This Office action is in response to application filed on 12/07/2023.
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 .
Preliminary Amendment
1. Preliminary Amendments filed 12/07/2023 to the specification, abstract, and claims are accepted and entered. In this amendment:
Claims 3-4, 6-9, and 12 have been amended.
Claims 1-12 have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-12 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, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 10-11 recite (1) “the plurality of criterion feature quantities being a plurality of feature quantities of multiple different types” and (2) “the multiple different types of the plurality of criterion feature quantities” is indefinite because it is unclear whether (1) includes (2) or (2) includes (1). For purpose of examination, it is interpreted as the best understood by the examiner.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reason as respective parent claim.
Claim 3 recites “the decider is provided for a device different from a tool including the fastening unit” is indefinite. It is unclear whether the decider, or a device, or the tool include the fastening unit (which one of the decider, device or tool include the fastening unit?). For purpose of examination, it is interpreted “the decider is provided for a device different from a tool, the device including the fastening unit”.
Claims 4-6 recite “set the criterion information based on the criterion correlation thus extracted”, the term “thus extracted” is indefinite. It is unclear what was extracted? For purpose of examination, it is interpreted “set the criterion information based on the criterion correlation
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 10-11, the examiner submits that under Step 1 of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for evaluating claim for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claims are to system and method, which are statutory categories of invention.
Regarding claim 1, continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test, the limitations (see Italic font below) of:
“a fastening unit configured to fasten a fastening member by driving a tip tool in
rotation with motive power supplied from a motor; a sensor unit configured to detect a physical quantity while the fastening unit is performing a fastening operation on the fastening member; a storage device configured to store criterion information that has been set based on a criterion correlation between a plurality of criterion feature quantities, the plurality of criterion feature quantities being a plurality of feature quantities of multiple different types, the plurality of criterion feature quantities being used as criteria for making a decision about a fastening state of the fastening member;
a decider configured to make the decision about the fastening state of the fastening member in accordance with not only the criterion information but also an actually measured correlation between a plurality of actually measured feature quantities, the plurality of actually measured feature quantities being a plurality of feature quantities respectively corresponding to the multiple different types of the plurality of criterion feature quantities, the plurality of actually measured feature quantities being based on the physical quantity detected by the sensor unit” fall into both groupings of mathematical concepts and mental processes.
Regarding claim 10 under Step 2A - Prong One of the test, the limitations (see Italic font below) of:
“an acquirer configured to acquire a physical quantity while a tool is performing a
fastening operation on a fastening member, the tool being configured to fasten the fastening member by driving a tip tool in rotation with motive power supplied from a motor; a storage device configured to store criterion information that has been set based on a criterion correlation between a plurality of criterion feature quantities, the plurality of criterion feature quantities being a plurality of feature quantities of multiple different types, the plurality of criterion feature quantities being used as criteria for making a decision about a fastening state of the fastening member; and a decider configured to make the decision about the fastening state of the fastening member in accordance with not only the criterion information but also an actually measured correlation between a plurality of actually measured feature quantities, the plurality of actually measured feature quantities being a plurality of feature quantities respectively corresponding to the multiple different types of the plurality of criterion feature quantities, the plurality of actually measured feature quantities being based on the physical quantity acquired by the acquirer” fall into both groupings of mathematical concepts and mental processes.
Regarding claim 11, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test, the limitations (see Italic font below) of:
“A decision method to be applied to a tool configured to fasten a fastening
member by driving a tip tool in rotation with motive power supplied from a motor, the decision method comprising: acquisition processing including acquiring a physical quantity while the tool is performing a fastening operation on the fastening member; and decision processing including making a decision about a fastening state of the fastening member in accordance with not only criterion information but also an actually measured correlation between a plurality of actually measured feature quantities, the criterion information having been set based on a criterion correlation between a plurality of criterion feature quantities, the plurality of criterion feature quantities being a plurality of feature quantities of multiple different types, the plurality of criterion feature quantities being used as criteria for making the decision about the fastening state of the fastening member, the plurality of actually measured feature quantities being a plurality of feature quantities respectively corresponding to the multiple different types of the plurality of criterion feature quantities, the plurality of actually measured feature quantities being based on the physical quantity acquired in the acquisition processing” fall into both groupings of mathematical concepts and mental processes.
Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test.
Furthermore, under Step 2A - Prong Two of the test, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements recited in the claims:
Regarding claim 1 (see above limitation in non-Italic font under Prong-One is pasted here):
“a fastening unit configured to fasten a fastening member by driving a tip tool in
rotation with motive power supplied from a motor; a sensor unit configured to detect a physical quantity while the fastening unit is performing a fastening operation on the fastening member; a storage device configured to store criterion information that has been set based on a criterion correlation between a plurality of criterion feature quantities, and the sensor unit.”
The additional limitations of the claim above are mere data gathering, i.e., detecting a physical quantity is considered collecting data using a generic sensor unit, and fastening unit, fastening member, and motor are physical elements that are recited in generality and used for extra-solution activities (e.g., for mere data gathering). A storage device configured to store criterion information is recited at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(d), and acquiring a physical quantity is insignificantly extra-solution activity (e.g., mere data gathering), see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding claim 10 (see above limitation in non-Italic font under Prong-One is pasted here):
“an acquirer configured to acquire a physical quantity while a tool is performing a
fastening operation on a fastening member, the tool being configured to fasten the fastening member by driving a tip tool in rotation with motive power supplied from a motor; a storage device configured to store criterion information that has been set based on a criterion correlation between a plurality of criterion feature quantities, and the acquirer.”
The additional limitations of the claim above are mere data gathering, i.e., acquiring a physical quantity is considered collecting data using an acquirer recited at a high level of generality, and a tool, fastening unit, fastening member, and motor are physical elements recited at a high level of generality and used for extra-solution activities (e.g., for mere data gathering). A storage device configured to store criterion information is recited at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(d), and acquiring a physical quantity is insignificantly extra-solution activity (e.g., mere data gathering), see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding claim 11 (see above limitation in non-Italic font under Prong-One is pasted here):
A decision method to be applied to a tool configured to fasten a fastening
member by driving a tip tool in rotation with motive power supplied from a motor, the decision method comprising: acquisition processing including acquiring a physical quantity while the tool is performing a fastening operation on the fastening member; and decision processing, and the acquisition processing.”
The additional limitations of the claim above are mere data gathering, i.e., acquiring a physical quantity is considered collecting data using an acquirer recited at a high level of generality, and a tool, fastening unit, fastening member, and motor are physical elements recited at a high level of generality and used for extra-solution activities (e.g., for mere data gathering). Acquiring a physical quantity is insignificantly extra-solution activity (e.g., mere data gathering), see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, those additional elements, when considered individually and in
combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considering the claims as a whole. The claims are directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A of the test.
Additionally, under Step 2B of the test, claims and 10-11 do not include additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements:
recite extra-solution activities (i.e., mere data gathering), i.e., adding insignificant
extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment or field of use (i.e., a decision method to be applied to a tool configured to fasten a fastening member by driving a tip tool in rotation with motive power supplied from a motor) - see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims, when considered as a whole, do not provide significantly more
under Step 2B of the test. Based on the analysis, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims 2-9 and 12, they are also directed to the non-statutory subject matter because:
they just extend the abstract idea of the independent claim by additional
limitations, that under the broadest interpretation in light of the specification, cover performance of the limitations using mental processes, and
the additional elements recited in the dependent claims, when considered
individually and in combination, refer to extra-solution activities and at a high level of generality, i.e., the fastening unit/ decider is provided (claims 2-3, 8-9, and 12) and used to facilitate the application of the abstract idea (claims 4-7), which as indicated in the Office's guidance does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A -Prong Two) and/or does not provide significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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)(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.
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
10. Claims 1-5, 7 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and 102(a)(1) as being anticipated over JP 2020-49637A of Yuki et al, hereinafter Yuki (IDS of record).
As per Claim 1, Yuki teaches a tool system ( Abstract, electric tool ) comprising:
a fastening unit configured to fasten a fastening member ( a screw, fastener or fastening member is fastened, see p.4, para 2, p.9, para 4 ) by driving a tip tool in rotation ( the tip tool is rotatably, see p.5, para 8 ) with motive power supplied from a motor ( the power is supplied, see p.6, paras 4-5 );
a sensor unit ( current detection circuit, see p.3 last para, p.6, para 5 ) configured to detect a physical quantity ( it is noted current detection circuit detects a physical quantity ) while the fastening unit is performing a fastening operation on the fastening member ( torque derived by detector to make a tightening determination, see Abstract, i.e., the torque deriving current and the tightening torque at the time, see p.7. It is noted, torque, current, and time are physical quantities);
a storage device configured to store criterion information that has been set based on a criterion correlation between a plurality of criterion feature quantities ( the storage unit stores a graph indicating ”the relationship between the torque calculation current and the torque” considered “criterion feature quantities”, see p.6, para 8 and p.7 ), the plurality of criterion feature quantities being a plurality of feature quantities of multiple different types (It is noted torque and current are considered completely different physical quantities or properties ), the plurality of criterion feature quantities being used as criteria for making a decision about a fastening state of the fastening member ( the load increases when the fastening of the fastener progresses, thus the torque and motor current increase, using this relationship, a tightening torque for each impact is derived to determine a tighten state, see para 2 from the bottom up of p.2 ); and
a decider configured to make the decision about the fastening state of the fastening member in accordance with not only the criterion information but also an actually measured correlation between a plurality of actually measured feature quantities ( control unit for determine fastening state, see p.2, para 3 and last 2 paras, p.3, para 3 ), the plurality of actually measured feature quantities being a plurality of feature quantities respectively corresponding to the multiple different types of the plurality of criterion feature quantities (see p.6 last 2 paras and p.7 ), the plurality of actually measured feature quantities being based on the physical quantity detected by the sensor unit ( para 2 from the bottom up of p.3 ).
As per Claim 2, Yuki teaches the tool system of claim 1, wherein the fastening unit is provided for a handheld tool ( i.e., the drill mode is used for fastening a wood screw, see last para of p.6. an electronic pulse drive considered a power tool for driving screws considered a handheld device, see p.2 para 1 ).
As per Claim 3, Yuki teaches the tool system of claim 1, wherein the decider is provided for a device different from a tool including the fastening unit ( a tip tool considered “a device” different from the tool, see p.2, para 1, p.5, para 8. The tip tool including a fastener or screw, i.e., to be fastened, see p.4, para 2, last para of p.6 ).
As per Claim 4, Yuki teaches the tool system of claim 1, further comprising a setter configured to extract the criterion correlation from the physical quantity that has been detected by the sensor unit during the fastening operation in which the fastening unit has fastened the fastening member properly (see last 3 paras of p.7 ), set the criterion information based on the criterion correlation thus extracted ( set the tighten torque comparing to the derived torque, see p.8, paras 4-5 ), and make the storage device store the criterion information ( the storage stores a graph indicating the relationship between the torque calculation current and the torque, see para 2 from the bottom up of p.6 ).
As per Claim 5, Yuki teaches the tool system of claim 4, wherein the setter is configured to extract a plurality of the criterion correlations from a plurality of the physical quantities that have been detected by the sensor unit during a plurality of the fastening operations in which the fastening unit has fastened a plurality of the fastening members properly and set the criterion information based on the plurality of the criterion correlations thus extracted ( accurately tighten any fastening members, see p.3, para 4, p.6 last para ).
As per Claim 7, Yuki teaches the tool system of claim 5, wherein the criterion information includes a decision range that has been set based on the plurality of the criterion correlations, and the decider is configured to make the decision depending on whether the actually measured correlation falls within the decision range or not ( check if the current value falls within the predetermined range tighten, p.2, para 1 ).
As per Claim 10, Yuki teaches a decision system comprising:
an acquirer configured to acquire a physical quantity (current detection circuit considered “an acquirer” acquires physical quantity, i.e., current, see p.3 last para, p.6, para 5), while a tool is performing a fastening operation on a fastening member (see Abstract), the tool being configured to fasten the fastening member ( a screw, fastener, or fastening member is fastened, see p.4, para 2, p.9, para 4, Abstract) by driving a tip tool in rotation ( the tip tool is rotatably, see p.5, para 8 ) with motive power supplied from a motor ( the power is supplied, see p.6, paras 4-5 );
a storage device configured to store criterion information that has been set based on a criterion correlation between a plurality of criterion feature quantities ( the storage unit stores a graph indicating ”the relationship between the torque calculation current and the torque” considered “criterion feature quantities”, see p.6, para 8 and p.7 ), the plurality of criterion feature quantities being a plurality of feature quantities of multiple different types (it is noted torque and current are considered completely different physical quantities or properties ), the plurality of criterion feature quantities being used as criteria for making a decision about a fastening state of the fastening member ( the load increases when the fastening of the fastener progresses, thus the torque and motor current increase, using this relationship, a tightening torque for each impact is derived to determine a tighten state, see para 2 from the bottom up of p.2 ); and
a decider configured to make the decision about the fastening state of the fastening member in accordance with not only the criterion information but also an actually measured correlation between a plurality of actually measured feature quantities (control unit for determining fastening state, see p.2, para 3 and last 2 paras, p.3, para 3 ), the plurality of actually measured feature quantities being a plurality of feature quantities respectively corresponding to the multiple different types of the plurality of criterion feature quantities (see p.6 last 2 paras and p.7 ), the plurality of actually measured feature quantities being based on the physical quantity acquired by the acquirer ( para 2 from the bottom up of p.3 ).
As per Claim 11, Yuki teaches a decision method to be applied to a tool configured to fasten a fastening member (a screw, fastener, or fastening member is fastened, see p.4, para 2, p.9, para 4, Abstract ) by driving a tip tool in rotation ( the tip tool is rotatably, see p.5, para 8 ) with motive power supplied from a motor ( the power is supplied, see p.6, paras 4-5 ), the decision method comprising:
acquisition processing including acquiring a physical quantity while the tool is performing a fastening operation on the fastening member (current detection circuit considered “an acquirer” acquires physical quantity, i.e., current, see p.3 last para, p.6, para 5); and
decision processing including making a decision about a fastening state of the fastening member in accordance with not only criterion information but also an actually measured correlation between a plurality of actually measured feature quantities (control unit for determining fastening state, see p.2, para 3 and last 2 paras, p.3, para 3), the criterion information having been set based on a criterion correlation between a plurality of criterion feature quantities, the plurality of criterion feature quantities being a plurality of feature quantities of multiple different types (see p.6 last 2 paras and p.7 ), the plurality of criterion feature quantities being used as criteria for making the decision about the fastening state of the fastening member, the plurality of actually measured feature quantities being a plurality of feature quantities respectively corresponding to the multiple different types of the plurality of criterion feature quantities, the plurality of actually measured feature quantities being based on the physical quantity acquired in the acquisition processing ( p.2 to first 3 paras ).
As per Claim 12, Yuki teaches a non-transitory storage medium storing thereon a program designed to cause one or more processors to perform the decision method of claim 11 (para 2 from bottom up of p.6 ).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. The following is a quotation under AIA of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action.
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
12. Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yuki in view of US patent 7,334,648 of Arimura.
As per Claim 6, Yuki teaches the tool system of claim 4, comprising: the setter is configured to extract a plurality of the criterion correlations from a plurality of the physical quantities that have been respectively detected by the sensor during a plurality of the fastening operations in which the plurality of the fastening units have fastened a plurality of the fastening members properly and set the criterion information based on the plurality of the criterion correlations thus extracted ( accurately tighten any fastening members, see p.3, para 4, p.6 last para ).
Yuki does not teach a plurality of the fastening units; and a plurality of the sensor units corresponding one to one to the plurality of the fastening units, wherein extracting the criterion correlations from the physical quantities detected by the sensors.
Arimura teaches a plurality of the fastening units ( tightening the screws/bolts or “fastening units”, col 1 line 11 ); and a plurality of the sensor units (detector includes magnetic sensors, col 1 lines 26-27, col 4 lines 59-60 ) corresponding one to one to the plurality of the fastening units ( an output shaft 40 adapted to hold a tool bit, i.e., a screwdriver, see col 3 lines 49-50, i.e., tighten a screw, see col 5 lines 54-61. The output shaft attains the target speed, considered an output shaft is monitored by magnetic sensor to measure its speed ), wherein extracting the criterion correlations from the physical quantities detected by the sensors ( selecting one of different speed, affecting the average load current considered correlation/relationship derived from physical quantity, see col 5 lines 26-44, where speed is a derived physical quantity ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Yuki having load current corresponding to speed as taught by Arimura that would facilitate the tool controller for driving the motor in order to match the detected speed with the target speed (Arimura, col 2 lines 1-4).
As per Claim 9, Yuki teaches the tool system of claim 1, Yuki does not explicitly teach wherein the physical quantity includes at least one of a current waveform of the motor or a voltage waveform of the motor. Arimura teaches the physical quantity includes at least one of a current waveform of the motor or a voltage waveform of the motor ( an instantaneous load current repeats rapid rising and falling is considered a waveform, see col 5 lines 62-63 ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Yuki having an instantaneous load current representing a waveform as taught by Arimura that would minimize the target speed to assure the consistent impact operation over a wide range of the target speed (Arimura, col 6 lines 56-58)
13. Claim 8 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yuki in view of US 2002/0053587 of White et al., hereinafter White.
As per Claim 8, Yuki teaches the tool system of claim 1, wherein the fastening unit includes an impact mechanism configured to be driven with the motive power supplied from the motor to apply impacting force to the tip tool (p.6, last 2 paras to p.7, first para ), and the plurality of criterion feature quantities and the plurality of actually measured feature quantities include at least voltage applied to the motor (p.6, last 2 paras). Yuki does not explicitly teach voltage applied to motor and an impact cycle. White teaches voltage applied to motor (see [0038] ) and an impact cycle ( the resistance of the fastener 33 being driven into the workpiece or impact stroke considered “impact cycle”, see [0043], [0049] ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Yuki having the voltage applied to motor and impact cycle as taught by White that would facilitate driving impact of the striker upon fastener, hereby to reduce the vibration of the tool and provides for a quicker operation (White, [0045]).
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0063479 of Eisenmann (Double sided fastening device).
US 2014/0137394 of Connors (Two-way fastener and method).
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to LYNDA DINH whose telephone number is (571) 270-
7150. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 AM - 6 PM ET.
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://ppairmy.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.
/LYNDA DINH/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights