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 amendments to the claims have overcome the previous prior art rejections and the previous rejections under 112(b). However, the claim amendments have also raised new 112(b) rejections as noted below.
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 13, 17, 19, 23-25, 32, 35, and 39 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 23, the line 11 limitation “the remote device” lacks antecedent basis.
The line 22 limitation recalls “the remote device” however, line 19 also recites “a remote device”. Therefore it is unclear whether the line 22 “remote device” is referring to the line 11 remote device or line 19 remote device. It is unclear in general from the claim how many remote devices are being recited.
Also regarding claim 23, the line 35 limitation “both processing modules” lacks antecedent basis. Original claim 1 which has been cancelled required that each loadbar comprise a processing module but that claim language was not carried over into amended claim 23.
Regarding claim 24, the line 11 limitation “the remote device” lacks antecedent basis.
The line 22 limitation recalls “the remote device” however, line 19 also recites “a remote device”. Therefore it is unclear whether the line 22 “remote device” is referring to the line 11 remote device or line 19 remote device. It is unclear in general from the claim how many remote devices are being recited.
Claims 13, 17, 19, and 25 depend on claim 24 and inherits its deficiencies and are therefore likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 35, the claim preamble indicates this claim depends on claim 33, however, this claim has been cancelled rendering the metes and bounds of instant claim 35 indefinite.
Also regarding claim 35, there is no transitional phrase in between “weighing system of claim 33” and “a first loadbar and a second loadbar” thereby also rendering the claim indefinite because it is impossible to determine if the claim scope is open-ended or closed.
Also regarding claim 35, the line 18 limitation “the remote device” lacks antecedent basis.
The line 29 limitation recalls “the remote device” however, line 26 also recites “a remote device”. Therefore it is unclear whether the line 29 “remote device” is referring to the line 18 remote device or line 26 remote device. It is unclear in general from the claim how many remote devices are being recited.
Regarding claim 39, the lines 2-3 limitation “the load cells” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 35 on which this claim depends originally recites “at least two load cells” but that limitation has been deleted with this amendment.
Claim 39 is also rejected for its dependence on claim 35.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30 and 31 are allowed.
Claims 13, 17, 19, 23, 24, 25, 32, 35, and 39 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 23, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious a wireless loadbar weighing system as claimed wherein the force measurements are not included in, or discarded from, the first measured force data stream or the second measured force data stream until force measurements have been received from both processing modules within a predetermined time interval in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Regarding claim 24, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious a wireless loadbar weighing system as claimed wherein alignment of the respective force measurements of the first measured force data stream and the second measured force data stream includes discarding of a force measurement from the first measured force data stream or the second measured force data stream in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Claims 13, 17, 19 and 25 would be allowable based on its dependence on claim 24.
Examiner notes that regarding claims 23 and 24 while Lunenburg offers several ways to overcome signal crowding, none of them involve discarding data due to misalignment of data.
Regarding claim 30, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious a wireless loadbar weighing system as claimed wherein the configuration of a processing module as the primary processing module is based on a relative battery state of charge between the loadbars in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Regarding claim 31, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious a wireless loadbar weighing system as claimed wherein the configuration of a processing module as the primary processing module is based on a relative signal strength of a wireless connection between the processing modules and the remote device in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Regarding claim 35, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious a wireless loadbar weighing system as claimed wherein the processing module includes a processing module enclosure configured to be releasably secured relative to the base portion at the first end in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Claim 39 would be allowable based on its dependence on claim 35.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0136887 discloses a wireless weighing system for livestock weighing.
US 2020/0124465 discloses a wireless master-slave load cell configuration.
US 2010/0181119 discloses a wireless master-slave load cell configuration.
US 2004/0026135 discloses a wireless master-slave load cell configuration.
USPN 10,718,657 generally discloses a load bar as described in claims 35 and 39 but fails to disclose a processing module in an enclosure which is releasably secured to the base.
USPN 8,853,568 generally discloses a load bar as described in claims 35 and 39 but fails to disclose a processing module in an enclosure which is releasably secured to the base.
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 M-F 8-5 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, John Breene can be reached at (571) 272-4107. 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 2855