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 .
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.
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 7-9 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. The terms “positive locking” and “form lock feature” are undefined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 5-9, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jaia (US PG Pub # 2013/0292192). With respect to claim 1, the Jaia reference discloses a weighing device comprising:
a chassis (30);
a load cell (12);
a weighing pan (34) functionally coupled to the load cell (para. # 0036); and
a locking device (56) adapted and configured to selectively fix the weighing pan relative to the chassis of the weighing device (para. # 0048-0052).
With respect to claim 3, the locking device (56) is a locking mechanism (52), and an actuation device to actuate the locking mechanism (para. # 0037-0040 & 0048-0049).
With respect to claim 5, see paragraphs # 0048-0049.
It is unclear what features are being claimed in claims 6-9, as the terms “positive lock” and “form lock feature” are undefined, but since the weighing pan (34) is locked into an immobile state by ramps (56), then these terms are sufficiently broad enough to read upon what is disclosed.
With respect to claims 14 and 15, the method of use was inherent to the device shown.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ghizzi et al (US PG Pub # 2004/0112651). With respect to claim 1, the Ghizzi reference discloses a weighing device comprising:
a chassis (13);
a load cell (15);
a weighing pan (7) functionally coupled to the load cell (para. # 0025); and
a locking device (17) adapted and configured to selectively fix the weighing pan relative to the chassis of the weighing device (para. # 0032-0035).
With respect to claim 3, the locking device (17) is a locking mechanism (19), and an actuation device to actuate the locking mechanism (para. # 0033-0034).
With respect to claim 4, Ghizzi discloses he pivotable lever (7b).
With respect to claim 5, the pivoting level (7b) lifts and supports the weighing pan (Fig. 2).
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 1-3, 6-9 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, the Troisi reference discloses a weighing device (Fig. 8) comprising:
a chassis (132);
a load cell (122);
a weighing pan (124) functionally coupled to the load cell (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 2, the weighing pan (124) of the second embodiment of Troisi (Fig. 8) is a suspension weighing pan.
With respect to claim 3, the locking device (20) of Eaton has an actuation device (36).
It is unclear what features are being claimed in claims 6-9, as the terms “positive lock” and “form lock feature” are undefined, but since the weighing pan (34) is locked into an immobile state by ramps (56), then these terms are sufficiently broad enough to read upon what is disclosed in Eaton.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Jaia (US PG Pub # 2013/0292192) in view of Lüchinger et al (US # 4,789,034). The use of robotic arms to move weighing samples from a sample storage area to a precision scale was known as shown by the example of Lüchinger (Fig. 1), and it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to use a robotic arm to load and unload the scale of Jaia motivated by its art recognized suitability for its intended use.
Conclusion
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.
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