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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) forms PTO-1149 filed 11/24/2023 (3). These IDS have been considered.
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 13 and 14 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitations “the sensing member” in line 1 and “the magnet” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim. It appears Applicant intended for this claim to depend on claim 12 which provides the antecedent basis for these limitations, rather than on claim 11. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is treating this claim as dependent on claim 12.
Claim 14 recites the limitations “the sensing member” in line 4 and “the magnet” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It appears Applicant intended for this claim to depend on claim 12 which provides the antecedent basis for these limitations, rather than on claim 11. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is treating this claim as dependent on claim 12.
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)(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, 11, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pohl et al. (US 2007/0193786; “Pohl”).
Regarding claim 1, Pohl discloses in figure 7 a luggage case (1) (¶ [0002]), comprising a base (see figure 7, body of luggage case 1) configured to accommodate items therein (¶ [0059]), a cover (43) disposed on the base (¶ [0062]) and a scale (3) including one or more load sensors (37) disposed on the base (¶ [0063]), and a controller (39) configured to determine a weight of the luggage case (1) based on signals generated by the one or more load sensors (37) (¶ [0065]), wherein the scale (3) is configured to be automatically powered on in response to the cover (43) being placed in an open position at least partially exposing an interior space of the base (¶ [0064]).
Regarding claim 5, Pohl discloses the scale (3) is further configured to be automatically powered off in response to the cover (43) being placed in a closed position in which the cover (43) and the base enclose an interior space of the luggage case (1) (¶ [0064]).
Regarding claim 11, Pohl discloses in figure 7 a luggage case (1) (¶ [0002]), comprising a base (see figure 7, body of luggage case 1) configured to accommodate items therein (¶ [0054]), a cover (43) disposed on the base (¶ [0062]) and a scale (3) including one or more load sensors (37) disposed on the base (¶ [0062]), and a controller (39) configured to determine a weight of the luggage case (1) based on signals generated by the one or more load sensors (37) (¶ [0065]), wherein the scale (3) is configured to be automatically powered off in response to the cover (43) being placed in a closed position in which the cover (43) and the base enclose an interior space of the luggage case (1) (¶ [0064]).
Regarding claim 15, Pohl discloses in figure 7 a method of weighing a luggage case (1) (¶ [0002]), comprising powering on, by a power source (41), an electronic scale (3) in the luggage case (1), in response to a cover (43) of the luggage case (1) being placed in an open position at least partially exposing an interior space of a base of the luggage case (1) (¶¶ [0063]-[0064]), and measuring, by a controller (39) of the electronic scale (3), a weight of the luggage case (1) based on weight data generated from signals generated by one or more load sensors (37) disposed on the luggage case (1) (¶¶ [0062]-[0065]).
Regarding claim 20, Pohl discloses powering off the electronic scale (3), by the controller (39), in response to the cover (43) being placed in a closed position in which the cover (43) and the base enclose an interior space of the luggage case (1) (¶ [0069]).
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 2-4, 6-9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pohl in view of Jacob et al. (US 2017/0188679; “Jacob”).
Regarding claim 2, Pohl discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Pohl discloses a switch the controls power to the scales depending on whether the lid is open or closed but is silent specifically to Applicant’s claimed magnetic switch configuration.
In the same field of endeavor, Jacobs discloses in figure 4 a luggage case (100) comprising a magnetic switch connected to a power source and a controller, and including a sensing member disposed in the base (107) and a magnet disposed in the cover (401), wherein the magnetic switch is configured to electrically connect the controller to the power source, in response to the sensing member failing to sense the magnet (¶¶ [0074]-[0076]).
While Jacob’s switch is controlling sensing the state of the lid in order to control when to actuate lights within the luggage, it is solving the same problem of sensing when the lid is open in order to control electronics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to use Jacob’s particular switch as the generic switch in Pohl’s luggage for the purpose of using well-known and well-understood physical-contact free technology that is resistant to wear and environments found on an airplane.
Furthermore courts have ruled that combining known elements from the prior art to achieve the predictable result only powering the associated electronic components (e.g. the scale) when the lid is open 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, Pohl as modified by Jacob discloses all the limitations of claim 2 on which this claim depends.
Jacob teaches the particular sensing mechanism of claim 2, but only teaches the magnet is somewhere on the interior portions of the lid and the sensing member is somewhere on the interior top portion of the base (¶ [0075]).
However, the exact placement of the magnet and the sensor within Pohl’s luggage would be obvious given the finite number of locations to dispose the magnet and sensor. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill and creativity would readily appreciate and infer that the claimed placement of the sensing member being disposed at an edge portion of the base and the magnet is disposed at an edge portion of the cover that aligns with the edge portion of the base when the cover is in a closed position in which the cover and the base enclose an interior space of the luggage case is the configuration that allows the magnet and the sensor to be closest, achieving the optimization of the sensor’s intended function. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to arrange the sensor and the magnet in the claimed configuration as a matter of routine optimization for the purpose of ensuring the sensor achieves the maximum sensitivity and accuracy.
Regarding claim 4, Pohl discloses in figure 7 the scale (3) further includes a display (5) disposed in a display housing mounted at or near a side wall of the base, the display (5) being configured to display weight information indicating the determined weight (¶ [0063]).
Jacob teaches the particular sensing mechanism of claim 2, but only teaches the magnet is somewhere on the interior portions of the lid and the sensing member is somewhere on the interior top portion of the base (¶ [0075]).
However, the exact placement of the magnet and the sensor within Pohl’s luggage would be obvious given the finite number of locations to dispose the magnet and sensor. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill and creativity would readily appreciate and infer that the claimed placement of the sensing member being disposed on or in the display housing would make the assembly and wiring of the electronics easiest to engineer, while the magnet being disposed at an edge portion of the cover that aligns with the edge portion of the base when the cover is in a closed position in which the cover and the base enclose an interior space of the luggage case is one of a finite number of configurations that also allows the magnet and the sensor to be close, achieving optimization of the sensor’s intended function while keeping the assembly simple and straightforward. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to arrange the sensor and the magnet in the claimed configuration as a matter of routine optimization for the purpose of ensuring the sensor achieves the maximum sensitivity and accuracy.
Regarding claim 6, Pohl discloses all the limitations of claim 5 on which this claim depends.
Pohl discloses a switch the controls power to the scales depending on whether the lid is open or closed but is silent specifically to Applicant’s claimed magnetic switch configuration.
In the same field of endeavor, Jacobs discloses in figure 4 a luggage case (100) comprising a magnetic switch connected to a power source and the controller, and including sensing member disposed in the base (107) and a magnet disposed in the cover (402), wherein the magnetic switch is configured to electrically disconnect the controller from the power source, in response to the sensing member sensing the magnet (¶¶ [0074]-[0076]).
While Jacob’s switch is controlling sensing the state of the lid in order to control when to actuate lights within the luggage, it is solving the same problem of sensing when the lid is open in order to control electronics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to use Jacob’s particular switch as the generic switch in Pohl’s luggage for the purpose of using well-known and well-understood physical-contact free technology that is resistant to wear and environments found on an airplane.
Furthermore courts have ruled that combining known elements from the prior art to achieve the predictable result only powering the associated electronic components (e.g. the scale) when the lid is open 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 7, Pohl discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Pohl is silent to a low power mode.
In the same field of endeavor, Jacob teaches a luggage case (100) with various electronic functionalities in which the controller powers the electronics down to a low power mode in response to the controller determining that a predetermined amount of time has elapsed since the luggage was manipulated (¶¶ [0082]-[0083]).
This would suggest to one having ordinary skill and creativity that one could apply the lower power mode concept to inactivity associated with Pohl’s scale when the scale has not been manipulated for a predetermined amount of time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to employ a lower power mode as taught by Jacob in Pohl’s luggage for the purpose of conserving energy to that the batteries last longer making the luggage more cost effective and environmentally friendly.
When this concept is applied to Pohl’s luggage, any lapse in manipulation would include the claimed state where the scale is not being used but the cover is open without further modification necessary.
Regarding claim 8, Pohl as modified by Jacob discloses all the limitations of claim 7 on which this claim depends.
Pohl discloses the scale (3) further includes a display (5) configured to display weight information indicating the determined weight (¶ [0063]).
Jacobs further teaches a display (502) which is disabled in the low power mode (¶¶[0082]-[0083]).
The combination of Pohl and Jacob therefore teach the claimed limitation without further modification necessary for the reasons and motivations given in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 9, Pohl as modified by Jacob disclose all the limitations of claim 7 on which this claim depends.
Jacob teaches the electronic functionality of the luggage case (100) is configured to return to a fully operational mode from the low power mode, in response to an input from a command button (503) on the luggage case (100) (¶¶[0082]-[0083]).
The combination of Pohl and Jacob therefore teach the claimed limitation without further modification necessary for the reasons and motivations given in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 12, Pohl discloses all the limitations of claim 11 on which this claim depends.
Pohl discloses a switch the controls power to the scales depending on whether the lid is open or closed but is silent specifically to Applicant’s claimed magnetic switch configuration.
In the same field of endeavor, Jacobs discloses in figure 4 a luggage case (100) comprising a magnetic switch connected to a power source and the controller, and including sensing member disposed in the base (107) and a magnet disposed in the cover (402), wherein the magnetic switch is configured to electrically disconnect the controller from the power source, in response to the sensing member sensing the magnet (¶¶ [0074]-[0076]).
While Jacob’s switch is controlling sensing the state of the lid in order to control when to actuate lights within the luggage, it is solving the same problem of sensing when the lid is open in order to control electronics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to use Jacob’s particular switch as the generic switch in Pohl’s luggage for the purpose of using well-known and well-understood physical-contact free technology that is resistant to wear and environments found on an airplane.
Furthermore courts have ruled that combining known elements from the prior art to achieve the predictable result only powering the associated electronic components (e.g. the scale) when the lid is open 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 13, Pohl as modified by Jacob discloses all the limitations of claim 12 on which this claim depends.
Jacob teaches the particular sensing mechanism of claim 12, but only teaches the magnet is somewhere on the interior portions of the lid and the sensing member is somewhere on the interior top portion of the base (¶ [0075]).
However, the exact placement of the magnet and the sensor within Pohl’s luggage would be obvious given the finite number of locations to dispose the magnet and sensor. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill and creativity would readily appreciate and infer that the claimed placement of the sensing member being disposed at an edge portion of the base and the magnet is disposed at an edge portion of the cover that aligns with the edge portion of the base is the configuration that allows the magnet and the sensor to be closest, achieving the optimization of the sensor’s intended function. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to arrange the sensor and the magnet in the claimed configuration as a matter of routine optimization for the purpose of ensuring the sensor achieves the maximum sensitivity and accuracy.
Regarding claim 14, Pohl discloses in figure 7 the scale (3) further includes a display (5) disposed in a display housing mounted at or near a side wall of the base, the display (5) being configured to display weight information indicating the determined weight (¶ [0063]).
Jacob teaches the particular sensing mechanism of claim 2, but only teaches the magnet is somewhere on the interior portions of the lid and the sensing member is somewhere on the interior top portion of the base (¶ [0075]).
However, the exact placement of the magnet and the sensor within Pohl’s luggage would be obvious given the finite number of locations to dispose the magnet and sensor. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill and creativity would readily appreciate and infer that the claimed placement of the sensing member being disposed on or in the display housing would make the assembly and wiring of the electronics easiest to engineer, while the magnet being disposed at an edge portion of the cover that aligns with the edge portion of the base when the cover is in a closed position in which the cover and the base enclose an interior space of the luggage case is one of a finite number of configurations that also allows the magnet and the sensor to be close, achieving optimization of the sensor’s intended function while keeping the assembly simple and straightforward. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to arrange the sensor and the magnet in the claimed configuration as a matter of routine optimization for the purpose of ensuring the sensor achieves the maximum sensitivity and accuracy.
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pohl in view of Dilone et al. (USPN 8,901,442; “Dilone”).
Regarding claim 10, Pohl discloses the scale (3) further includes a display (5) configured to display weight information based on the determined weight (¶ [0063]).
Pohl does not explicitly disclose redetermining the weight and updating the display.
In the same field of endeavor, Dilone teaches in figure 1 a luggage case (10) that weighs articles while they are being packed and the cover is open (col. 2, lines 30-36). Dilone teaches wherein the controller is further configured to redetermine the weight of the luggage case in response to an item being placed in the luggage case, and wherein the display is further configured to update the displayed weight information based on the redetermined weight (col. 1, lines 26-30, col. 4, lines 12-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to employ Dilone’s scale and display functionality such that the controller redetermines the weight when there an item is placed in the luggage and updates the display accordingly in Pohl’s luggage for the purpose of allowing the user to determine as they are packing whether they can add more items making it ideal for allowing travelers to pack as many items as they are allowed to take on a plane without getting charged an extra fee.
Regarding claim 16, Pohl discloses all the limitations of claim 15 on which this claim depends.
Pohl does not explicitly disclose determining there is a change in a weight.
In the same field of endeavor, Dilone teaches in figure 1 a luggage case (10) that weighs articles while they are being packed and the cover is open (col. 2, lines 30-36). Dilone teaches further measuring, by the controller, the weight of the luggage case (10), in response to the controller determining that there is a change in the weight data generated from the signals (col. 1, lines 26-30, col. 4, lines 12-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to employ Dilone’s scale and controller functionality such that the controller redetermines the weight in response to determining there is a change in weight in Pohl’s luggage for the purpose of allowing the user to determine as they are packing whether they can add more items making it ideal for allowing travelers to pack as many items as they are allowed to take on a plane without getting charged an extra fee.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 17, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious a method as claimed comprising the step of measuring, by the controller, the weight of the luggage case, in response to the controller determining that there is no change in the weight data generated from the signals and a count of a timer started before the measuring of the weight does not exceed a threshold count in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Regarding claim 18, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious a method as claimed comprising the step of powering down, by the controller, the electronic scale to a low power mode, in response to the controller determining that there is no change in the weight data generated from the signals; and a count of a timer started before the measuring of the weight exceeds a threshold count in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Claim 19 would be allowable based on its dependence on claim 18.
Examiner notes that typically weighing scales perform updated weighing or going into standby mode by determining there is not a change in weight or a timer or a count of a timer exceeds a threshold count where the timer starts either at the time of the weighing or at the time of completion of a weight measurement, not starting before the measurement (see e.g. US 2012/0186926 ¶ [0048]). In the instant case the timer is tied to the sensor in the lid, which starts the timer when the lid is lifted, not the scale. Since only a couple references disclose sensors for luggage lids, the limitation of tying a timer to one is neither disclosed nor rendered obvious by the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
KR 101663933 discloses a luggage case with load cells in the base and a switch that powers off the scale when the lid is closed.
CN 21293845 discloses a luggage case with a sensor to indicate whether the lid is open and closed to power on/off electronics.
CN 106213726 discloses a luggage case that goes into sleep mode if it is not interacted with.
US 2013/0107503 discloses a bag with a magnetic switch that powers on/off electronics when the bag is opened.
US 2007/0007048 discloses a luggage scale that goes into sleep mode when not in use.
The remaining references cites constitute the general state of the art.
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
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863