DETAILED ACTION
Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-12 are currently pending in this application.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/07/2023 was received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
4. The drawings submitted on 12/07/2023 are in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.81 and 37 CFR § 1.83 and have been accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A tool system comprising:
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 life of the fastening unit; and
a decider configured to make the decision about the life of the fastening unit 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.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 10 and 11.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claims 1 and 10 belong to a statutory category, namely they are system claims. Likewise, claim 11 is a process system claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 is found to include at least one judicial exception, that being a mathematical concept and/or mental process. This can be seen in the claim limitation of “
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 life of the fastening unit; and a decider configured to make the decision about the life of the fastening unit 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.”, which is the judicial exception of a mental process and/or a mathematical concept because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, and/or judgements capable of being performed mentally.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 10 and 11.
Step 2A, prong 2 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.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, the claimed method recites additional elements including a sensor unit configured to detect a physical quantity while the fastening unit is performing a fastening operation on the fastening member; (claims 1, 10, and 11) which are merely data gathering steps recited at a high level of generality and therefore merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,”. The claim also recites a “tool” (claims 1, 8, and 15) however the “tool” is recited at a high level of generality, e.g. Spec. [0014] describing a variety of different types of “tools” that may be used (e.g. a handheld tool, impact wrench), and merely amounts to the use of technology as a means to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or the use of “tool” to perform the actions, that are otherwise abstract, is merely an attempt at limiting the abstract to a particular field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, and other elements, are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done after a decision is made about the useful life of the tool.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (claims 1, 10, and 11). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claims 10 and 11 amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-9 and 12, merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements therefore these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for independent claims 1, 10, and 111.
See Supreme court decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International, et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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 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.
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)(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, 7-8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vetter US Pub # 2021/0121967.
With regards to claim 1, Vetter US Pub # 2021/0121967 teaches a tool system comprising:
a fastening unit configured to fasten a fastening member by driving a tip tool in rotation with motive power supplied from a motor;( Figure 1)
a sensor unit configured to detect a physical quantity while the fastening unit is performing a fastening operation on the fastening member; (102; figure 1) (paragraph 0015)
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 life of the fastening unit; (paragraph 0023) (136; figure 1) and
a decider configured to make the decision about the life of the fastening unit 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. (paragraph 0027)
With regards to claim 2, Vetter US Pub # 2021/0121967 teaches the fastening unit is provided for a handheld tool. (104; Figure 1)
With regards to claim 3, Vetter US Pub # 2021/0121967 teaches the decider is provided for a device different from a tool including the fastening unit. (paragraph 0014)
With regards to claim 4, Vetter US Pub # 2021/0121967 teaches 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, the setter being configured to set the criterion information based on the criterion correlation thus extracted and make the storage device store the criterion information. (paragraph 0032)
With regards to claim 5, Vetter US Pub # 2021/0121967 teaches 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. (paragraph 0005)
With regards to claim 7, Vetter US Pub # 2021/0121967 teaches 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. (paragraph 0033)
With regards to claim 8, Vetter US Pub # 2021/0121967 teaches the life is related to a degree of wear to be caused to a particular part of the fastening unit through a plurality of the fastening operations performed by the fastening unit. (paragraph 0032)
With regards to claim 10, Vetter US Pub # 2021/0121967 teaches decision system comprising:
an acquirer configured to acquire a physical quantity while a tool is performing a fastening operation on a fastening member, the tool including a fastening unit configured to fasten the fastening member by driving a tip tool in rotation with motive power supplied from a motor; (102; figure 1) (paragraph 0015)
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 life of the fastening unit; (paragraph 0023) (136; figure 1) and
a decider configured to make the decision about the life of the fastening unit 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. (paragraph 0027)
With regards to claim 11, Vetter US Pub # 2021/0121967 teaches decision method to be applied to a tool including a fastening unit, the fastening unit being 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; (102; figure 1) (paragraph 0015)and
decision processing including making a decision about life of the fastening unit 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 life of the fastening unit, 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. (paragraph 0027)
With regards to claim 12, Vetter US Pub # 2021/0121967 teaches a non-transitory computer-readable tangible recording medium storing a program designed to cause one or more processors to perform the decision method of claim 11 (Paragraph 0022)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claim(s) 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vetter US Pub # 2021/0121967 in view of Rejman et al. US 2019/0027720.
With regards to claim 6, Vetter US Pub # 2021/0121967 teaches a fastening unit; and a sensor unit corresponding one to one to the fastening units, 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 have fastened a plurality of the fastening members properly and set the criterion information based on the plurality of the criterion correlations thus extracted. (paragraph 0005)(figure 1)
Vetter US Pub # 2021/0121967 discloses the claimed invention except for having plurality of sensor and fastening units. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill. in the art at the time the invention was made to analyze a plurality of fastening units as opposed to a single fastening unit, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
With regards to claim 9, Vetter US Pub # 2021/0121967 does not appear to teach the physical quantity includes at least one of a current waveform of the motor or a voltage waveform of the motor.
Rejman et al. US 2019/0027720 teaches the physical quantity includes at least one of a current waveform of the motor or a voltage waveform of the motor. (paragraph 0013)
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Vetter invention to monitor voltage in order to arrive at the claimed invention as it would be desirable to simply the electrical connections and the assembly of the battery packs. (paragraph 0007)
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Merget et al. US 2021/0283759 teaches a kickback control methods for a power tool including a force sensor.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA S BHAT whose telephone number is (571)272-2270. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am-6pm.
16. 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.
17. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
18. 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.
/ADITYA S BHAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 March 4, 2026