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
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/21/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed below. While the overall thrust of the rejection and the references used are maintained, purely as a courtesy to Applicant and to better clarify the record, the reference numerals of some of the claim mapping have been changed warranting a new non-final rejection.
Applicant argues at the top of page 3 that mapping Schlachter’s element 7 to the claimed “cylindrical recess” is an error. Upon closer examination of the figure and the reference, in particular ¶ [0014] of the previous translation, Examiner has determined element 32 of figure 1 should have been the proper mapping of Schlachter’s element to the claimed cylindrical recess, however Examiner could not initially find mention of this reference numeral in the description and used numeral 7 to refer to the entire “vertical bore” of the “lower part of the bearing sleeve 6”. Upon further review, Examiner agrees that element 7 refers only to the “conical support surface” of “the vertical bore”, however, the lower surface of the vertical bore formed by 32 is clearly cylindrical. As evidence, Examiner has entered into the record a translation of Schlachter which includes the claims in which element 32 is disclosed as “the bearing sleeve (6) inside a vertical central blind bore (32), the end face as a conical bearing cup ( 7 ) is trained”. Thus it is evident that “a vertical bore” with parallel walls as shown in figure 1 in which the “conical” portion is omitted, leaving element 32, reads on a cylindrical recess.
Applicant goes on to argue in the second paragraph of page 3 that the element 3 previously mapped as “a centrally introduced depression” is disclosed in the description as “the upper joint 3” where “the bearing ball 19 with its spherical force application surface 8 rests against the conical bearing cup 7”. To clarify the record, Examiner has amended the terminology in the mapping to specify that the central depression is the top of the bearing cup 7 rather than the intersection of the bearing ball with the bearing cup.
Applicant’s argument in the first paragraph of page 4 that the Examiner’s mapping of the pressure transmission body 18 of Wenzel to the claimed rocker pin bolt is in error is unpersuasive. For the purposes of indicating that the pressure transmission body of Wenzel is analogous to Schlachter’s pressure transmission body in that it serves the same purpose and achieves the same outcome, it is mapped as a “bolt”. One having ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate and infer the “bolt” terminology is used to draw the analogy between the elements so that one can easily see how the combination of the rejection is made. That the pressure transmission body is not a literal “bolt” does not negate the rejection or indicate it was in error since Schlachter was clearly used to teach the “bolt” itself as it meets the limitations of the bolt outlined by the claim construction. Furthermore, it is the cover that Wenzel was used to teach and it surrounds the pressure transmission body in the manner claimed. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues in the paragraph spanning pages 3 and 4 the statement “[t]he claim language requires that volume be ‘greater than a sum of volumes of portions of the rocker pin bolt and the rocker pin piece’ but does not specify which portions of the structural elements. Therefore, these “portion” can be chosen to be arbitrarily small thereby meeting the claim limitation” is erroneous. In the discussion of how this claim limitation was addressed in the rejection, Applicant has mischaracterized Examiner’s interpretation of the claim limitation by stating that the Examiner is somehow altering or changing the size of the claim elements themselves and is therefore conjecture. This not what is stated in the claim rejection. The claim rejection states that since the “portions” of the structural elements are not specified, they can read on any “portions” of the rocker pin bolt and the rocker pin piece. For example, a volume of a portion of the rocker pin bolt which is enclosed by the air filling could be chosen as the volume of only the spherical topside and a volume of a portion of the rocker pin bolt could be chosen as the volume of the cylindrical recess of the rocker pin piece. This not the same as implying the power transmission bolt of Schlachter or the power transmission body of Wenzel can be made arbitrarily small while still functioning.
Applicant clarifies that that the “portions” considered for the “volumes” are “the portions which are enclosed by the air of filling gas” (emphasis added). However this is not what is claimed. “Volumes of portions” are claimed. Therefore, the breadth of the claim language allows for any portion of the bolt or pin piece to read on the claim, not the entirety of the bolt and the piece which is enclosed. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). If applicant intended that the entirety of the volume of the rocker and the pin piece is used as a marker for how much gas should be in the cover it should be claimed as such.
Applicant argues in the paragraph spanning pages 5 and 6 that the rationale for combining Schlachter with Wenzel does not have a sound technical basis. This is unpersuasive. The rationale for combining is found in the prior art as referenced in the rejection and is therefore not “arbitrary”. It is the logical result of following the factual inquires of Graham v. Deere to arrive at a proper combination under §103. “Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention” is explicitly provided as an example of establishing a prima facies case of obviousness as outlined in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007).
As to the argument that one modifying Schlachter with Wenzel would also seek to modify the power transmission element, it has been established that disclosure of desirable alternatives does not necessarily negate a suggestion for modifying the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004)(a motivation to combine need not be supported by a finding that the prior art suggested that the combination claimed by the applicant was the preferred, or most desirable combination over the other alternative). The combination given in the rejection is concerned solely with whether it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in art to provide a cover to Schachter’s load support as taught by Wenzel. Any supposed preferable alternative to Schlachter’s load support itself found in Wenzel does not imply an error in the combination. See also Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlachter et al. (DE 102008062249; “Schlachter”, see previously attached machine translation) in view of Wenzel (DE 9413947; see previously attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 7, Schlachter discloses in figure 1 a rocker pin load support (¶ [0012]), comprising a base plate (2) designed to include a concentric cylindrical recess (9) with a planar bottom surface (¶ [0017]), a rocker pin bolt (1) designed to include a ball-shaped underside (10) (¶ [0016]) and a spherical topside (19) (¶ [0015]), a rocker pin piece (13) designed to include a cylindrical recess (32) of a diameter which is greater than a diameter of an upper portion (18) of the rocker pin bolt (1), and a centrally introduced depression (top of cup bearing 7) (¶ [0014]; see figure 1), with the rocker pin bolt (1) being mounted pivotally in the cylindrical recess (9) of the base plate (2) via the ball-shaped underside (10) thereof and pivotally mounting the rocker pin piece (13) via the spherical topside (19) thereof (¶¶ [0014]-[0017]).
Schlachter is silent to the claimed cover.
In the same field of endeavor, Wenzel teaches in figures 1 and 2 a rocker pin load support (¶ [0004]) which includes a bell-shaped cover (4) of elastic plastic (¶ [0008]), said cover (4) having an upper edge portion which is connected hermetically sealed to the rocker pin piece (8) (¶ [0010]), and a lower edge portion which is connected hermetically sealed to the base plate (16), so that a space is formed (see space surrounding pressure transmission body (18) (¶ [0010]), which is analogous to Schlachter’s bolt).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include the claimed cover as taught by Wenzel in Schlachter’s load support for the purpose of shielding the load support from the environment so that the interior parts are protected from corrosion or cleaning detergents (Wenzel, ¶ [0011]).
As to the limitation an air or gas filling received in the space and governed with the proviso that the gas or air volume is greater than a sum of volumes of portions of the rocker pin bolt and the rocker pin piece which are enclosed by the air or gas filling, the limitation is not expressly disclosed but it is a byproduct of the combination of Schlachter and Wenzel. As shown in Wenzel figure 2, the result of including a cover is the creation of a space that is occupied by either air or an intentionally injected gas whose volume is equal to the space. The claim language requires that volume be “greater than a sum of volumes of portions of the rocker pin bolt and the rocker pin piece” but does not specify which portions of the structural elements. Therefore, these “portions” can be chosen as any portions of the pin bolt and rocker pin piece to be arbitrarily small thereby meeting the claim limitation.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlachter in view of Wenzel as applied to claim 7 and further in view of Mishima (JP 2000249597; see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, Schlachter and Wenzel disclose all the limitations of claim 7 on which this claim depends.
Schlachter and Wenzel are silent to an antibacterial plastic.
Mishima generally teaches applying a coating of antibacterial agent to a housing or cover of a load measuring device (¶¶ [0012], [0018]).
This would suggest to one having ordinary skill in the art that Schlachter’s load support as modified by Wenzel can likewise be treated with an antibacterial coating.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to apply the teachings of Mishima to Schlachter’s load support as modified by Wenzel by applying an antibacterial coating to the cover for the purpose of keeping the load support protected from bacteria while also preventing blackening, slime, and bad odors (Mishima, ¶ [0024]).
This combination results in the cover being made of an antibacterial plastic (Wenzel already discloses the plastic cover, Mishima merely discloses a paint, ink or coating) without further modification necessary.
Regarding claim 9, Schlachter and Wenzel disclose all the limitations of claim 7 on which this claim depends.
Schlachter and Wenzel are silent to an antibacterial coating applied upon the cover.
Mishima generally teaches applying a coating of antibacterial agent to a housing or cover of a load measuring device (¶¶ [0012], [0018]).
This would suggest to one having ordinary skill in the art that Schlachter’s load support as modified by Wenzel can likewise be treated with an antibacterial coating.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to apply the teachings of Mishima to Schlachter’s load support as modified by Wenzel by applying an antibacterial coating to the cover for the purpose of keeping the load support protected from bacteria while also preventing blackening, slime, and bad odors (Mishima, ¶ [0024]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlachter in view of Wenzel as applied to claim 7 and further in view of Dillon et al. (USPN 4,815,547; “Dillon”).
Regarding claim 12, Schlachter and Wenzel disclose all the limitations of claim 7 on which this claim depends.
Wenzel teaches the sealed cover is used to protect the load support from corrosion found in the air (¶ [0011]).
Schlachter and Wenzel are silent specifically to an inert gas filling.
In the same field of endeavor, Dillon generally teaches filling spaces surrounding rocker pin load supports with an inert gas (col. 13, lines 37-55).
Therefore, based on the combined teachings of the prior art, it would be within the purview of a skilled artisan to fill Wenzel’s space with an inert gas. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to fill Wenzel’s cover with an inert gas as suggest by Dillon for the purpose of protecting the load support from whatever corrosive chemical may be in the weighing environment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 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 10, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious a rocker pin load support as claimed wherein the cover is made of at least two plastic layers in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Regarding claim 11, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious a rocker pin load support as claimed comprising a hygroscopic substance placed in the air or gas filling in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPN 9,612,150 discloses a rocker pin load support with a cover.
USPN 9,164,004 discloses a rocker pin load support with a hermetically sealed cover.
US 2005/0139018 discloses a rocker pin load support with a cover.
USPN 5,712,432 discloses a rocker pin load support with a cover.
USPN 5,566,575 discloses a rocker pin load support with a hermetically sealed cover.
USPN 4,8041,053 discloses a rocker pin load support with a hermetically sealed cover.
USPN 4,733,571 discloses a rocker pin load support with a cover.
USPN 4,258,810 and USPN 4,258,814 disclose rocker pin load supports each with a bell-shaped cover.
USPN 3,621,927 discloses a rocker pin load support with a cover.
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