DETAILED ACTION
The following is an initial Office Action upon examination of the above-identified application on the merits. Claims 1-17 are pending in this application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claims
The Examiner notes Applicant's use of the term “capable of” in claim 1 (lines 6 and 8). The Applicant is reminded that use of the “capable of” does not exclude the definition/interpretation of optional components and/or steps, i.e. the apparatus, system or method may or may not have the components and/or steps, per MPEP 2111.04, recited below for convenience:
2111.04 [R-3] “Adapted to,” “Adapted for,” “Wherein,” and “Whereby” Clauses
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are:
(A) “ adapted to ” or “adapted for ” clauses;
(B) “ wherein ” clauses; and
(C) “ whereby ” clauses.
The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a “whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.” Id. However, the court noted (quoting Minton v. Nat ’l Ass ’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)) that a “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’”
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “…. the camera including graphic processing circuitry for calculating orientation vectors …” (lines 5-6) has been interpreted as a positive recitation of the camera includes graphic processing circuitry which calculates orientation vectors.
Claim 1 recites “…. a data input device … for inputting data to the system” (lines 12-13) has been interpreted as a positive recitation of the data input device is used to input data to the system.
Claim 1 recites: “… a task to be done” in line 19. The recitation of “to be” does not positively recite the subsequent limitations of “done” as occurring and has been interpreted as occurring in the future.
Claim 7 recites: “… a task to be done …” in line 2. The recitation of “to be” does not positively recite the subsequent limitations of “done” as occurring and has been interpreted as occurring in the future.
Claim 8 recites: “… a task to be done …” in line 2. The recitation of “to be” does not positively recite the subsequent limitations of “done” as occurring and has been interpreted as occurring in the future.
Claim 10 recites “…. the body including one or more markers for identifying a position and orientation of the body” (lines 2-3) has been interpreted as a positive recitation of one or more markers are used to identify a position and orientation of the body.
Claim 16 recites: “… the reference markers needs to be moved …” in line 2. The recitation of “to be” does not positively recite the subsequent limitations of “moved” as occurring and has been interpreted as occurring in the future.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 13 February 2025 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) because: a marked-up copy of the substitute specification has not been supplied (in addition to the clean copy).
Examiner’s Note:
The objections of the claims are too numerous to list; however, several examples have been provided to the Applicant as a sample of the outstanding issues with the claims, as well as, suggested language for several of the examples. The Examiner respectfully asserts these samples are not an all-inclusive list of the outstanding issues with the claims filed on 13 February 2025. In addition, if the Applicant requires further clarification, the Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner for an interview.
The Applicant is respectfully requested to thoroughly assess any subsequent claim amendments for issues and make the necessary corrections prior to submission to obviate future objections in the interest of advancing prosecution.
Claim Objections
For the purpose of providing examples of outstanding claim objections, claims 1, 12, and 14-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a power tool” in line 3 and “the tool” in line 8. The claims recite the use of two different terms for the same limitation. To avoid ambiguity in the claims a single term should be used for each claim limitation. Suggested claim language: “the power tool” in claim 1, line 8; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 1 recites “a computing device” (line 4) and “the computer” (lines 7 and 14) and claim 15 recites “a computer device” (in line 2). The claims recite the use of two different terms for the same limitation. To avoid ambiguity in the claims a single term should be used for each claim limitation. Suggested claim language: “the computing device” in claim 1, lines 7 and 14 and claim 15, line 2; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 1 recites “a nearby tool” (line 16), claim 2 “a nearby power tool” (lines 1-2), and claim 4 recites “a nearby power tool” (in lines 1-2 and 2-3). The claims recite the use of two different terms for the same limitation. To avoid ambiguity in the claims a single term should be used for each claim limitation. Suggested claim language: “a nearby power tool” in claim 1 (line 16); and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 1 recites the grammatical issue “… the camera also capable of communicating wirelessly with the computer, the computer and/or camera capable of receiving a wireless signal from the power tool …” in lines 6-8. Suggested claim language: “… the camera is also capable of communicating wirelessly with the computer and the computer and/or camera are capable of receiving a wireless signal from the power tool …”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 1 recites the grammatical issue “providing at least one reference marker on the tool, the position and orientation of which are identifiable by the camera” in lines 9-10. Suggested claim language: “providing at least one reference marker on the tool, wherein the position and orientation are identifiable by the camera …. ”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such. The examiner has not made further suggestions in light of additional grammatical and indefinite issues with the claimed limitations as set forth in above and below.
Claim 1 recites the capitalization error “Providing” in line 14. Suggested claim language “providing”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 1 recites “at least one reference marker” in line 9 and claim 12 recites “at least one reference marker” in line 2. The limitation of “at least one reference marker” in claim 12 should read “the at least one reference marker” since the limitation has antecedent support from the limitation of “at least one reference marker” in claim 1; and for the purpose of examination the limitations have been interpreted as such.
Claim 1 recites the grammatical error of a missing conjunction (i.e. “and”) at the end of claim 24. Suggested claim language “… the identified markers; and”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 1 recites “a reference marker image” in line 23 and claim 14 recites “a reference marker image” in lines 2-3. The limitation of “a reference marker image” in claim 14 should read “the reference marker image” since the limitation has antecedent support from the limitation of “at least one reference marker” in claim 1; and for the purpose of examination the limitations have been interpreted as such.
Claim 14 recites “a ghost image” (line 2) and claim 16 recites “the desired ghost image” (in line 3). The claims recite the use of two different terms for the same limitation. To avoid ambiguity in the claims a single term should be used for each claim limitation. Suggested claim language: “the ghost image” in claim 16, lines 3; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Examiner’s Note:
The following 112(b) rejections (i.e. indefiniteness issues in the claims) are too numerous to list; however, several examples have been provided to the Applicant as a sample of the outstanding issues with the claims. The Examiner respectfully asserts these samples are not an all-inclusive list of the outstanding issues with the claims filed on 13 February 2025. In addition, if the Applicant requires further clarification, the Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner for an interview.
The Applicant is respectfully requested to thoroughly assess any subsequent claim amendments for indefiniteness issues and make the necessary corrections prior to submission to obviate future rejections in the interest of advancing prosecution.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For the purpose of providing examples of the outstanding claim rejections, the claims recite limitations that are indefinite for the following rationales:
The following claims recite limitations that lack sufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claims:
Claim 1 recites “… the position … identifiable by the camera” in line 9. Suggested claim language: “ … position … … identifiable by the camera” ; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 1 recites “… the program or app” in lines 15 and 16. Suggested claim language: “ … a program or app” in line 15; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 5 recites “… the location of different reference markers …” in line 2 and “the housing …” in line 3. Suggested claim language: “… a location of different reference markers …” in line 2 and “a housing …” in line 3; and for the purpose of examination the limitations have been interpreted as such.
Claim 6 recites “… the particular tool enhancement application” in line 3. Suggested claim language: “… a particular tool enhancement application”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 6 recites “… the construction plans …” in line 3. Suggested claim language: “… a particular tool enhancement application”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 9 recites “… the center of the marker” in line 2. Suggested claim language: “… a center of the marker”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 10 recites “… the jobsite” in line 2. Suggested claim language: “… a jobsite”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 14 recites “… the website” in line 1. Suggested claim language: “… a website”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 14 recites “… the desired location/orientation” in line 2. Suggested claim language: “… a the desired location/orientation”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claims 2-17, dependent from claim 1, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claims 11, dependent from claim 10, stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 10.
Claims 16 and 17, dependent from claim 14, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 14.
Claim 1 recites “… calculating orientation vectors …” in line 6 and “the orientation … identifiable by the camera” in lines 9-10. The claim appears recite to different terms (i.e. “orientation vectors” and “orientation”) for the same limitation which are determined using two different steps (i.e. “calculating” and “identifying’); hence, the claim is rendered indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the examiner has interpreted the claim limitation of identified the orientation as the calculated orientation vectors per the recitation of the initial limitation.
Claims 2-17, dependent from claim 1, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “identifying a marker via the camera” (line 21), “loading dimensional data related to one or more identified markers” (line 22), and “generating a reference marker image based on the loaded dimensional data of the identified markers” (lines 23-24). Claim 1 is unclear as to how many markers are identified. Hence, the claim is rendered indefinite. The claim has been interpreted as having a single identified marker in light of the initial limitation (line 21).
Claims 2-17, dependent from claim 1, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
The term “sufficiently” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficiently” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Hence, the limitation of “match” in the claims has been rendered indefinite by use of the term “sufficiently”.
The term “sufficiently” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficiently” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Hence, the limitation of “match” in the claims has been rendered indefinite by use of the term “sufficiently”.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
At step 1, the recites a method for enhancing a power tool operation comprising of a plurality of “actions”; and therefore is a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one the claim recites “… calculating orientation vectors …”.
The limitation of “… calculating orientation vectors …” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0367274 A1 (instant application): pg. 2, par. [0027]) is a process performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “providing a power tool”; “providing a computing device”; “providing a camera, the camera including graphic processing circuitry … the camera also capable of communicating wirelessly with the computer, the computer and/or camera capable of receiving a wireless signal from the power tool”; “providing at least one reference marker on the tool, the position and orientation of which are identifiable by the camera”; “providing a display in communication with the computing device”; “providing a data input device in communication with the computing device and for inputting data to the system”; “Providing a program or app on the computer device”; “selecting the program or app”; “identifying a nearby tool in response to selecting the program or app”; “selecting a particular nearby power tool”; “accessing tool dimensional data”; “accessing task location data indicative of where a task is to be done”; “identifying a marker via the camera”; “loading dimensional data related to one or more identified markers”; “generating a reference marker image based on the loaded dimensional data of the identified markers”; and “generating a desired location image based on the task location data”.
The limitations of “providing a computing device”; “providing a camera, the camera including graphic processing circuitry … the camera also capable of communicating wirelessly with the computer …”; “providing a display in communication with the computing device”; “providing a data input device in communication with the computing device …”; and “Providing a program or app on the computer device” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations of “the system” and “providing a power tool” are generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limit the abstract idea to a field of use. The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “providing at least one reference marker on the tool, (and) the position and orientation of which are identifiable …”; “selecting the program or app”; “identifying a nearby tool in response to selecting the program or app”; “selecting a particular nearby power tool”; “accessing tool dimensional data”; “accessing task location data indicative of where a task is to be done”; “identifying a marker via the camera”; “loading dimensional data related to one or more identified markers”; “generating a reference marker image based on the loaded dimensional data of the identified markers”; and generating a desired location image based on the task location data” represent mere data gathering. The limitations are recited at a high level of generality and so generically they represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “… inputting data to the system …” represents mere data output of information. The “inputting data” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “providing a computing device”; “providing a camera, the camera including graphic processing circuitry … the camera also capable of communicating wirelessly with the computer …”; “providing a display in communication with the computing device”; “providing a data input device in communication with the computing device …”; and “Providing a program or app on the computer device” amount 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. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The additional limitations of “the system” and “providing a power tool” merely limit the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “providing at least one reference marker on the tool, (and) the position and orientation of which are identifiable …”; “selecting the program or app”; “identifying a nearby tool in response to selecting the program or app”; “selecting a particular nearby power tool”; “accessing tool dimensional data”; “accessing task location data indicative of where a task is to be done”; “identifying a marker via the camera”; “loading dimensional data related to one or more identified markers”; “generating a reference marker image based on the loaded dimensional data of the identified markers”; and generating a desired location image based on the task location data”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitation of “inputting” as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data transmission. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to transmitting data, recited a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… the step of identifying a nearby power tool in response to selecting a program includes pinging a plurality of nearby power tools”.
The limitation of “… the step of identifying a nearby power tool in response to selecting a program includes pinging a plurality of nearby power tools” represents mere data output of information. The “pinging” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the 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. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “… the step of identifying a nearby power tool in response to selecting a program includes pinging a plurality of nearby power tools” represents mere data output of information (i.e. data transmission). Further, the courts have found limitations directed to transmitting data, recited a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… creating an inventory of nearby power tools”.
The limitation of “… creating an inventory of nearby power tools” represents mere data gathering. The limitation is recited at a high level of generality and so generically it represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the 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. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “… creating an inventory of nearby power tools” amounts to no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… wirelessly identifying a nearby power tool from a plurality of nearby power tools”.
The limitation of “… wirelessly identifying a nearby power tool from a plurality of nearby power tools” represents mere data gathering. The limitation is recited at a high level of generality and so generically it represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the 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. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “… wirelessly identifying a nearby power tool from a plurality of nearby power tools” amounts to no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… accessing data which may include the location of different reference markers or other topographical feature on the housing of the power tool”.
The limitation of “… accessing data which may include the location of different reference markers or other topographical feature on the housing of the power tool” represents mere data gathering. The limitation is recited at a high level of generality and so generically it represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the 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. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “… accessing data which may include the location of different reference markers or other topographical feature on the housing of the power tool” amounts to no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… loading tool-specific apps for a particular type tool and selecting from among those apps for the particular tool enhancement application”.
The limitation of “… loading tool-specific apps for a particular type tool and selecting from among those apps for the particular tool enhancement application” represents mere data gathering. The limitation is recited at a high level of generality and so generically it represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the 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. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “… loading tool-specific apps for a particular type tool and selecting from among those apps for the particular tool enhancement application” amounts to no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… providing an electronic file representation of the construction plans at a site”.
The limitation of “… providing an electronic file representation of the construction plans at a site” represents mere data output of information. The limitation is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the 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. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “… providing an electronic file representation of the construction plans at a site” represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data output (i.e. data transmission). Further, the courts have found limitations directed to transmitting data, recited a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… placing reference markers on different work surfaces within the construction site”.
The limitation of “… placing reference markers on different work surfaces within the construction site” represents mere data gathering. The limitation is recited at a high level of generality and so generically it represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the 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. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “… placing reference markers on different work surfaces within the construction site” amounts to no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… the user provides a body which can be disposed in a position relative to an object on the jobsite, the body including one or more markers for identifying a position and orientation of the body”.
The limitation of “… the user provides a body which can be disposed in a position relative to an object on the jobsite, the body including one or more markers for identifying a position and orientation of the body” represents mere data gathering. The limitation is recited at a high level of generality and so generically it represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the 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. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “… the user provides a body which can be disposed in a position relative to an object on the jobsite, the body including one or more markers for identifying a position and orientation of the body” amounts to no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
The limitations of claims 9 and 11-13 further detail “(the) at least one reference marker” (claims 9, 12 and 13) and “the object” (claim 11). Claim 9 stands rejected for the same rationale as set forth in claims 1 and 8, claim 11 stands rejected for the same rationale as set forth in claim 10, and claims 12 and 13 stand rejected for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 14:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… displaying a reference marker image and a ghost image of a power tool at the desired location/orientation in a composite image”.
The limitation of “… displaying a reference marker image and a ghost image of a power tool at the desired location/orientation in a composite image” represents mere data output of information. The limitation is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the 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. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “… displaying a reference marker image and a ghost image of a power tool at the desired location/orientation in a composite image” represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to outputting data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “presenting offers and gathering”.
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… an audible indication from the computer device when the reference marker image and the ghost image is sufficiently matched”.
The limitation of “… an audible indication from the computer device when the reference marker image and the ghost image is sufficiently matched” represents mere data output of information. The limitation is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the 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. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “… an audible indication from the computer device when the reference marker image and the ghost image is sufficiently matched” represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to outputting data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “presenting offers and gathering”.
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… displaying an arrow indicating which direction the reference marker image needs to be moved to match the desired ghost image”.
The limitation of “… displaying an arrow indicating which direction the reference marker image needs to be moved to match the desired ghost image” represents mere data output of information. The limitation is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the 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. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “… displaying an arrow indicating which direction the reference marker image needs to be moved to match the desired ghost image” represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to outputting data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “presenting offers and gathering”.
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… displaying a stop sign indicating that the reference marker image and the ghost image is sufficiently matched”.
The limitation of “… displaying a stop sign indicating that the reference marker image and the ghost image is sufficiently matched” represents mere data output of information. The limitation is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the 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. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “… displaying a stop sign indicating that the reference marker image and the ghost image is sufficiently matched” represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to outputting data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “presenting offers and gathering”.
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to tools and displaying information in an industrial environment.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0244677 A1 discloses a method and system for viewing data comprising detecting visual markers within view of a wearable camera worn by a human worker, and displaying data associated with at least one of those visual markers on a see-through wearable display worn by the human worker.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0313559 A1 discloses a method involves coupling a handheld field maintenance tool for communication by orienting an infrared communication port of the handheld field maintenance tool with an infrared communication port of a computer system.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0121068 A1 discloses a method and apparatus for determining position and rotational orientation of an object within a predetermined area.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0021073 A1 discloses a method for process control of work tasks by a tool on an object includes optically determining a position and orientation of the tool over time, for which purpose a marker attached to the tool is captured in an image.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0159051 A1 discloses a method is for communicating in a communication system having power tools which each form an edge node in the communication system.
U.S. Patent No. 11,450,002 B1 discloses a camera within a facility that acquires an image, which includes an image of a marker as presented on an object. The marker can be analyzed to detect marker data encoded therein. By decoding the marker data, details about the marker can be extracted, such as an identification of the object.
European Patent Publication No. EP 4 530 950 A1 discloses a method of tracking a usage of a tool used by a construction worker.
WIPO Publication No. WO 2024/044541 A1 discloses a power tool, a power tool system, and a method for wireless power tool networking involves distributed intelligence running on individual nodes in a wireless mesh network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights