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 1/14/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under prior art have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection have been made below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “case that houses the sensor unit, wherein a flexible wiring member for supplying an electric signal from the control device to the driving source of the feeder unit is provided in the case” of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation, “does not contact or apply a force to the weighing pan” is not described in the specification. There is no support the absolute limitation that the flexible wiring member or case “does not … apply a force” to the weighing pan, because the disclosure describes generated loads from flexible substrates and reducing those loads rather than eliminating them entirely. See [0012]-[0015], [0025].
Claim 5 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.
In claim 5, “such that it does not contact or apply a force to the weighing pan” is unclear because 1) whether “it” refers to the case or the flexible wiring member; and 2) it’s not apparent whether the claim excludes only direct physical contact with the weighing pan or also indirect force transmission through the pan boss or other movable components.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant Admitted Prior Art (hereafter, AAPA) in view of Wahl et al (US Patent 3786961, hereafter Wahl) in view of Naito et al (US Patent 5929390, hereafter Naito).
As per claim 1, AAPA teaches electronic balance used for a weighing unit in a feeder with a hopper a feeder that discharges the object to be measured in the hopper unit, the weighing unit, a weighing pan, a sensor unit configured to measure the weight of the object to be measured discharged from the hopper unit (Fig 5, [0003]-[0004] of Applicant’s specification)
AAPA teaches labels a protective case (113) and wiring seems to be protected by a rigid conduit (106, Fig 5), but does not teach a case per se that houses the sensor unit, wherein a flexible wiring member for supplying an electric signal from the control device to the driving source of the feeder unit is provided in the case.
However, Wahl does teach a gravimetric feeder with a case for a motor and sensor (Figs 1 and 6).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify AAPA with Wahl in order to protect components of apparatus from environment and/or provide safety to the users.
AAPA in view of Wahl does not explicitly teach a flexible wiring member.
However, Naito does teach flexible wiring in a weighing apparatus with sensor (12, Figs 2, 5, col. 5, line 60 to col. 6, line 15, col. 12, lines 35-60).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify AAPA in view Wahl with Naito in order to allow compact construction in tight area, keep multiwire connections neat without tangles, improve reliability and assembly, and/or preserves measurement accuracy.
As per claim 2, Naito teaches a flexible substrate (12, Figs 2, 5, col. 5, line 60 to col. 6, line 15, col. 12, lines 35-60).
As per claim 5, Naito teaches a wiring member that does not apply force to the weigh pan (Fig 1 and 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN E BREENE whose telephone number is (571)272-4107. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at (571)272-4483. 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.
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights