DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgement is made of the supplemental response filed 8/26/26 to remove unintended error messages from the claims in the response filed 8/18/26.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, beginning page 8, item A, that the claims do not recite a mathematical concept. Specifically, that no variable is computed from another by any recited mathematical operation.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The mathematical concept is the comparison of torque values to determine how close/similar the values are in order to identify/match a torque value as the measured value. The identification of the “one of the multiple torque values” as the reference value is achieved through math [0036] The one of the multiple torque values may be identified in a number of different manners… the one within a threshold value of the reference torque value, or the one closest to the reference torque value…the one for which a rate of change is within a threshold rate of the rate of change of the reference torque value, or the one for which a rate of change is closest to the rate of change of the reference torque value…the one within a threshold value of the reference torque value, and for which a rate of change is within a threshold rate of the rate of change of the reference torque value… the one closest to the reference torque value, and for which a rate of change is closest to the rate of change of the reference torque value. These techniques require at least subtraction (math) to determine closeness (difference) of a numerical value. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues, page 9, item B, that the claims do not recite a mental process because the mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations. Applicant states that the reference torque is a value produced from a physical instrument from a physically applied torque measurement, not an observation one can make with the human mind and that the device recites a structural, mechanical cooperation, without which the torque cannot be determined at all. Further, applicant argues that the human mind cannot establish radio links.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Gathering data in order to carry out the abstract idea of “comparing data” (math) requires pieces of data and therefore data collection. The claims recite steps of gathering torque data from a wrench in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner. This is evidenced by previously-cited: Ogushi et al. (a screwdriver is inserted into a torque transducer, Figs. 3-4); US7885780 (col. 6, lines 5-7: For a measurement the head 36 of the torque wrench 12 is inserted into the transducer 22 by the reception 38.); US20160161354 (reception 101 is a recess and square drive 51 is a boss, Fig. 2); US20140150568 (The torque sensors 29 and 35 show a boss for receiving the wrench). Therefore, the manner of data gathering is recited at a high level of generality and includes structural, mechanical cooperation between two specific instruments which is well-understood, routine and conventional as evidenced by the prior art. Regarding the statement that without the structural, mechanical cooperation between two specific instruments, the recited reference torque value cannot be determined at all (page 10, first full para.): It was not suggested by the examiner that the torque measurement is a mental process. The manner of measuring torque, as claimed, is well-understood, routine and conventional and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The rejection did not suggest that the establishment of radio links was a mental process. A radio link, as claimed, is used for data transmission and reception via a computer. Wireless data transmission and reception is well-understood, routine and conventional, including the recited Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Bluetooth Low Energy, Zigbee or frequency-shift keying (FSK) links (US11752604 col. 6, lines 52-end; US20220241943 [0043]; US20160067850 RF transmission/reception [0034, 0040]; US20140150568 [0050]; US7885780 claim 3, radio connection; US20100170370 bidirectional communication via radio). The manner of transmission is well-understood, routine and conventional and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant argues, page 10, prong 2, that the claims recite an improvement and include components or steps that provide said improvement. The steps or components including: receiving multiple torque values and identification of “one of the multiple torque values as a torque value from the electronic torque wrench based on the reference torque value and the multiple torque values”, and removing the need to connect wired wrench and tester, and further removing the need for the operator to identify the torque wrench to the tester when wirelessly connected.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The receiving of data (multiple torque values) has been identified as insignificant extrasolution activity. The “identification” of the one of the multiple torque values as the one does not appear to be an improvement upon anything because it is comparing values and referring to a torque value as “identified” which merely means it has a closest match among a gathered set of torque values. When a torque value is identified, it is only done so in an abstract manner (mentally). Selecting a particular data source (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (MPEP 2016.05(h)) have been found to be insignificant extrasolution activity.
The connection and disconnection of a wrench to a torque tester is well-understood, routine and conventional as discussed above with respect to the recess and boss. The “verification” of the wrench is comparison of data (a mental process) by a computer comparable to Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. The comparison results in an output of an indication of the verification which does not impart any meaningful limitation.
Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues, page 11, step 2B, that the combination of elements amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. When considered as a whole, the ordered combination of elements amounts to measuring a conventional tool (the torque applied by a wrench, the wrench recited at a high level of generality) using a conventional measurement device (evidenced by the prior art and recited at a high level of generality), gathering data (insignificant extrasolution activity) using well-understood, routine and conventional data transmission (evidenced by the prior art), comparing data (abstract idea, mental process) to determine a closest match to the measured value (“identify” which imparts no meaningful limitation and is abstract) and determining if the torque value is within specification (data comparison/abstract idea/mental process) and outputting and indication of the verification (conveying information to a user).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. To determine whether a claim is patent eligible and not directed to a judicial exception, one skilled in the art must first determine whether the claims can be classified in one of the four recognized statutory categories, i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture or a composition of matter. See MPEP 2106(I). In the instant case claims 1-14 recite an apparatus in the preamble, and claims 15-21 recite a method in the preamble, therefore are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Next, a two-part analysis, as discussed in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), is used to determine whether the subject matter recited in the claims are directed to a recognized judicial exception, and if so, is there additional limitations in the claims that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination, so as to render the claims patent eligible. This two-part analysis is the subject of the 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance. In part one of the analyses, one skilled in the art must determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a judicial exception, i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas. Claim 1 recites determin[ing] torque data, receiv[ing] torque data, identify[ing] torque data, perform[ing] verification of data, and output[ing] a result of data comparison.
Claim 9 recites determin[ing] torque data, reciev[ing] torque data, identify[ing] torque data, perform[ing] verification of data, and output[ing] a result of data comparison.
Claim 15 recites the steps of determining torque data, receiving torque data, identifying torque data, performing verification of data, and outputting a result of data comparison.
The measuring and acquiring data is merely data gathering using routine and conventional sensors and calculating (comparing, identifying) is merely analyzing the data using a computer. Therefore, claims 1-21 are directed to a mathematical calculation and a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance limitations of the mind. For example, the claim limitations encompass a person looking at data collected and determining information from the collected data. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person looking at the obtained data could generate or identify the various values and data therefrom, either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by circuitry (a computer) does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process and a mathematical calculation.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a recess [of a torque tester] configured to engage a boss of a torque wrench (as well as the required connection and disconnection) is well understood, routine and conventional activity (Ogushi et al. "Advantages of the calibration chain for hand torque screwdrivers traceable to the national torque standard," 2012 Proceedings of SICE Annual Conference (SICE), Akita, Japan, 2012, pp. 1471-1476.; US7885780; US20160161354; US20140150568). The reception and transmission of information and the determining or manipulation of information requires nothing more than well-understood conventional mathematical concepts which can be used on a general-purpose computer. In other words, determining data and comparing data is similar to the concept of gathering information where that information is compared and formatted for transmission which is well-understood, routine, and conventional (US11752604 col. 6, lines 52-end; US20220241943 [0043]; US20160067850 RF transmission/reception [0034, 0040]; US20140150568 [0050]; US7885780 claim 3, radio connection; US20100170370 bidirectional communication via radio). This basic concept of gathering data/information for transmission and comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options has been identified by the courts as an abstract idea (see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Laboratories, SA (Fed. Cir. 2014); Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); MPEP 2106.05(g), 2106.05(h).
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-21 further limit the abstract idea without adding significantly more.
Claims 2-5, 11-14, and 16-19 are directed to comparison and analysis of the data which is a mental process and a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claims 6-7, 10, 20 are directed to extrasolution details of data gathering and transmission/reception which does not amount to significantly more (US11752604 col. 6, lines 52-end; US20220241943 [0043]; US20160067850 RF transmission/reception [0034, 0040]; US20140150568 [0050]; US7885780 claim 3, radio connection; US20100170370 bidirectional communication via radio).
Claims 8 and 21 are directed to disconnecting the wrench after verification which is well-understood, routine and conventional activity which does not amount to significantly more.
As such, claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN MORELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-6583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/JEAN F MORELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855 9/1/26
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights