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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 18, 20, 21 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2014/0288789 to Van Mill et al. (Van Mill).
Claims 1, 18 and 35
With regard to coupling a plurality of weight sensors with the container, each configured to produce signals indicative of a measure of the weight of the container, and any material contained therein, along an axis of measurement; Van Mill teaches load cells that are mounted on a grain cart to measure the wait of the grain cart (Fig. 9A, load cells 310a-310d; Fig. 15, load cells 310a-310d, grain cart 300; pars. 88, 90).
With regard to coupling each of the plurality of weight sensors with a junction box configured to combine the signals produced thereby and communicate the combined signals to a processor for processing and subsequent transmission to a remote device coupled with the processor; Van Mill teaches that the load cells are connected to a junction box which is connected to an indicator (Fig. 9A, junction box 401, indicator 403; pars. 90, 93).
With regard to one of connecting or disconnecting, electronically by the junction box, one or more of the plurality of weight sensors such that the combined signals communicated to the processor include only signals produced by the electronically connected weight sensors and do not include signals produced by the electronically disconnected weight sensors; Van Mill teaches that the junction box may multiplex each sensor (par. 90).
With regard to determining, by the processor, the mass of the container, and any material contained therein, while the container is moving based on the received combined signals; Van Mill teaches determining the total weight of the hopper or container (par. 93).
Claim 35 includes limitations that are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The specification discloses that the signals are combined through a typical passive junction box (Specification, par. 5; Fig. 4, junction box 15, weight sensors 14). Van Mill teaches a junction box that may be connected with sensors using typical wired or wireless connections (par. 91). The specification discloses Bluetooth or other means for wireless transmission that support the means for communicating. Van Mill discloses connecting the sensors using typical wired or wireless connections (par. 91). The specification discloses digitally controlled switches as a means for connecting or disconnecting (Specification, par. 86). Van Mill teaches a multiplexor as discussed above (par. 90). The specification discloses a processor for determining the mass of the container (pars. 48-59). Van Mill discloses a processor (par. 31).
Claims 3 and 20
Van Mill teaches that the coupling of the plurality of weight sensors further comprises mounting each of the plurality of weight sensors to the container so that the at least one weight sensor is most sensitive in a gravitational direction while the container is stationary and positioned on level ground (par. 88, load cell is placed between the hopper container and its support and thus beneath the hopper).
Claims 4 and 21
Van Mill teaches that the remote device is wirelessly coupled with the processor (par. 29, 91, indicator may communicate wirelessly).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Mill in view of AU 2012232994 to Gale (Gale).
Claims 2 and 19
Van Mill teaches all the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 2 depends and claim 18 upon which claim 19 depends. Van Mill does not teach that each of the plurality of weight sensors comprises a load cell coupled with a converter operative to convert a weight signal generated thereby into a digital representation thereof for communication to the processor via the junction box. Gale teaches connecting the output of load cells to an analog to digital converter (page 13, lines 14-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the weight measurement, as taught by Van Mill, to include an analog to digital converter, as taught by Gale, because an analog to digital converter is a well known method of converting an analog signal to a digital signal for processing in a computer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-17 and 22-34 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that the functionality taught by Van Mill is distinct from the current claims which require that the junction box create a single combined signal whose composition is determined by which sensors are electronically connected or disconnected. Applicant states that there is simply no disclosure in Van Mill of the junction box that is configured to electronically one of connect5 or disconnect the plurality of weight sensors as claimed. However, claim 1 requires one of connecting or disconnecting, electronically by the junction box, one or more of the plurality of weight sensors. While Van Mill does not explicitly disclose that any of the sensors are not eventually connected (disconnected), even if all the sensors are connected, Van Mill meets the claim language since at least one sensor is connected as required by the claim (par. 90).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights