DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s RCE filing on 01/02/2026, and the grating of the petition decision to revive on 02/23/2026. Claims 21-23 are pending. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 03/08/2022.
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 .
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.
Claim 21-23 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.
Claim 21 (and similarly claims 22 and 23), lines 23, recites “the same printed circuit board.” This renders the claim indefinite as “a same printed circuit board” was not recited prior to this. There is a lack of proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 also recites “the corresponding inventory” in lines 24-25. See also claim 22-23. This renders the claim indefinite for same reasoning as “a corresponding inventory” has not been recited prior to this. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0114041 to Harish (“Harish”)1, in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0091859 to Rosenberg et al. (“Rosenberg”), in further view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2011/0153466 to Harish (“Harish2”).
With regard to claim 21 (and similarly claims 22-23), Harish discloses the claimed system including:
a plurality of sensors . . .2 (e.g. Harish Figs. 2-4, [0072] multiple sensor system to monitor inventory)
a first conductive surface and a second conductive surface . . . (e.g. Harish Fig. 6A, 604B 608B, etc.)
wherein . . . upper and lower surface (e.g. Harish, Fig. 6A, 604B 608B)
wherein the sensor includes a housing . . . groove . . . variable capacitor (e.g. Harish [0080-81] Fig. 6A groove 620B)
. . . comprises a contact zone . . . (e.g. Harish Fig. 5, [0073-75])
Wherein each of the sensors . . . (e.g. Harish [0022])
Wherein a deflection . . . (e.g. Harish [0013] [0024] [0078] etc.)
. . . are substantially parallel . . . (e.g. Harish [0026] [0084]
A sensor output circuit . . . (e.g. Harish [0090] [0122] [0157] etc.)
. . . a digitizer . . . (e.g. Harish [0090] [0122] [0157] etc.)
. . . to convert the digital value into a measurement of force . . . (e.g. Harish [0090] [0122] [0157] etc.)
Wherein the sensor output circuit further comprises . . . (e.g. Harish [0088-90] and [0120-122]; Harish does not disclose the claim language relating to the mathematical concept of, “including by subtracting a baseline waveform count corresponding to a no-load condition; Rosenberg teaches this mathematical concept. See Rosenberg at e.g. [0391-393] [0511] teaches that it would have been obvious to POSITA to include such subtracting a baseline value corresponding to a no-load condition. [0511] Software algorithms similar to those described for interpolating force-sensing sensors can be used to detect the baseline level for interpolating capacitive sensors to baseline away (subtract) the signal level when no touches are detected. This is a common mathematical concept that is used to form a no-weight condition, no pressure, etc. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the sensor art before the effective filing date to modify Harish’s sensor system to include such baseline mathematical concept, as shown in Rosenberg, for the following reasons explicitly stated in Rosenberg: The advantage of the baseline subtraction, as shown in Rosenberg [0392] “The purpose of the baseline subtraction step is to eliminate areas of non-zero pressure which may be caused by imperfections in the sensor, imperfections in device assembly, or persistent pressure points, such as if an object were resting on the sensor.” Rosenberg at [0393] further advantages of such mathematical concept.)
A data processing device . . . (e.g. Harish [0056])
Receiving . . . the output signal . . . (e.g. Harish [0063], [0107-110])
Determining a level . . . (e.g Harish [0134] etc.)
. . . to execute drift correction and tilt correction . . . (Harish does not disclose this limitation. Harish2 teaches this limitation at e.g. [0012] [0042] [0060] published claims 16-17. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inventory management art before the effective filing date to modify Harish’s inventory system to include such tilt/drift corrections, as shown in Harish2, as this provides the added benefit of “enabl[ing] the sensor unit to generate accurate signals based on weight of the inventory item.” Harish2, [0012])
Wherein each sensor comprises a communication interface . . . (e.g. Harish [0056] [0066] [0069])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Ludwig whose telephone number is (571)270-5599. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/PETER LUDWIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
1 This reference applies as prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(1). See Publication date of May 7, 2009. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is at least 03/08/2022.
2 The examiner notes that the whole claim and all claim limitations have been taken into account.