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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 12/08/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1149 filed 10/18/2023 & 02/14/2025. These IDS have been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a machine control unit” and “a display module” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Machine control unit is described in paragraph [0043] of the specification (“e.g., a programable logic controller (PLC)”).
Display module is described in paragraph [0044] of the specification (“The display module 800 may comprise a remote communication input/output unit including HD pixel screen resolution HDMI output, CPU, serial ports, USB, Type A and B ports, and Ethernet port.”)
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1, 3-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draghetti et al. (US 2024/0246709; “Draghetti”) in view of Schroder et al. (USPN 5,594,184; “Schroder”).
Regarding claim 1, Draghetti discloses a weighing machine (10, see e.g. figure 1) comprising a plurality of load cells (figure 5:60, ¶¶ [0112]-[0113]) configured to weigh a material contained in individual conically shaped paper rolls (100) of a plurality of conically shaped paper rolls (100), wherein the individual conically shaped paper rolls (100) include a top (103) having a first diameter and a bottom having a second diameter (102) that is less than the first diameter (¶¶ [0074]-[0076]), a machine control unit (76) configured to receive signals from the plurality of load cells (60) and process the signals into readable data (¶ [0138]).
Draghetti is silent to a display module and a display.
In the same field of endeavor, Schroder teaches in figure 1 a weighing machine (7) for paper rolls (6) (col. 5, lines 57-67) comprising a display module configured to receive, from the machine control unit, the readable data, and process the readable data to a display layout representing readable information of a weight of the material contained in the individual conically shaped paper rolls (6) and a display unit configured to receive, from the display module, data representing the display layout, and display the readable information of the weight of the material contained in the respective conically shaped paper rolls (6) (col. 6, lines 18-47, col. 8, lines 43-55; note display not shown however, the combination of the signal processing unit and the described display performs the claimed function).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include Schroder’s display module and display in Draghetti’s weighing machine for the purpose of allowing the machine attendant to inspect the assembly process in order to verify there are no machine malfunctions.
Furthermore, courts have ruled that applying a known technique such as displaying a weight signal during manufacturing to a known device such as Draghetti’s weighing apparatus to achieve the predictable result of allowing the user to monitor the manufacturing process is within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007).
Regarding claim 3, Draghetti’s discloses in figure 4 a tray (207) for removeably receiving the plurality of conically shaped paper rolls (100) (¶ [0068]).
Regarding claim 4, Draghetti discloses in figure 6 one or more guides (209) disposed on a surface (11) in the weighing machine (10), wherein the one or more guides (209) align the tray (207) with the plurality of load cells (60) such that the respective bottoms (102) of the individual conically shaped paper rolls (100) come into contact with individual load cells (60) of the plurality of load cells (60) (¶¶ [0068], [0111]).
Regarding claim 5, Draghetti discloses in figure 6 one or more guides (209) disposed on a surface (11) in the weighing machine (10) and a cover plate (207) having a plurality of openings (210), the cover plate (210) disposed on the one or more guides (209) above the plurality of load cells (60) such that a portion of the plurality of conically shaped paper rolls (100) pass through the plurality of openings (210) and are aligned by the cover plate (207) to come into contact with the plurality of load cells (60) (¶¶ [0068]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 7, Draghetti discloses in figure 5 the plurality of load cells (60) are arranged in one or more rows.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draghetti in view of Schroder as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Hove et al. (USPN 6,396,002; “Hove”).
Regarding claim 2, Draghetti as modified by Schroder disclose all the limitations on claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Neither Draghetti nor Hove explicitly disclose an interconnection board to amplify the signals.
However, using an amplifier for weight signals, especially in a manufacturing checkweighing process, is well-known in the art. For example, Hove discloses a checkweigher for paper roll manufacturing and packaging wherein a circuit (see figure 3) receives and amplifies the signals (via 50) and the machine control unit receives the signals from the circuit (col. 6, lines 9-58).
While the teaching is not expressly disclosed as an “interconnection board”, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the circuitry components of figure 3 are physically embodied as a circuit board.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to utilize Hove’s amplifier and circuit board in Draghetti’s modified weighing apparatus for the purpose of automatically comparing the weight of a filled paper roll with the target weight to determine whether or it meets a filled condition.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draghetti in view of Schroder as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Garthaffner et al. (US 2022/0267035; “Garthaffner”)
Regarding claim 6, Draghetti as modified by Schroder discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Draghetti discloses the plurality of load cells (60) are mounted on a plate (59) disposed on one or more guides (11) (¶ [0112]).
Draghetti does not explicitly disclose the guide is on a surface in the weighing machine.
However, one having ordinary skill in the art would come to the conclusion that the structure represented in figures 1 and 5 may represent the working components of the machine but that there are further structural elements not described in the specification, on being a surface on which the guide is disposed.
For example, Garthaffner generally teaches a container filling assembly with multiple stations such as the one taught by Draghetti, including a shuttle transport mechanism between stations. These elements are located in a larger support frame which holds these elements up off the ground (see figures 1B and 3A which shows metering section 104, container section 108, load station 112 and shuttle 106 transporting the containers among the sections similar to Draghetti’s figure 1, all supported by a larger frame including platforms and feet).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to ensure Dreghetti’s load cell plate and guides are disposed on a further surface as suggested by Garthaffner for the purpose of preventing the moving elements from resting directly on the ground. The achieves the predictable result of protecting the assembly line from dirt, moisture and cleaning agents/detergents while also making the assembly line easier to access for an attendant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPN 4,976,326 discloses a weighing machine comprising multiple stations each having a load cell and a display for the individual scale.
USPN 11,382,351 discloses a paper cone filling machine with one weighing station and a display.
The remaining references represent the general state of the art of paper cone filling and weighing assemblies.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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