DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/31/2025 with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to. It appears line 4 should read --a lower part on which four feet [[foot]] are configured--.
Claim 1 is objected to. It appears line 8 should read --defined by that four [[foot] -feet --.
Claim 1 is objected to. It appears line 9 should read --each of said four [[foot] feet--.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oneid (US 2016/0153826) in view of Berme et al. (USPN 11,262,231; “Berme”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Oneid discloses in figures 1-4 a weighing scale for weighing an object (¶ [0004]), comprising an upper part (14) on which a support face (16) for an item to be weighed is configured (¶ [0012]), a lower part (12) on which four feet (28) are configured (¶¶ [0012]-[0013]), a determination of weight taking place by a change of the position between the upper part (14) and the lower part (12) (¶ [0012]) and each of said four feet (28) includes a dedicated weight sensor (¶¶ [0012]-[0014]).
Oneid’s scale is not explicitly for bottles per se.
However, a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP § 2114 (II).
Oneid is concerned with addressing the problem of weighing an object on a rough or uneven surface and does not by providing feet that pivot or rotate in response to uneven surfaces while maintain contact with the weight sensors (¶ [0019]).
Oneid is silent to the support face is smaller than a footprint area defined by the four feet.
In the same field of endeavor, Berm also discloses in figures 1-4 a weighing scale (col. 1, lines 33-41), comprising an upper part (20) on which a support face (top of 20) for an item to be weighed is configured a lower part (made of beams 60 and feet 30) on which at least four feet (30) are configured, a determination of weight taking place by a change of the position between the upper part (20) and the lower part (60, 30); and the support face (surface of 20) is smaller than a footprint area defined by the four feet (30) (col. 4, line 44 through col. 5, line 9; see figure 1, feet protrude from corners of weigh plate 20).
Like Oneid, Berme is teaches feet that pivot or swivel in response to an uneven surface (col. 4, line 44 through col. 5, line 3).
Given both these scales are specifically addressing the issue of accurate weighing on an uneven surface, one having ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate and infer that Berme’s configuration of the feet protruding from the corners would lead to a more stable configuration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to configure Oneid’s scale such that the support face is smaller than a footprint area defined by Oneid’s four feet as suggested by Berme for the purpose of further increasing the accuracy of the scale by creating a more stable base on which the scale can rest.
Regarding claim 3, Oneid as modified by Berme discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Berme further discloses in figure 1 the footprint area is formed by a rectilinear connection of outer delimitations of adjacent ones of said feet (connection of the outermost areas of feet 30 form a rectilinear footprint in which the footprint of surface 20 fits).
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Oneid as modified by Berme discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Berme discloses in figure 1 a perpendicular projection of the support face (20) onto the footprint area at least in one contour portion of the support face (20), lies within the footprint area, and a minimum spacing between a contour of the footprint area and a contour of the support face is maintained (col. 4, line 44 through col. 5, line 9; see figure 1, feet protrude from corners of weigh plate 20).
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Oneid discloses in figure 2 at least one of the lower part (12) or the upper part (14) is configured to be concave between at least two neighboring ones of the feet (28) (interior of base 12 is hollow and therefore concave).
Regarding claim 10, Oneid discloses in figure 2 a lateral step disposed between at least two neighboring ones of the feet (28) in the upper part (14) (side of platform 16 is a lateral step that spans between any two neighboring feet).
Regarding claim 11, Oneid as modified by Berme discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Oneid generally discloses an electronic evaluation unit but is silent to its placement (¶ [0014]).
Berme discloses in figure 4 an electronic evaluation unit (62) is disposed in the upper part (20) (col. 5, line 57 through col. 6, line 18; see figure 4, circuit 62 is inside top plate 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to place Oneid’s evaluation unit in Oneid’s upper part as taught by Berme for the purpose of providing a location for the evaluation unit near the display for easy access and maintenance should it need troubleshooting.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oneid in view of Berme and Domel (US 2008/0217072; previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, Oneid as modified by Berme discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Oneid as modified by Berme is silent to a carrying handle.
However, providing a handle for a weighing scale is well known in the art.
Domel teaches in at least figure 1 a weighing scale (10) comprising a carrying handle (24) (¶ [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include a carrying handle on Oneid’s weighing scale as taught by Domel for the purpose of allowing a person to pick up and carry the scale to different locations as desired in a comfortable and ergonomic fashion.
When a Oneid’s scale is modified with a handle, the only available place for it to be is the upper part, therefore this limitation is taught by the combination.
Regarding claim 9, Domel further teaches the carrying handle (24) is configured with a contour shaped as a circular segment.
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oneid in view of Berme and Werner (US 2007/0255182; previously).
Regarding claim 12, Oneid as modified by Berme discloses the weighing scale as claimed in claim 1.
Oneid discloses the scale is for weighing an object but is silent specifically to a method of weighing a bottle.
Werner discloses in figures 1-6 a method of weighing a fluid-containing bottle (100) (¶ [0002]) the method comprising providing a bottle weighing scale (10) (¶¶[0026]-[0031]) and placing the fluid-containing bottle (100) so as to be centric, on the support face (34) for weighing the fluid-containing bottle (100) (see figure 3).
Courts have ruled that applying a known method to a known device to yield predictable results is within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to use Oneid’s scale to weigh a fluid-containing bottle as taught by Werner to achieve the predictable result of determining how much fluid is left in the bottle for the purpose of allowing a bottle to be weighed on an uneven or rough surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 NATALIE HULS whose telephone number is (571)270-5914. The examiner can normally be reached T-F 7-4 EST.
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, Lisa Caputo can be reached at (571) 272-2388. 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.
/NATALIE HULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863