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
This Final office action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment filed on
December 8, 2025. By the amendment, Applicant has amended claims 1-8, and added claim 9. Claims 1-9 are pending and under examination.
Applicant’s amendment has not overcome the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection. The 101 rejection is maintained below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection filed on December 8, 2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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.
Step One: Under Step one of an analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a method claim. Likewise, claim 7 is a non-transitory non-volatile data memory, and claim 8 is a system claim. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
Step 2A. Prong 1:
The claims disclose the abstract idea of providing key figures to a user of at least one power tool.
The claims recite the limitations below in the abstract idea indicated in non-bold and the additional elements in bold.
Claim 1 recites:
collecting data values relating to at least one of (i) the at least one power tool, and (ii) the user of the at least one power tool, the collected data values being at least partially associated with an activity of the user performed using with the at least one power tool;
ascertaining at least one key figure for the user based on the collected data values using and an evaluation function, the ascertained at least one key figure being specific to a quality of the activity of the user performed using user's activities with the at least one power tool; and
outputting the at least one ascertained key figure to the user; and
operating the at least one power tool to perform the activity based on the at least one ascertained key figure.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of claims 7 and 8.
Claim 2 further recites wherein: outputting the at least one ascertained key figure comprises displaying the at least one key figure on a user interface, wherein and the user interface visualizes a digital twin of the user.
Claim 3 further recites carrying out a computer-based authorization of the user in order to gain access to the user interface.
Claim 4 further recites wherein the predefined evaluation function ascertains the at least one key figure on the basis of the collected data values, the at least one key figure includes including at least one of the following key figures for an evaluation of the quality: an expertise of the user with the at least one a specific type of power tool, an expertise of the user for a specific trade, a flexibility and a responsiveness of the user for projects under time pressure, and a price-performance ratio.
Claim 5 further recites wherein: the evaluation function analyzes and evaluates the collected data values based on the basis of a multidimensional data model, and one dimension of the multidimensional data model specifies the collected data values from different perspectives, and the different perspectives include including at least one of time, region, company, competition, industry, and market, and/or the data values are received from different data sources and the evaluation function takes into account the collected data values from the different data sources for the evaluation.
Claim 6 further recites wherein the evaluation function comprises one or more of the following data mining functions for the analysis of the data values including: an encryption function, a standardization function, a harmonization function, an aggregation function, a k-anonymity function, and a data masking function.
Claim 7 further recites a non-transitory non-volatile data memory comprising- a computer program including comprising instructions that, when the computer program (60) is executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the method according to claim 1.
Claim 8 recites a data processing device comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory non-volatile data memory comprising program instructions, which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to execute the method according to claim 1.
Claim 9 further recites wherein: the collected data values are received from different data sources, and the evaluation function takes into account the collected data values that are received from the different data sources for the evaluation.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Here, the claimed concept falls into the category of functions of performing mental processes such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) because it amounts to the function of:
collecting data values relating to at least one of (i) the at least one power tool, and the user of the at least one power tool, the collected data values being at least partially associated with an activity of the user performed using with the at least one power tool, ascertaining at least one key figure for the user based on the collected data values using and an evaluation function, the ascertained at least one key figure being specific to a quality of the activity of the user performed using user's activities with the at least one power tool. Therefore, the claim is directed to a certain method of organizing human activity.
Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
Clams 1-9 recite the following bolded limitations understood to be the additional limitations:
Claim 1 recites:
collecting data values relating to at least one of (i) the at least one power tool, and (ii) the user of the at least one power tool, the collected data values being at least partially associated with an activity of the user performed using with the at least one power tool;
ascertaining at least one key figure for the user based on the collected data values using and an evaluation function, the ascertained at least one key figure being specific to a quality of the activity of the user performed using user's activities with the at least one power tool; and
outputting the at least one ascertained key figure to the user; and
operating the at least one power tool to perform the activity based on the at least one ascertained key figure.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of claims 7 and 8.
Claim 2 further recites wherein: outputting the at least one ascertained key figure comprises displaying the at least one key figure on a user interface, wherein and the user interface visualizes a digital twin of the user.
Claim 3 further recites carrying out a computer-based authorization of the user in order to gain access to the user interface.
Claim 4 further recites wherein the predefined evaluation function ascertains the at least one key figure on the basis of the collected data values, the at least one key figure includes including at least one of the following key figures for an evaluation of the quality: an expertise of the user with the at least one a specific type of power tool, an expertise of the user for a specific trade, a flexibility and a responsiveness of the user for projects under time pressure, and a price-performance ratio.
Claim 5 further recites wherein: the evaluation function analyzes and evaluates the collected data values based on the basis of a multidimensional data model, and one dimension of the multidimensional data model specifies the collected data values from different perspectives, and the different perspectives include including at least one of time, region, company, competition, industry, and market, and/or the data values are received from different data sources and the evaluation function takes into account the collected data values from the different data sources for the evaluation.
Claim 6 further recites wherein the evaluation function comprises one or more of the following data mining functions for the analysis of the data values including: an encryption function, a standardization function, a harmonization function, an aggregation function, a k-anonymity function, and a data masking function.
Claim 7 further recites a non-transitory non-volatile data memory comprising- a computer program including comprising instructions that, when the computer program (60) is executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the method according to claim 1.
Claim 8 recites a data processing device comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory non-volatile data memory comprising program instructions, which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to execute the method according to claim 1.
Claim 9 further recites wherein: the collected data values are received from different data sources, and the evaluation function takes into account the collected data values that are received from the different data sources for the evaluation.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in the claims, the claims recite additional elements including a generic data gathering step of a processor and a non-transitory non-volatile data memory and a power tool.
The claimed “processor” and “memory” and “power tool” (claims 7 and 8 only) are similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate with instructions are properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer or device or computer system. Claim 1 does not recite any computer structure to perform the claimed steps. Performing steps or functions by a processor merely limits the abstraction to a computer field by execution by generic computers to process data (i.e. collecting data values relating to a power tool).
Performing steps by a generic machine, or server computing device merely limit the abstraction to a computer field by execution by generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (1 ).
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a practical exception into a practical application.
Performance of the claimed steps or functions technologically may present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claims does not reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the clams fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Positively reciting a "processor" with "memory", and “power tool” does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements does not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be one or more of a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. The claimed processor is noted to a be a generic computer for operating the at least one power tool to perform the activity based on the at least one ascertained key figure.
. These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed "processor", "memory" and “power tool” are recited at a high level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1, 7 and 8 are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-6 include additional elements beyond those recited by independent claim 1. Dependent claim 9 includes additional elements beyond those recited by independent claim 8. Claims 6 and 16 recite the additional elements of a supervised learning model, and an unsupervised learning model. The claimed steps do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because they are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions in view of MPEP 2106 .05(d)(11). The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 2-6 and 9 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 USC. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
6 . NOTE: Currently there are no outstanding prior art rejections under 35 USC § 102 or 35 USC§ 103.
7. The prior art taken alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest:
“ascertaining at least one key figure for the user based on the collected data values using and an evaluation function, the ascertained at least one key figure being specific to a quality of the activity of the user performed using user's activities with the at least one power tool, outputting the at least one ascertained key figure to the user, and
operating the at least one power tool to perform the activity based on the at least one ascertained key figure” as recited in the independent claims”
- Forsberg et al (Patent No. 11/794,716) teach various surfacing cutting power tools use consumable products that are affixed to a rotating member to perform the cutting or surfacing operation. A cutting operation may involve cutting into a surface and a surfacing operation may involve refinishing or resurfacing a surface. In this regard, such consumable products may degrade as the products are used, requiring replacement to continue performing a job.
Schadow et al (WO 2018177671 A1) teach an electronic module for may issuing instructions to a user depending on use of the handheld power tool. For example, it is conceivable for a user to transmit an activity to be carried out by means of an input unit or by means of data transmission to a communication unit to the electronic module, and then the electronic module proposes a suitable tool for the activity to be performed, in particular a handheld power tool.
8. 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.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROMAIN JEANTY whose telephone number is (571)272-6732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571 272-6787. 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.
/RJ/
/ROMAIN JEANTY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624