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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. 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. Claims 1-20 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. Regarding claim 1 , Applicant claims in lines 5-12, “memory coupled to processing circuity, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to….” (emphasis added). It is unclear to Examiner if Applicant is claiming that the processing circuitry is part of the table, or rather merely coupled to the memory as Applicant has not positively/affirmatively claimed the processing circuitry to be part of the table thereof. Examiner suggests that Applicant breakup the claim limitations with the processing circuitry configuration being claimed on a separate line thereby indicating that said processing circuitry is a component of the table, for example Applicant may claim, “ memory coupled to processing circuity ; the processing circuitry is configured to….” . Claims 2-7 are rejected for containing all of the same indefiniteness issues as claim 1 from which they depend thereon. Further r egarding claim 5, Applicant claims in line 2, “and the difference.” Examiner asks if this is the same difference between the pre-coating and the post-coating weight as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, this claim language is indefinite. Regarding claim 8, Applicant claims in lines 6-13, “memory coupled to processing circuity, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to….” (emphasis added). It is unclear to Examiner if Applicant is claiming that the processing circuitry is part of the table, or rather merely coupled to the memory as Applicant has not positively/affirmatively claimed the processing circuitry to be part of the table thereof. Examiner suggests that Applicant breakup the claim limitations with the processing circuitry configuration being claimed on a separate line thereby indicating that said processing circuitry is a component of the table, for example Applicant may claim, “ memory coupled to processing circuity ; the processing circuitry is configured to….” . Claims 9-13 are rejected for containing all of the same indefiniteness issues as claim 8 from which they depend thereon. Further regarding claim 12, Applicant claims in line 2, “and the difference.” Examiner asks if this is the same difference between the pre-coating and the post-coating weight as claimed in claim 8. Therefore, this claim language is indefinite. Regarding claim 14, Applicant claims in lines 6-13, “memory coupled to processing circuity, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to….” (emphasis added). It is unclear to Examiner if Applicant is claiming that the processing circuitry is part of the system, or rather merely coupled to the memory as Applicant has not positively/affirmatively claimed the processing circuitry to be part of the system thereof. Examiner suggests that Applicant breakup the claim limitations with the processing circuitry configuration being claimed on a separate line thereby indicating that said processing circuitry is a component of the system, for example Applicant may claim, “ memory coupled to processing circuity ; the processing circuitry is configured to….” . Further r egarding claim 14, Applicant claims in line 15, “and the difference.” Examiner asks if this is the same difference between the pre-coating and the post-coating weight as claimed in line 12. Therefore, this claim language is indefinite. Claims 15-20 are rejected for containing all of the same indefiniteness issues as claim 14 from which they depend thereon. Further regarding claim 20, Applicant claims in line 1, “a second loading platform”. Examiner finds this claim language to be indefinite as Applicant claims loading platforms in claim 14, wherein this indicates that a second loading platform is implicit/inherent Claim 10 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. One of ordinary skill in the art realizes with how claim 8 is claimed that when Applicant claims “loading platforms” in line 2, this includes two or more loading platforms. Furthermore, when Applicant claims load cells in line 3, one of ordinary skill in the art realizes that this includes two or more load cells . Therefore, the claim language of claim 10 fails to further limit claim 8. 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. C laim 16 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. One of ordinary skill in the art realizes with how claim 14 is claimed that when Applicant claims “loading platforms” in line 2, this includes two or more loading platforms. Furthermore, when Applicant claims load cells in line 3, one of ordinary skill in the art realizes that this includes two or more load cells . Therefore, the claim language of claim 16 fails to further limit claim 14. 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 § 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 . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim s 1- 6, 14-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150217316 to Brett et al. (Brett) . Regarding claim s 1 , 3, and 4 , Brett discloses a table for assessing a coating of parts (Fig. 1, part 19) , the table comprising: a loading platform on which parts are placed (Fig. 1, part 37) ; a load cell connected to the loading platforms and configured to detect weights of the parts on the loading platforms (Fig. 1, part 22) ; and memory coupled to processing circuitry (paragraph 26) , wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: select a coating program to be applied to a first part placed on a first loading platform of the loading platforms; determine a pre-coating weight of the part on the first loading platform; determine a post-coating weight of the part on the first loading platform; and determine a difference between the pre-coating weight and the post-coating weight (paragraph 26) . Brett does not disclose loading platforms and load cells; wherein the loading platforms comprise twelve loading platforms, and wherein the load cells comprise twelve load cells ; or wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine respective pre-coating weights of twelve parts placed on the twelve loading platforms , and determine respective post-coating weights of the twelve parts placed on the twelve loading platforms. However, this is merely an obvious duplication of parts that has not be shown to produce a new and unexpected result all in order to achieve the predictable result of processing multiple parts at the same time. See MPEP 2144.04, VI, B. Regarding claim 2, Brett is relied upon as above in claim 1. Brett does not disclose wherein the loading platforms and the load cells are arranged in two rows on the table. However, this is merely an obvious rearrangement of parts that has not been shown to modify the operation of the device and would have been an obvious design choice all in order to achieve the predictable result of processing multiple parts at the same time. See MPEP 2144.04, VI, C. Regarding claim 5, Brett is relied upon as above in claim 1. Brett discloses further comprising an electrical output configured to output electrical signals comprising an indication of the coating program and the difference (see paragraph 26). Regarding claim 6, Brett is relied upon as above in claim 1. The claim language in claim 6, regarding “ further comprising a docking assembly configured to secure the table ” is regarded as intended use as Applicant is claiming the table and not a component external thereof to secure said table thereto, does not add any further structural limitations to the claim, and because the apparatus is capable of performing said intended use, the limitations of the claim are considered to be met. Regarding claim 14, 16, and 17 , Brett discloses a system for assessing a coating of parts (Fig. 1, generally) , the system comprising: a table (Fig. 1, part 19) having a loading platform on which parts are placed (Fig. 1, part 37) ; a load cell connected to the loading platform and configured to detect weights of the parts on the loading platform (Fig. 1, part 22) ; an electrical output (paragraph 26) ; and memory coupled to processing circuitry (paragraph 26) , wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: select a coating program to be applied to a first part placed on a first loading platform of the loading platforms; determine a pre-coating weight of the part on the first loading platform; determine a post-coating weight of the part on the first loading platform; and determine a difference between the pre-coating weight and the post-coating weight (paragraph 26) , wherein the electrical output is configured to output electrical signals indicative of the coating program and the difference (paragraph 26). Brett does not disclose loading platforms and load cells; wherein the loading platforms comprise two or more loading platforms, and wherein the load cells comprise two or more load cells ; or wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine respective pre-coating weights of parts placed on the loading platforms , and determine respective post-coating weights of the parts placed on the loading platforms. However, this is merely an obvious duplication of parts that has not be shown to produce a new and unexpected result all in order to achieve the predictable result of processing multiple parts at the same time. See MPEP 2144.04, VI, B. Regarding claim 15 , Brett is relied upon as above in claim 1 4 . Brett does not disclose wherein the loading platforms and the load cells are arranged in two rows on the table. However, this is merely an obvious rearrangement of parts that has not been shown to modify the operation of the device and would have been an obvious design choice all in order to achieve the predictable result of processing multiple parts at the same time. See MPEP 2144.04, VI, C. Regarding claim 20, Brett is relied upon as above in claim 20. Brett does not disclose further comprising a second loading platform not connected to any load cell configured to detect a weight of any part placed on the second loading platform. However, this is merely duplication of an d obvious rearrangement of parts that has not been shown to produce a new and unexpected result or to modify the operation of the device and would have been an obvious design choice all in order to achieve the predictable result of processing multiple parts at the same time. See MPEP 2144.04, VI, B- C. Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 8-13 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. Claim s 7 and 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims . The closest prior art of record is that of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150217316 to Brett et al. (Brett) . Brett does not disclose or make obvious the limitations further including wherein the table is moveable using wheels attached to the table or wherein the loading platforms comprise pneumatic actuators. Should Applicant amend the above claims to overcome the rejections of record and should a Notice of Allowance be warranted, surely Examiner will include a full statement of reasons for allowance therewith Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BENJAMIN LEE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7379 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9:00am-5:00pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael Barr can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1414 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT BENJAMIN LEE OSTERHOUT Primary Examiner Art Unit 1711 /BENJAMIN L OSTERHOUT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711