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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims to an apparatus) in the reply filed on 1/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant has also added new claims 25-27 which are directed to a method of using an apparatus similar to Group II from the previous restriction requirement.
Newly submitted claims25-27 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 25-27 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 21
. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means for lifting and means for calculating in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15 and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Sticht, USP 6,089,498.
Regarding claim 15, Sticht teaches an apparatus for determining the gross weight of sheet material on a roll (uses the term thread like material which the Examiner is considering to read on the term sheet material as both are flexible materials being wound on a spool and the term sheet is not specifically defined in the claims and at the very least the apparatus is capable of performing the same actions with a sheet material instead of a thread like material) comprising:
A spool that is equipped with an RFID (bar code, magnetic strip, or chip embedded into the storage coil - column 12 lines 39-41) to identify its tare weight or spool identification number (see column 8 lines 49-54, columns 12-13, and claim 1 step a) wherein the spool is configured to wind the sheet of material (see abstract);
Means for lifting a roll of material that is wound on the spool (lifting devices item 41, column 7) and comprises a sensor configured to sense a force produced by the roll of material (weighting devices are arranged on the support frame via the lifting drives, see column 7 lines 24-38) and wirelessly transmitting the signals that include information (column 11 line 48); and
Means for calculating the gross weight of the sheet of material wound on the roll based at least on the censed force (column 12 lines 28-36).
Regarding claim 17, Sticht further teaches a load cell arranged to detect a force generated by the weight of the roll (column 9 lines 9-30).
Regarding claims 18-19, Sticht further teaches that the signals are sent to a computer unit (item 24) and a data base to store the weight information of a plurality of spools (column 9 line 37- column 10 line 67).
Regarding claim 20, the apparatus of is capable of working with either a paper or a metal substrate coated with electrode materials, and the material worked upon by an apparatus is determined if the apparatus is capable of operating with the claimed materials.
Regarding claims 21-24, the apparatus of Sticht performs the lifting and weight functions with multiple lifting devices and multiple weighing devices that are arranged in the corner regions of the of the support (column 7 lines 24-39) and utilizes the program sequence of identifying and using tare weight data to calculate the gross weight (column 9) and communicating to a control device if values exceed a threshold (column 10 lines 27-60).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sticht, USP 6,089,498 in view of Christopher, US Patent Publication 2022/0258271.
Regarding claim 16, Sticht teaches the use of wireless connectivity, but doesn’t distinguish if it is using Bluetooth or a Wi-Fi transmitter for the wireless communication.
In the same field of endeavor of tracking spools, Christopher teaches that the RFID tags utilized in identification of the different spools for the software utilizes a blue tooth connection [0047].
It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize a Bluetooth connection as taught by Christopher int eh apparatus of Sticht that already utilizes wireless communication for the benefit of utilizing a known concept in a conventional manner to arrive at the same end result of transmitting the information wirelessly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T MINSKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 PM.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 5712707475. 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.
JACOB T. MINSKEY
Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748