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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/05/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on pages 5-7 that the claimed invention is distinguishable over Tarumoto because Tarumoto discloses applying the plurality of digital filters and then automatically selecting the best one, bypassing the instant Application’s feature of allowing the user to select a filter based on the graphical comparison.
Examiner agrees that Tarumoto’s automatic selection of a digital filter is not an obvious variant of the instant invention and has determined that claim 2, which positively recites this feature of allowing a user input filter selection is patentable over the prior art. However, claim 1, which merely recites displaying the results of the sequential application of filters would be obvious since it is merely displaying information it has already gathered. Should a skilled artisan wish to see the results of an algorithm, regardless of any subsequent action, it would be within their purview to enable a display if desired as evidenced by the newly cited prior art.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to. It appears the claim ends in both a comma and a period. It should end in only a period.
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, 2, 5, and 8 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.
Regarding claim 1, the amended limitation “comparing a result of applying a default digital filter to an original signal and a result of sequentially applying the plurality of digital filters to the original signal based on a standard deviation of an amplitude of a waveform included in a weighing signal that is obtained by applying each of the plurality of digital filters to the original signal, the original signal being output when the conveyance unit is in operation and the article is not conveyed by the conveyance unit, a result of sequentially applying the plurality of digital filters to the original signal” appears to repeat the limitation in italics. It is unclear if this is intentional and is somehow further limiting the amending limitation or if it is a typographical error. Since it is merely repeating a previous limitation, Examiner is applying prior art as if it is a redundant limitation. If it is intended to impart some further meaningful limitation on the previous part of the limitation, Applicant is asked to elucidate its intended interpretation in the next set of remarks.
Claims 2, 5, and 8 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 and are likewise rejected.
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, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarumoto et al. (EP 3 882 582; “Tarumoto”, of record) in view of Higa et al. (US 2019/0280673; “Higa”).
Regarding claim 1, Tarumoto discloses in at least figures 1-3 a weighing apparatus (1) (¶ [0025]) comprising a conveyance unit (2) configured to convey an article (P) ¶ [0026]), a weighing unit (4) configured to weigh weight of the article (P) conveyed by the conveyance unit (2) (¶ [0027]), a processing unit (8) configured to process an original signal related to weighing by a plurality of digital filters set in advance, the original signal being output from the weighing unit (4) (¶¶ [0034]-[0037]), and a display unit (7) configured to display information output from the processing unit (8) (¶ [0031]), wherein the processing unit (8) is configured to generate evaluation information of the plurality of digital filters by comparing a result of applying a default digital filter to an original signal and a result of sequentially applying the plurality of digital filters to the original signal based on standard deviation of an amplitude of a waveform included in a weighing signal that is obtained by applying each of the plurality of digital filters to the original signa (¶¶ [0038]-[0046]), the original signal being output when the conveyance unit (2) is in operation and the article (P) is not conveyed by the conveyance unit (2) (¶¶ [0038]-[0040]) a result of sequentially applying the plurality of digital filters to the original signal (¶¶[0038]-[0040]).
Tarumoto is silent to displaying a list of graphs.
Higa teaches a digital filter setting device wherein the display unit is configured to display evaluation information as a list of graphs to allow a user to compare the plurality of digital filters (¶¶ [0067]-[0070], see figures 6-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to configure Tarumoto’s display to display the results of the digital filter applications as a list of graphs as taught by Higa for the purpose of allowing a user to visualize the effects of the different filters on the signals as a check on the automated process and to include in reports if desired.
Regarding claim 5, Tarumoto and Hiba disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Hiba further teaches the display unit is configured to distinguish and display the evaluation information for each filter characteristic (¶¶ [0067]-[0070], see figures 6-8).
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Tarumoto discloses the default digital filter is a digital filter applied to a previous inspection (¶¶ [0037], [0046]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While Higa further teaches a user input to allow a user to make a selection of the filter, Applicant’s argument that Tarumoto’s inventive concept is the automatic selection of a filter without user input selection is persuasive and would change the principle of operation of Tarumoto’s apparatus.
Conclusion
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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