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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that O’Neill fails to show the amended features of the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
For clarity of record, and in case it is needed going further in prosecution, Examiner addresses Applicant’s primary argument with respect to the limitation “a first load cell configured to produce a first electric current” and how it relates to O’Neill’s resistive strain gauge (see last three paragraphs of page 6 through first three paragraph of page 7). A load cell is composed of combination of a force transducer and an electrical circuit (see attached reference “What is a Load Cell?”). A load cell comprised of resistive strain gauges (i.e. transducers), whose resistances change with deformation, has associated with it an electrical circuit that produces a current in accordance with Ohm’s Law (V=IR) (see attached reference “What is a Strain Gage?”). The strain gauges themselves as transducers not do produce electric current, however, the claim language requires the load cell produce an electric current. Furthermore, it is not required that the current produced by the load cell vary in as a function of weight, merely that it be present. This limitation is met with a typical strain gauge load cell and is implicit in O’Neill’s teachings. Indeed instant claim 10 allows for the load cell of claim 1 to also be a strain gauge type load cell (contrary to Applicant’s arguments that there is a fundamental difference between O’Neill’s strain gauges and the load cells of the instant application, see last two paragraph of page 6 of the remarks).
Applicant argues on page 7 that the distinction between producing an electric current and modulating electrical resistance forms the basis of asserting Examiner was in error in mapping O’Neill’s load cells to the claim. However, the modulating of electrical resistances of the transducers requires an electric current to do so (as noted by Applicant) which is used in the circuit of the load cell. If applicant is arguing that the instant transducer outputs an electric current, it is neither claimed nor described in the specification. The specification is totally silent as to how the electric current is produced beyond the well-understood circuitry associated with different types of transducers (hydraulic, pneumatic, strain gauge, ¶ [0147] of the PGPub). It appears Applicant’s arguments are conflating the method of force transduction with the circuitry that produces the current.
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 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 14 limitation “the plate” lacks antecedent basis. As amended, claim 1 recites “a first plate” in line 9 and “a second plate” in line 11 so it is not clear which plate is being referenced. It appears Applicant intends to recite “the first plate” and for the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting it as the first plate.
Claims 2-10 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 and are likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 2, lines 2, 4, 6, and 8 all recited “the plate”. Claim 1 on which this claim depends recites “a first plate” and “a second plate” so it is not possible to discern which plate is being references. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting “the plate” as either the first or second plate.
Regarding claim 4, line 3 recites “the plate”. Claim 1 on which this claim depends recites “a first plate” and “a second plate” so it is not possible to discern which plate is being references. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting “the plate” as either the first or second plate.
Regarding claim 5, line 3 recites “the plate”. Claim 1 on which this claim depends recites “a first plate” and “a second plate” so it is not possible to discern which plate is being references. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting “the plate” as either the first or second plate.
Regarding claim 6, line 3 recites “the plate”. Claim 1 on which this claim depends recites “a first plate” and “a second plate” so it is not possible to discern which plate is being references. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting “the plate” as either the first or second plate.
Regarding claim 7, line 3 recites “the plate”. Claim 1 on which this claim depends recites “a first plate” and “a second plate” so it is not possible to discern which plate is being references. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting “the plate” as either the first or second plate.
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 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lyon (US 2005/0171854).
Regarding claim 1, Lyon discloses in figures 2A and 2C a weight sensor (200) (¶ [0023]), comprising a first load cell (204 e.g. front left) configured to produce a first electric current based on a force experienced by the first load cell (204), a second load cell (204 e.g. front right) configured to produce a second electric current based on a force experienced by the second load cell (204), a third load cell (204 e.g. back right) configured to produce a third electric current based on a force experienced by the third load cell (204), and a fourth load cell (204 e.g. back left) configured to produce a fourth electric current based on a force experienced by the fourth load cell (204) (¶ [0028]), a first plate (206) contacting and positioned across a first side of each of the first load cell (204, front left), the second load cell (204, front right), the third load cell (204, back right), and the fourth load cell (204 back left), a second plate (202) contacting and positioned across a second side of each of the first load cell (204, front left), the second load cell (204, front right), the third load cell (204, back right), and the fourth load cell (204 back left) (¶¶ [0023]-[0024]), wherein the first load cell (204, front left), the second load cell (204, front right), the third load cell (204, back right), and the fourth load cell (204 back left) are positioned between the plate (206) and the second plate (202) (¶ [0028]), wherein the first plate (206) distributes a weight of one or more items placed on the plate (206) across the first load cell (204, front left), the second load cell (204, front right), the third load cell (204, back right), and the fourth load cell (204 back left) (¶ [0024]), 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 (¶¶ [0028], [0033]).
Regarding claim 8, Lyon discloses the first load cell (204, left front) comprises a transducer that converts an input force into an output electrical signal (¶¶[0028]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 9, Lyon discloses wherein as the input force increases, the output electrical signal increases proportionally (¶ [0029]).
Regarding claim 10, Lyon discloses the first load cell (204, left front) comprises one of a hydraulic load cell, a pneumatic load cell, or a strain gauge (¶ [0030]).
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 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyon in view of O’Neill et al. (USPN 10,466,095; “O’Neill”).
Regarding claim 2, Lyon discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Lyon to discloses in figure 2A the first load cell (204, front left) is positioned a first distance from a first corner of a surface of the plate (202) the second load cell (204, front right) is positioned a second distance from a second corner of the surface of the plate (202), the third load cell (204, back right) is positioned a third distance from a third corner of the surface of the plate (202); the fourth load cell (204 back left) is positioned a fourth distance from a fourth corner of the surface of the plate (202).
While it clearly appears that Lyon discloses in figure 2A the first distance, the second distance, the third distance, and the fourth distance are substantially the same it is not explicitly stated.
In the same field of endeavor, O’Neill teaches in figures 1, 5, and 6 a smart shelf weighing sensor (col. 2, lines 27-34), comprising a first load cell (126, e.g. top left), a second load cell (126, e.g. top right), a third load cell (126, e.g. bottom left), and a fourth load cell (126, e.g. bottom right) (col. 10, lines 15-51) wherein 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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to configure Lyon’s first, second, third, and fourth distances to be substantially the same as taught by O’Neill for the purpose of ensuring the full load of the items is transferred to the load cells and avoid corner loading over and area that is outside the range of coverage of the load cells. This would lead to greater accuracy in inventory tracking.
Regarding claim 3, Lyon discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Lyon does not explicitly disclose a circuit board with wires connecting to each of the four load cells, however one having ordinary skill in the art would readily infer that the load cells are connected to a circuit board, and wires are one of only a small number of ways to connect them.
Nevertheless, in the same field of endeavor, O’Neill teaches in figures 1, 5, and 6 a smart shelf weighing sensor (col. 2, lines 27-34), comprising a first load cell (126, e.g. top left), a second load cell (126, e.g. top right), a third load cell (126, e.g. bottom left), and a fourth load cell (126, e.g. bottom right) (col. 10, lines 15-51) wherein 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; shown in figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to use wires to connect Lyon’s load cells to a circuit board as taught by O’Neill for the purpose of using a well-known and easy to understand set up for quick replacement of load cells when needed. The use of wires would also have the benefit of reducing noise and interference with other wireless technologies in use in the surround environment.
Regarding claim 4, Lyon discloses a first signal indicating a weight within a first region of the surface of the plate (206), the first region positioned above the first load cell (204, front left) (¶¶ [0028], [0033]).
O’Neill further teaches 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).
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 5, Lyon discloses a second signal indicating a weight within a second region of the surface of the plate (206), the second region positioned above the second load cell (204, front right) (¶¶ [0028], [0033]).
O’Neill further teaches 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).
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 6, Lyon discloses a third signal indicating a weight within a third region of the surface of the plate, the third region positioned above the third load cell (204, back right) (¶¶ [0028], [0033]).
O’Neill further teaches 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).
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 7, Lyon discloses a fourth signal indicating a weight within a fourth region of the surface of the plate, the fourth region positioned above the fourth load cell (204 back left) (¶¶ [0028], [0033]).
O’Neill further teaches 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).
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2011/0174551 discloses a platform scale comprising four load sensors where the weight is determined through summing the current output from each load sensor using Kirchhoff’s current law (see ¶¶[0023]-[0027]).
US 2016/0048798 discloses a smart shelf with sensors placed in four corners in a sandwich configuration where the transducers produce electric currents (¶¶ [0067]-[0069]).
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
Prosecution Insights