Fukumoto discloses receiving and displaying maintenance information from a single power tool that is connected to an adapter. However, the limitations on receiving via a short-range transceiver of a mobile electronic device identification signals from a plurality of power tool devices and displaying via a user interface of the mobile electronic device identification information of the plurality of power tool devices; receiving via the user interface, a selection of a reporting option, displaying a reporting page corresponding to the reporting option; receiving a selection of a power tool device from a plurality of power tool devices for display; determining a plurality of performance metrics corresponding to the power tool device and displaying a report including the plurality of performance metrics on the reporting page in combination with the other limitations on independent claims 1, 11 and 17 are novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9-7.
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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3627 /ARIEL J YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights