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 21 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the section 103 rejection over the Troisi reference in view of the Eaton reference, the applicant argues that the structure that the examiner identified in the Troisi reference as the “weighing pan” is a “weigh conveyor”, and not a “weighing pan” as claimed. However, the Troisi reference expressly refers to the structure in question, identified by the examiner in the last office action, as a “weigh pan”. So applicant’s argument that the embodiment shown in Figure 8 of the Troisi reference does not have a “weigh pan” is contradicted by the express wording of the reference itself, which states that the weighing conveyor shown has a “weigh pan” element1.
Applicant further argues that his disclosed weighing pan is “structurally and functionally different” than the weighing pan disclosed in the Troisi reference, and then proceeds to refer to structures that are only described in his written description, and not in the language of the claims themselves. In response to applicant's argument that the Troisi reference fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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)2.
Lastly, applicant argues that the motive given by the examiner for combining the teaching of the Troisi and Eaton references, “address a different problem distinct from the problem solved by the present invention”. The examiner notes that our reviewing court has held that it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991)3. The stated reason or motivation to modify the references may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem
Applicant’s latest amendment to the claims has rendered the other rejections moot, however, and these particular rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 12 and 13 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. With respect to claim 12, the use of the phrase “if present” (line 6 & 10) creates confusion over whether certain limitations are intended to be part of the claimed device or not. Also, the term “the weighing chamber” (line 11) lacks positive antecedent basis.
Claim 13 has identical problems.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 7-9, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troisi (US # 6,084,184) in view of Eaton et al (US PG Pub # 2004/0000437).
With respect to claim 1 & 16, the Troisi reference discloses a weighing device (Fig. 8) comprising:
a chassis (132);
a load cell (122); and,
a weighing pan (120) functionally coupled to the load cell (122), wherein the weighing pan (120) is a hanging weighing pan which is suspended by a suspension structure (146) at a position above a top face of the weighing pan (Col. 8, ll. 12-30).
The Troisi reference does not disclose a locking device for fixing the weighing pan. However, the Eaton reference discloses that it was known to provide a clamping mechanism (20) to lock the load cell (and thus the weighing pan) into place while the weighing pan was being loaded or unloaded with the next item (para. # 0016-0018) in order to cancel out the transient vibrations that would make the weight reading less accurate, and it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to modify the scale of Troisi to use the locking mechanism (20) of Eaton for the same reason.
With respect to claim 3, the locking device (20) of the Eaton reference has an actuation device (36).
With respect to claims 7-9, the Eaton reference shows the style of locking device claimed (para. # 0016).
With respect to claim 14, the method of use was inherent to the device claimed (Col. 6, ll. 22-65; Col. 7, line 56 to col. 8, line 44).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troisi (US # 6,084,184) in view of Eaton et al (US PG Pub # 2004/0000437), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lüchinger et al (US # 4,789,034). The term “robotic device” is vague, and could mean almost anything, so giving this limitation its broadest reasonable interpretation, the “robotic” device is simply the infeed/discharge conveyors (114), as once it is started, these conveyors operate automatically and independently of human intervention to feed and remove cans from the weighing conveyor (Col. 5, ll. 48-62)4. In the alternative, robotic manipulators were known as shown by the example of Lüchinger (Fig. 1, element 39), so it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to use a robot manipulator to load cans onto the infeed conveyor (114) to automate the process of loading the conveyor line.
It is unclear if the “storage area” or the “preparation area” are part of the claimed device or not, but if it is, the canning line shown in the embodiment of Figure 8 of the Troisi reference was intended to be part of a larger canning operation (Col. 8, ll. 42-44), and it is obvious that there must have been some area to store empty cans prior to their being filled, and there must have inherently been an area to fill and seal the cans (“preparation area”) prior to the actual check-weighing area shown in the Figure 8 embodiment.
Conclusion
Claims 6, 10, 11, and 15 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.
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 RANDY W GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2103. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
RANDY W. GIBSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2856
/RANDY W GIBSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 “…The upper flights of conveyor chains 126,126 have their upstream product infeed and downstream product discharge ends supported by vertically stationary guides 144,144, and their central or intermediate portions supported by vertically movable guides 146,146, which are interconnected by transversely extending bracket 148 and coupled thereby to a transducer 122 supported by tower 132. Guides 146,146 serve to define weigh pan 120, whose length is the lengthwise dimension of such guides. The length of weigh pan 120 is essentially equal to, and preferably equal to, the diameter of the containers to be weighed, thereby ensuring that only one container can be supported by the weigh pan during a weighing operation. The vertical position of the upper flights of conveyor chains 126,126 is chosen such that the flange 130 of each container 12 is engaged by conveyor chains 126,126 at the upstream end of weigh conveyor 124, thereby causing each container to be lifted and supported above infeed/discharge conveyor 114 a sufficient distance to permit necessary downward vertical deflection of weigh pan 120 as the container passes thereover…[emphases added]” at column 8, lines 12-30.
2 See MPEP § 2145, subsection VI.
3 See MPEP § 2144, subsection IV.
4 The infeed conveying device described in this section is obviously germane to all of the embodiments disclosed in the Troisi reference.
Prosecution Insights