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 .
Response to Arguments
The terminal disclaimer filed on 12/30/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of USPN 10,783,765 & USPN 11,501,454 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 12/30/2025 have overcome the previous rejections under §112(b). However, the amendments have also necessitated a new §112(b) rejection as explained below.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims do not overcome the previous rejection under §102 for the reasons given in the updated rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-10 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, the line 11 limitation “the first plate” lacks antecedent basis. Is this the same plate as “a plate” recited in line 10? For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is assuming they are the same plate. Correction is required.
Claims 2-10 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 and are likewise rejected.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by O’Neill et al. (USPN 10,466,095; “O’Neill”).
Regarding claim 1, O’Neill discloses in figures 1, 5, and 6 a weight sensor (col. 2, lines 27-34), comprising a first load cell (126, e.g. top left) configured to produce a first electric current based on a force experienced by the first load cell (126), a second load cell (126, e.g. top right) configured to produce a second electric current based on a force experienced by the second load cell (126), a third load cell (126, e.g. bottom left) configured to produce a third electric current based on a force experienced by the third load cell (126) and a fourth load cell (126, e.g. bottom right) configured to produce a fourth electric current based on a force experienced by the fourth load cell (126) (col. 10, lines 15-51), a plate (102) positioned across a first side of each of the first load cell (126, top left), the second load cell (126, top right), the third load cell (126, bottom left), and the fourth load cell (126, bottom right), wherein the first plate distributes a weight of one or more items placed on the plate across the first load cell (126, top left), the second load cell (126, top right), the third load cell (126, bottom left), and the fourth load cell (126, bottom right) (col. 2, lines 27-43, col. 3, line 36 through col. 4, line 4), wherein the weight of the one or more items is based at least in part upon a combination of the first electric current, the second electric current, the third electric current, and the fourth electric current (col. 5, lines 57-59).
Regarding claim 2, O’Neill discloses in figure 6 the first load cell (126, top left) is positioned a first distance from a first corner of a surface (118) of the plate (102), the second load cell (126, top right) is positioned a second distance from a second corner of the surface (118) of the plate (102), the third load cell (126, bottom left) is positioned a third distance from a third corner of the surface (118) of the plate (102), the fourth load cell (126, bottom right) is positioned a fourth distance from a fourth corner of the surface (118) of the plate (102) and the first distance, the second distance, the third distance, and the fourth distance are substantially the same (col. 11, lines 15-20, col. 11, lines 35-43).
Regarding claim 3, O’Neill discloses in figure 6 the first load cell (126, top left) is coupled to a circuit board with a first wire, the second load cell (126, top right) is coupled to the circuit board with a second wire, the third load cell (126, bottom left) is coupled to the circuit board with a third wire, and the fourth load cell (126, bottom right) is coupled to the circuit board with a fourth wire (col. 5, lines 30-61).
Regarding claim 4, O’Neill discloses the first load cell (126, top left) is configured to communicate, to the circuit board through the first wire, a first signal indicating a weight within a first region of the surface of the plate (102), the first region positioned above the first load cell (126) (col. 5, lines 30-61).
Regarding claim 5, O’Neill discloses the second load cell (126, top right) is configured to communicate, to the circuit board through the second wire, a second signal indicating a weight within a second region of the surface of the plate (102), the second region positioned above the second load cell (126) (col. 5, lines 30-61).
Regarding claim 6, O’Neill discloses the third load cell (126, bottom left) is configured to communicate, to the circuit board through the third wire, a third signal indicating a weight within a third region of the surface of the plate (102), the third region positioned above the third load cell (126) (col. 5, lines 30-61).
Regarding claim 7, O’Neill discloses the fourth load cell (126, bottom right) is configured to communicate, to the circuit board through the fourth wire, a fourth signal indicating a weight within a fourth region of the surface of the plate (102), the fourth region positioned above the fourth load cell (126) (col. 5, lines 30-61).
Regarding claim 8, O’Neill discloses the first load cell (126) comprises a transducer that converts an input force into an output electrical signal (col. 10, lines 40-51).
Regarding claim 9, O’Neill discloses as the input force increases, the output electrical signal increases proportionally (col. 10, lines 10-51).
Regarding claim 10, O’Neill discloses the first load cell (126) comprises one of a hydraulic load cell, a pneumatic load cell, or a strain gauge (col. 10, lines 10-51).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NATALIE HULS whose telephone number is (571)270-5914. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, John Breene can be reached at (571) 272-4107. 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 2855