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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1/18/23. These drawings are accepted by the examiner.
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.
(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 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) / (a)(2) as being anticipated by Vilhjalmsson et al. (US Patent 7,129,424), hereinafter, Vilhjalmsson.
Regarding claim 1, Vilhjalmsson discloses (references in parenthesis referring to this document): A filtering method for a load cell, wherein the method comprises: filtering, by using a plurality of filtering units ("Filter A-E"; fig. 3), first weighing data obtained by the load cell, to obtain a plurality of pieces of second weighing data, wherein the plurality of filtering units have different settling times ("cut-off frequencies"); obtaining a fluctuation index (column 6, lines 43 - 49) of each piece of second weighing data, and establishing a correspondence between a fluctuation index and a settling time of each filtering unit; and determining a target filtering unit based on the correspondence according to a weighing requirement (column 6, line 35 - column 7, line 15), wherein a fluctuation index of the target filtering unit matches a target precision in the weighing requirement, and a settling time of the target filtering unit matches a target speed in the weighing requirement (see col. 7, lines 25-29 and col. 8, lines 12-17).
Regarding claims 2-3, Vilhjalmsson further discloses the subject-matter of the claims in (column 6, line 35 - column 7, line 15; figures 1-4), 4 (implicit, since there is a discrete number of filters and a continuous range of variances while one single filter is chosen in any case),
Regarding claims 5-6, Vilhjalmsson further discloses the subject-matter of the claims (column 6, lines 48 - 49).
Regarding claim 10, Vilhjalmsson further discloses the subject-matter of the claims (see col. 8, lines 26-28).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vilhjalmsson et al. (US Patent 7,129,424), hereinafter, Vilhjalmsson.
Regarding claims 7-9, they differ from the prior art by reciting wherein the method further comprises: obtaining the weighing requirement to be fulfilled for a weighing application, comprising: assigning a first weight to the target speed, and adjusting the target speed to an adjusted target speed according to the first weight; and assigning a second weight to the target precision, and adjusting the target precision to an adjusted target precision according to the second weight and wherein the step of determining the target filtering unit based on the correspondence according to the weighing requirement further comprises: determining, according to the correspondence, the target filtering unit that fulfills the adjusted target speed and the adjusted target precision and further comprising: providing a user input interface and obtaining the weighing requirement via the user input interface. However, these limitations do not appear to contain any additional features which, in combination with the features of any claim to which these refer because the feature of these claims are merely one of several straightforward possibilities from which the skilled person would select, in accordance with circumstances, without the exercise of inventive skill, in order to solve the problem posed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACQUES M SAINT SURIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2206. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Frid (Flex) 10:00 to 7:00.
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.
/JACQUES M SAINT SURIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855