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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1149 filed 07/26/2023. This IDS has been considered.
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 25 is 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 25, the limitation “a digital type-plate” is unclear because it is not an accepted term of art. A cursory search revealed no reference to it in any relevant prior art documents. Examiner referred to the specification to see if Applicant defined or further elucidated what is meant by this term and found only a repetition of the claim language.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
From the claim construction and the reference made to “digital type-plate” in the specification, Examiner is contextually interpreting the term to a data string containing the information later listed in the Markush group.
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 17-22, 25-27, 29, 30, 34-36, and 39-41are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haze et al. (USPN 5,479,756; “Haze”) in view of Kono (USPN 6,401,437).
Regarding claim 17, Haze discloses in at least figures 1 and 9 a weighing arrangement (1) for a package-handling system for handling individual packages (col. 1, lines 5-11), the weighing arrangement (1) comprising a sensor unit configured to ascertain sensor data relating to the weight of the individual packages (col. 6, lines 22-38; describes combinatorial weigher including weigh hoppers which inherently have sensors), and an evaluation unit (10) configured to store system information that contains weighing parameters, wherein the evaluation unit (10) is further configured to determine weight values for the individual packages from the sensor data by reference to the weighing parameters (col. 6, line 59 through col. 7, line 6, col. 12, lines 16-27), wherein the evaluation unit (10) is further configured to communicate the weight values to a control arrangement (37) of the package-handling system via a data interface (24) of the weighing arrangement (1) (col. 12, lines 28-40), wherein the evaluation unit (10) is further configured to store a display selection that defines at least some of the system information as displayable information, and wherein the evaluation unit is further configured to bring about the display of the displayable information via a visual display device (12) that is independent of the control arrangement (37) (col. 11, line 61 through col. 12, line 15).
Haze discloses that the weighing arrangement is a combinatorial weigher such as those well-known in the art (col. 6, lines 22-38) but is silent specifically to the evaluation unit storing calibration information relating to the weighing parameters.
In the same field of endeavor, Kono teaches in figures a weighing arrangement (110) for a package handling system (1) (col. 5, line 65 through col. 6, line 10) also comprising a combinatorial weigher (col. 6, lines 24-64) wherein the evaluation unit (50) stores calibration information relating to the weighing parameters (col. 4, lines 33-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include Kono’s calibration information storage and functionality in Haze’s weighing arrangement evaluation unit for the purpose of correcting inaccuracies due to debris attached to the hoppers leading to defective product detection downstream (col. 2, lines 24-42).
Regarding claim 18, Haze discloses in figure 5 the display selection defines at least some of the weight values as the displayable information.
Regarding claim 19, Haze discloses in figure 5 the at least some weight values include one or more of net weight, gross weight, tare and weight range.
Regarding claim 20, Haze discloses at least one part of the display selection is permanently specified and/or is preselected in a manner depending on the package-handling system (col. 7, lines 49-52, see also figure 5).
Regarding claim 21, Haze discloses at least one part of the display selection is permanently specified and/or is preselected depending on the location of the package-handling system (col. 7, lines 49-52; display preselection depends on location because it is located at the weighing arrangement, see also figure 5).
Regarding claim 22, Haze discloses the preselection display selection that is dependent on the package handling system is permanently specified (col. 7, lines 49-52, see also figure 5).
Regarding claim 25, Haze discloses the display selection defines a digital type-plate stored in the evaluation unit, which relates to at least one of minimally permissible weight, maximally permissible weight, weight-division values, weighing-instrument class, manufacturer, serial number and/or electrical operating-voltage values, as displayable information (see figure 5, “target weight” is a parameter that relates to permissible weights).
Regarding claim 26, Haze as modified by Kono discloses all the limitations of claim 17 on which this claim depends.
Kono further teaches the display selection defines the calibration information as displayable information (col. 12, lines 15-21; see figure 13).
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 17 above.
Regarding claim 27, Kono further teaches the calibration information is representative of a versioning of the evaluation unit, of a calibration period and/or of a deactivated state of the weighing system (col. 12, lines 15-21, see figure 13; since the display is present during the calibration, the information is representative of a calibration period).
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 17 above.
Regarding claim 29, Haze discloses the evaluation unit (10) is further configured to bring about the display of the displayable information in compliance with a specified period of time (col. 12, lines 49-58; note the duration of operation is a specified duration of time).
Regarding claim 30, Haze discloses the specified period of time is a minimum display duration and/or a maximum display duration, with respect to the time of the ascertainment of the sensor data, via the visual display device (12) (col. 12, lines 49-58; note the duration of operation is a specified minimum/maximum duration of time).
Regarding claim 34, Haze as modified by Kono disclose a package-handling system for handling individual packages (Haze, col. 1, lines 5-11) having a feed arrangement for transporting respective packages (Haze col. 13, line 62 through col. 14, line 12), wherein the package-handling system includes a control arrangement (37) for triggering the feed arrangement (Haze, col. 13, line 62 through col. 14, line 12), and wherein the package-handling system includes a weighing arrangement (1) as claimed in claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above) and a visual display device (12) for displaying the displayable information (Haze, col. 11, lines 61 through col. 12, line 15).
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 17 above.
Regarding claim 35, Haze discloses wherein the weighing arrangement (1) in the package-handling system is configured for inspection weighing of the individual packages (col. 6, lines 1-21, weight checker 5 can be interpreted as part of the “weighing arrangement”).
Regarding claim 36, Haze discloses the package-handling system includes a sorting arrangement (6) configured for sorting out the packages in a manner depending on the respective results of the inspection weighing (col. 6, lines 1-21).
Regarding claim 39, Haze discloses the package-handling system includes a user interface (13, 14) for operation of package-handling system by the user, and wherein the user interface (13, 14) is configured to communicate with the control arrangement (37) via a network (23, 24) (col. 6, line 59 through col. 7, line 7, col. 13, lines 23-40).
Regarding claim 40, Haze discloses the user interface (13, 14) is a mobile device and/or a remote computer (col. 13, lines 23-40).
Regarding claim 41, Haze discloses in at least figures 1 and 9 a method for operating a package-handling system for handling individual packages (col. 1, lines 5-11) having a feed arrangement for transporting respective packages, wherein the feed arrangement is triggered by means of a control arrangement (37) of the package-handling system (col. 13, line 62 through col. 14, line 12), wherein sensor data relating to the weight of the individual packages are ascertained by means of a sensor unit of a weighing arrangement (1) (col. 6, lines 22-38; describes combinatorial weigher including weigh hoppers which inherently have sensors), wherein system information that contains weighing parameters has been stored in an evaluation unit (10) of the weighing arrangement (1) (col. 6, line 59 through col. 7, line 6, col. 12, lines 16-27), wherein weight values for the individual packages are determined from the sensor data by means of the evaluation unit (10) by reference to the weighing parameters (col. 6, line 59 through col. 7, line 6, col. 12, lines 16-27), wherein the weight values are communicated to the control arrangement (37) by means of the evaluation unit (10) via a data interface (24) of the weighing arrangement (10) (col. 12, line 28-40), wherein a display selection that defines at least some of the system information as displayable information has been stored in the evaluation unit (10), and wherein the display of the displayable information is brought about by means of the evaluation unit (10) via a visual display device (12) that is independent of the control arrangement (37) (col 11, line 61 through col. 12, line 15).
Haze discloses that the weighing arrangement is a combinatorial weigher such as those well-known in the art (col. 6, lines 22-38) but is silent specifically to the evaluation unit storing calibration information relating to the weighing parameters.
In the same field of endeavor, Kono teaches in figures a weighing arrangement (110) for a package handling system (1) (col. 5, line 65 through col. 6, line 10) also comprising a combinatorial weigher (col. 6, lines 24-64) wherein the evaluation unit (50) stores calibration information relating to the weighing parameters (col. 4, lines 33-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include Kono’s calibration information storage and functionality in Haze’s weighing arrangement evaluation unit for the purpose of correcting inaccuracies due to debris attached to the hoppers leading to defective product detection downstream (col. 2, lines 24-42).
Claims 23, 24, 37, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haze and Kono and further in view of Kawahara (USPN 4,551,962).
Regarding claim 23, Haze and Kono disclose all the limitations of claim 17 on which this claim depends.
Haze and Kono both disclose packaging food items for retail sale but are silent specifically to determining a price.
However, packaging machines that includes pricing functionality are well-known in the art. For example, Kawahara teaches a weighing arrangement for a packaging machine (col. 1, lines 28-39) wherein a basic price value assigned to a product-type of the individual packages is specified to the evaluation unit, and wherein the control arrangement and/or the evaluation unit is configured to determine prices of the individual packages from the sensor data by reference to the basic price value (col. 4, lines 17-29, col. 12, lines 12-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include Kawahara’s price determination functionality in Haze’s arrangement for the purpose of producing foodstuff packages that are ready to be put directly on store shelves.
Regarding claim 24, Kawahara further teaches the display selection defines the price, the basic price value assigned to the product- type and/or the product-type as displayable information (col. 4, lines 17-29, col. 12, lines 12-22).
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 23 above.
Regarding claim 37, Haze and Kono disclose all the limitations of claim 34 on which this claim depends.
Haze and Kono both disclose packaging food items for retail sale but are silent specifically to labeling.
However, packaging machines that includes labeling functionality are well-known in the art. For example, Kawahara teaches in figure 34 a package-handling system (col. 1, lines 28-39) wherein the package-handling system includes a labeling device (right side of machine 400 where the package gets labeled) for labeling the individual packages, a label-dispensing arrangement for dispensing a label (see rolls of label material being fed to printer 403), a label- application arrangement (403’) for applying the dispensed label onto a respective one of the individual packages, and a printer arrangement for printing the label (403), and wherein the control arrangement (402) is configured at least for triggering the printer arrangement (col. 11, line 46 through col. 12, line 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include Kawahara’s labeling device in Haze’s arrangement for the purpose of producing foodstuff packages that are ready to be put directly on store shelves.
Regarding claim 38, Kawahara further teaches the labeling device is a price tagging device (col. 4, lines 17-29, col. 11, line 46 through col. 12, line 22).
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 37 above.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haze and Kono and further in view of Burrell (US 2023/0194334)
Regarding claim 28, Haze and Kono disclose all the limitations of claim 27 on which this claim depends, including displaying calibration information for the package handling system.
Haze and Kono are silent to the calibration is representative of a software version of the evaluation unit.
In the same field of endeavor, Burrell generally teachings displaying calibration information of a material processing machine wherein the calibration information includes a software version (¶ [0103]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include Burrell’s information on Haze’s display as modified by Kono for the purpose of informing the user what software version is running in case it is not up to date or compatible with the rest of the devices in the system.
Claims 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haze and Kono and further in view of Moser (US 2017/0003161).
Regarding claim 31, Haze and Kono disclose all the limitations of claim 17 on which this claim depends.
Haze and Moser are silent to the evaluation unit is further configured to undertake a check as to whether the display of the displayable information by the visual display device is capable of occurring.
Moser teaches a scale for the sale of consumables in which the evaluation unit is further configured to undertake a check as to whether the display of the displayable information by the visual display device is capable of occurring (¶¶ [0009]-[0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include Moser’s check functionality in Haze’s modified weighing arrangement for the purpose of ensuring that the display is a display model approved for use with the particular evaluation unit software (¶ [0011]).
Regarding claim 32, Moser further teaches the check relates to the connection of the weighing arrangement to the visual display device, and/or to the operating state of the visual display device with the aid of a feedback from the visual display device (¶¶ [0009]-[0014]).
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 31 above.
Regarding claim 33, Haze in view of Kono and Moser disclose all the limitations of claim 31 on which this claim depends.
Moser further teaches that the check is made in cases where the scale is subject to calibration rules (¶ [0009]) and if the display is not in compliance the data is not sent to the display (¶¶ [0032]-[0033]).
One having ordinary skill and creativity in the art would deduce from Moser’s teachings that if the display and the evaluation unit are not in compliance, the evaluation unit should send possibly erroneous, non-compliant weight data to the control arrangement. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to ensure Haze’s evaluation unit is further configured to communicate the weight values to the control arrangement of the package-handling system only when, according to the check, the display of the displayable information by the visual display device is determined to be capable of occurring for the purpose of preventing non-compliant data from propagating throughout the pack handling system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPN 4,757,451 discloses a package handling system in which the weighing arrangement and the wrapping arrangement have different controllers and displays.
USPN 7,279,644 discloses methos of displaying weight data from a package handling system.
US 2018/0274969 discloses displaying calibration information for a combinatorial weigher.
USPN 5,767,454 discloses checking the connection of a scale and a display.
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