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 with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 5-6, 8, 12, 16-20 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.
In claim 5, line 5, “the at least one workpiece or the at least one workpiece stack” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 6, “the at least one carrier column” and “the support elements” of line 3, lack antecedent basis.
In claim 8, “the balance” of line 6 lacks antecedent basis. Furthermore, “the measurement” of lines 3 and 6 lack antecedent basis.
As per claim 12, “a starting material” is unclear if this material is the same as stated previous line.
In claim 16, line 3, “a starting material” is unclear if this is the same material as stated in the previous line. In line 7, “wherein downstream…in a weighing step” is unclear since there is no recitation of a weighting step in the method.
In claims 17 and 18, “after the joint forming” is unclear sine there is no previous recitation of a joint forming.
In claim 19, “the first forming” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 20, “on the basis of this” of line 3 and “at least” of line 4 is unclear what is meant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitation, “instead of the at least one carrier column” replaces the carrier column with three support elements. This replacement does not further limit but substitutes one object with another. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mishra et al (US 9399557).
As per claim 1, Mishra teaches a weighing system for a manufacturing device for products (abstract, col. 1, lines 5-45, col. 2, lines 25-50), comprising at least one electronically evaluable scale (Figs 2-4B, col 6, lines 30-40), comprising at least one carrier element for positioning a group of horizontally adjacent workpieces or horizontally adjacent workpiece stacks, and an evaluation unit connected to the scale (Fig 6), for receiving and utilizing detected weighing data, wherein the scale, in cooperation with the evaluation unit, is operable to detect a total weight and a horizontal weight distribution of the group of horizontally adjacent workpieces or horizontally adjacent workpiece stacks deposited on the carrier element (col. 13, lines 10-20), and wherein the scale in cooperation with the evaluation unit is operable to quantify and differentiate as weight distribution a respective individual weight of at least two workpieces and/or workpiece stacks adjacent to one another in the group of horizontally adjacent workpieces or horizontally adjacent workpiece stacks (Figs 1 and 5, col. 2, 45 to col. 4 line 2).
As per claim 5, Mishra teaches the evaluation unit comprises at least one input interface (Figs 6) for receiving sensor data and/or production data, wherein the sensor data comprise recorded, geometric measured values and the production data define nominal values of the at least one workpiece or the at least one workpiece stack (740, 850, 860, col. 8, line 45, to col. 9, 45, col. 13, 35 to col. 14, line, line 10).
As per claim 7, Mishra teaches a scale integrated into a conveyor unit (Figs 3 and 4A).
As per claim 8, Mishra teaches dynamic and static attributes of the scale (col 3, lines 35-55).
As per claim 9, Mishra teaches a support element (roller) displaceably mounted and between the belts (Fig 1).
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 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al (US 20030111201, hereafter Sato) in view of Tanaka et al (US 4755124, hereafter Tanaka) in view of Mishra.
As per claim 11, Sato teaches manufacturing pulp molded workpiece (Figs 2 and 23, abstract) comprising a material feed unit and forming units where the forming unit has a station with a forming tool and pressing device (Fig 24). The tool is held on the pressing device and movable (623, 624, 635, para 0243—251). Sato also teaches a rejection unit after the forming and drying stations (650, para 0259). Sato does not teach the pressing device is movable in a motor-driven manner.
Tanaka does teach a pressing tool movable in a moto-driven manner (Abstract, Fig 8).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify pressing unit of Sato with a motor in order to reduce manual effort and improve efficiency.
Sato in view of Tanaka does not teach determining weighting data of a workpiece and is arranged after the forming unit. However, Mishra does teach conveying objects and determining weight (Figs 1, 5, 10, col. 2, 45 to col. 4 line 5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sato in view of Tanaka with Mishra to determining weighing data of a workpiece in order ascertain damage or irregularity of the workpiece.
As per claim 12, Sato teaches the forming station of forming tool is operable for press-forming (Fig 24).
As per claim 13, Sato teaches a carrier belt downstream of the forming tool, but the carrier belt does not teach a scale. Mishra does teach scale incorporated on a carrier belt (Figs 1 and 5, col. 2, 45 to col. 4 line 5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sato in view of Tanaka with Mishra to incorporate a scale in order to ascertain damage or irregularity of the workpiece.
As per claim 14, Mishra teaches the evaluation unit connect to the control unit (Fig 1, 6, col. 9, lines 20-30, col. 12, 25-40, col. 16, 45-65)
As per claim 15, Sato teaches releasing or hold workpieces with respect to the forming or pressing process (Fig 24). Moreover, Mishra teaches a forming station (605, Fig 24) producing a single workpiece but does not teach group of two or more workpieces. However, duplication of parts would have been obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 VI(B) -In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sato in view of Tanaka in view of Mishra to duplicate multiple apparatuses for forming a group of workpieces in order to increase production of workpieces.
Claims 16, 20, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of in view of Mishra.
As per claim 16, Sato teaches manufacturing pulp molded workpiece (Figs 2 and 23, abstract) comprising provisioning a starting material and introducing the starting material into a forming unit (Figs. 2a-f, para 0086-97) where the forming unit has a station with a forming tool and pressing device (Fig 24).
Sato does not teach using a scale for a total weight and a horizontal weight distribution of the workpiece positioned on a carrier element.
However, Mishra does teach conveying objects and determining weight with a footprint/weight distribution. (Figs 1, 5, 10, col. 2, 45 to col. 4 line 5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sato with Mishra to determining weighing data of a workpiece in order to ascertain damage or irregularity of the workpiece
As per claim 20, Mishra teaches weighing via sensors and pass to an evaluation unit (Fig 1, 6, col. 9, lines 20-30, col. 12, 25-40, col. 16, 45-65).
As per claim 21, Sato teaches fiber material workpieces (Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 10 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