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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “mount 30”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Fig. 1 – part 32. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities: “the processor” should be and is interpreted as “a processor”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-18 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “mock towball” in claims 11-13 is used by the claim to mean “a hollow towball,” while the accepted meaning is of “mock” is something that is “not authentic or real, but without the intention to deceive.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For the sake of compact prosecution any towball with a hollow portion will be interpreted as meeting the limitation
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “a single 1-axis load cell” renders the claim indefinite because it lacks clear antecedent basis. Claim 2 introduces “one or more load cells disposed there on” and thus it is unclear if the introduced “single 1-axis load cell” is referring back to the previously introduced load cell(s) or if it is a separate/additional load cell to those previously introduced.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase “wherein the weighing station includes a trailer plug” renders the claim indefinite because “trailer plug” lacks clear antecedent basis as the term was already previously introduced in claim 17. It is unclear if this trailer plug is a separate trailer plug or the same.
Any claim not specifically addressed under 112(b) is rejected as being dependent on a claim rejected under 112(b).
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 1-4 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 12,134,287 B1 to McAllister et al (hereinafter McAllister).
Regarding claim 1, McAllister discloses a tow ball load scale (Figs. 1-2E & Abstract) including:
a frame (201) (Fig. 2B) including:
a mount (210) at a proximal end (A) for mounting the frame to a coupler, towball or hitch (117) of a prime mover (103) (Fig. 1 and col 4 ln 60 – col 5 ln 19);
PNG
media_image1.png
367
559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a weighing station (260,220) disposed on a second coupling region (B), adjacent the mount on the frame (201) (McAllister Annotated Fig. 2B & col 10 ln 45 – col 11 ln 14. Col 10 lns 33-44 discloses that Fig. 1 is a generic description of various embodiments and that more specific examples shown in 2A-5D may include aspects/features of the other examples despite not being shown and therefore interpreted as being easily incorporated with each other).
Regarding claim 2, depending on claim 1, McAllister further discloses wherein the weighing station (260,220) includes a towball (238), or coupler receiver, spaced along the frame from the mount (210) towards a distal end (C), the towball (238) or coupler mount being configured to cooperate with a trailer coupler for measuring a vertical towball load (251a), and further including one or more load cells (230) disposed thereon (McAllister Annotated Fig. 2B, Fig. 2D & col 10 ln 45 – col 11 ln 14, col 12 lns 16-39).
Regarding claim 3, depending on claim 2, McAllister further discloses wherein the mount (210) includes a hitch receiving zone (210) to receive a hitch (117) (McAllister Annotated Fig. 2B, Fig. 1, & col 4 ln 60 – col 5 ln 19).
Regarding claim 4, depending on claim 3, wherein the hitch receiving zone (210) includes a towball retainer (273a/b) (McAllister Annotated Fig. 2B & col 13 ln 66 – col 14 ln 23 disclose the pins 273a/b secure/retain the towball 238 to the hitch.).
Regarding claim 11, depending on claim 3, McAllister further discloses wherein the weighing station (260,220) is a mock towball (338,365) (Fig. 3D & col 15 lns 13-29 disclose the weigh station may include a towball with a hollow bore to receive pin 364. See also Col 10 lns 33-44.).
Regarding claim 12, depending on claim 11, McAllister further discloses wherein the mock towball (338,365) includes a single 1-axis load cell, oriented to measure vertical load (see above rejection of claim 2 and further col 7 lns 23-29).
Regarding claim 13, depending on claim 12, McAllister further discloses wherein the mock towball (338,365) includes a hollow towball (338) with a bore (383) for receiving a load cell actuator pin (382) (Fig. 3D & col 16 lns 21-39. See also Col 10 lns 33-44.).
Alternatively, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 02/02360 A1 to Martin.
Regarding claim 1, Martin discloses a tow ball load scale (Figs. 1-3 & Abstract) including:
a frame (Fig. 3) including:
a mount (3) at a proximal end (adjacent ball 1) for mounting the frame to a coupler, towball (1) or hitch of a prime mover (Figs. 1-3 & p. 2 lns 10-25);
a weighing station (5) disposed on a second coupling region, adjacent the mount (3) on the frame (Figs. 1-3 & p. 2 lns 10-25).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of US 2017/0334255 A1 to McAllister.
Regarding claim 2, depending on claim 1, Martin further discloses wherein the weighing station includes a towball (4), or coupler receiver, spaced along the frame from the mount (3) towards a distal end (adjacent cup 2), the towball (4) or coupler mount being configured to cooperate with a trailer coupler (2) for measuring a vertical towball load (Figs. 1-3 & p. 2 lns 10-14).
Martin does not appear to disclose wherein the weighing station further includes one or more load cells disposed thereon.
McAllister teaches that it was old and well known in the art of weighing stations, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the weighing station further includes one or more load cells disposed thereon (Fig. 19 & [0109]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of weighing stations before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the weighing station system disclosed by Martin to incorporate for the weighing station further includes one or more load cells disposed thereon as taught by McAllister in order to provide a digital load sensing device including a display, e.g., see McAllister [0109], a load cell is more accurate than a simple spring measuring device as it measures forces directly rather than via displacement, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 3, depending on claim 2, Martin further discloses wherein the mount includes a hitch receiving zone (3) to receive a hitch (6) (Figs. 1-3 & p. 2 lns 10-25).
Regarding claim 4, depending on claim 3, Martin further discloses wherein the hitch receiving zone (3) includes a towball retainer (Z) (Martin Annotated Fig. 1 depicts part Z retaining the ball 1).
Regarding claim 5, depending on claim 4, Martin further discloses wherein the hitch receiving zone (3) includes a skirt (Z) for locating the frame on a hitch tongue (6) (Martin Annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, depending on claim 5, Martin further discloses wherein the towball retainer (Z) includes a towball retaining bar (Z) at a proximal end of the frame, to hook under the shoulder of a towball (1), inhibiting release under load (Martin Annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, depending on claim 6, Martin further discloses wherein the hitch receiving zone (3) is at a proximal end of the frame, and the weighing station (5) is spaced from the hitch receiving zone (3), toward the distal end of the frame (Martin Annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, depending on claim 3, the modified combination of Martin/McAllister further discloses wherein the weighing station (Martin – 5/McAllister - 1390) is a mock towball (Martin – 4/McAllister - 1390) (Martin – Fig. 3/McAllister - Fig. 19 & [0109]).
It would have been obvious to have modified Martin in view of the teachings of McAllister for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 2 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 12, depending on claim 11, the modified combination of Martin/McAllister further discloses wherein the mock towball (Martin – 4/McAllister - 1390) includes a single 1-axis load cell, oriented to measure vertical load (McAllister - Fig. 19 & [0109] teaches measuring “downward force,” i.e., vertical load via 1 axis, using the depicted load cell).
It would have been obvious to have modified Martin in view of the teachings of McAllister for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 2 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 13, depending on claim 12, the modified combination of Martin/McAllister further discloses wherein the mock towball (Martin – 4/McAllister - 1390) includes a hollow towball (Martin – 4/McAllister - 1307) with a bore for receiving a load cell actuator pin (McAllister - 1320) (McAllister - Fig. 19 & [0109]) .
It would have been obvious to have modified Martin in view of the teachings of McAllister for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 2 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McAllister in view of US 2007/0068283 A1 to Gleghorn et al (hereinafter Gleghorn).
Regarding claim 14, McAllister does not appear to explicitly disclose how the load cell actuator pin is fastened in the bore and thus does not disclose that it is fastened with a fastener and/or adhesive resin.
Gleghorn teaches that it was old and well known in the art of load cells, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, load cell actuator pin (72) is fastened in the bore with a fastener and/or adhesive resin ([0034] teaches using resin to secure the pin to the load cell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of load cells before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the load cell disclosed by McAllister to incorporate for the pin to be secured with adhesive as taught by Gleghorn in order to properly secure the pin, e.g., see Gleghorn [0034], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McAllister in view of Gleghorn and further in view of US 2019/0315169 A1 to Rogness et al (hereinafter Rogness).
Regarding claim 15, depending on claim 14, McAllister does not appear to disclose wherein the weighing station includes alert lights of different colours for different load conditions calculated by the processor.
Rogness teaches that it was old and well known in the art of load sensing hitches, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a weighing station includes alert lights (200) of different colours for different load conditions calculated by the processor (300) ([0067] teaches the indicator system in implemented using a processor; [0022], [0050]-[0051] and [0064]-[0065] teach determining a load on the hitch and adjusting a light characteristic, i.e., issuing an alert, based on threshold levels being surpassed, e.g., changing from green to red.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of load sensing hitches before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the load station disclosed by McAllister/Gleghorn to incorporate for the weighing station includes alert lights of different colours for different load conditions calculated by the processor as taught by Rogness in order to provide information to the user in an easily understandable format, i.e., color, e.g., see Rogness [0022], [0064]-[0065], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 16, depending on claim 15, the modified combination of McAllister/ Gleghorn/Rogness further discloses wherein the weighing station includes loudspeaker (Rogness - 106) for making alert sounds (Rogness – [0050]-[0051], [0056], and [0059] teach adjusting the volume of the horn based on the determined load threshold levels).
It would have been obvious to have modified McAllister in view of the teachings of Gleghorn/Rogness for at least the same reasons discussed above in claims 14/15 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McAllister in view of Gleghorn and further in view of Rogness and further in view of US 2016/0231165 A1 to Fredrickson.
Regarding claim 17, depending on claim 16, although McAllister discloses power may be obtained from the tow vehicle via power source 136, McAllister does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the weighing station is powered by a trailer plug.
Fredrickson teaches that it was old and well known in the art of hitch weight sensing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, weighing station is powered by a trailer plug (30) (Fig. 2 & [0027]-[0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of hitch weight sensing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hitch weight sensing system disclosed by the modified combination of McAllister/Gleghorn/Rogness to for the weighing station is powered by a trailer plug as taught by Fredrickson in order to provide disconnectable power to the weighing station, e.g., see Fredrickson [0027]-[0028], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 18, depending on claim 17, wherein the weighing station includes a trailer plug (30) with at least one power pin to the auxiliary pin on the prime mover socket and/or the lights pin on the prime mover socket (Fig. 2 & [0027]-[0028]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY whose telephone number is (303)297-4433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 - 4:30 MT.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611