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 24 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Objection to the Specification
The applicant argues that the title is not generic by repeating the language of the title and apparently concluding that it cannot generic because it is generally descriptive of the device claimed, as well as being descriptive of the other approximately one thousand patent documents in the same subclass. Not only is this a conclusory statement, it is circular logic, and it ignores what the word “generic” means. In order for a document’s title to be useful to a researcher looking for a specific document, then the title of each the documents in the catalog would have to be unique. The word “unique” (which is the oppose of “generic”), implies that it is different than the title of every other document in the same card catalog. Arguing that the title is not generic because it is the same or similar as all of the other titles in the same subclass is actually conceding the examiner’s point that the title is too generic to be considered unique, and is therefore functionally useless in identifying the document or determining what it is about.
Rejections under sections §§ 102 & 103
Applicant argues, in effect, that load cells, or other weighing devices, which are used to measure ”vibrations” (i.e.: accelerations) are not “accelerometers” without explaining, why not? What is the difference between a force or weight sensor that was repurposed to measure the acceleration (a.k.a.: “vibration”) of the weighing device, and a purpose built accelerometer, and, more to the point, where in the language of the claims does it spell out this difference? This argument is conclusory and ignores the context of the Nakamura reference itself. Applicant stresses that the word “acceleration” itself does not appear in the Nakamura document, but his argument seems to be based on mere nomenclature, while ignoring the substance of what the document is actually teaching.
It appears that applicant might be trying to read limitations into the claims from the written description. 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 (i.e.: purpose built accelerometers) are not recited in the claims that were rejected under section § 102. 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).
Applicant further argues that since the weigh sensors of Nakamura sense the weight of the weight buckets, they cannot also be considered to be the accelerometers claimed, since Nakamura discloses that “… the sensors 41 are a combination of the weigh hoppers and scale cells 67. Thus, the Office is equating the same pieces of Nakamura to two different and distinct structures of the claimed limitations. Thus, Nakamura does not teach every element of the claim, per the requirements …”
This argument by the applicant seems to deliberately overlook the fact that Nakamura uses dummy load cells (that it, extra load cells that are not used to weigh anything) as the accelerometers, so there are separate elements from the weighing load cells. In another embodiment, the unused weighing buckets are repurposed through software to function as the accelerometers. In either embodiment, the load cells which are being used as weight sensors are NOT the same as the load cells being used to measure vibrations (accelerations)1. Thus the accelerometers (“dummy cells”) of Nakamura are not the same element as the weighing cells. Applicant’s interpretation of the teaching of the Nakamura reference does not make any sense, as one could not use a weighing cell to also measure the vibration (noise) being applied to that same cell in order to subtract the vibration signal from the composite weight & vibration signal coming from the weighing cell. There would have to be a separate weight sensor AND a separate vibration sensor in order to determine the DIFFERENCE between the signals being generated by the different sensors, or else the device disclosed in the Nakamura reference would not be operative2.
Regarding the rejection under section § 103(a), the applicant makes the conclusory statement that there is no motive to combine the references. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motive to combine the references was clearly articulated in the previous action, and the applicant did not explain what, if anything, was wrong with the examiner’s logic.
The other rejections and objections have been overcome by the applicant’s changes introduced by the latest amendment, and have been withdrawn, accordingly.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive because it is too generic. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. See MPEP § 606.01.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura et al (US # 6,034,334). The Nakamura reference discloses a weighing device for a multi-head weighing machine (Fig. 7; Col. 10, II. 26-48 ), said weighing device comprising:
a load cell (67) connected or connectable to a bucket (65) of a multi-head weighing machine (Fig. 7) to generate a first signal representative of the weight force exerted by the bucket at least during a use configuration of the multi-head weighing machine (Col. 10, II. 49- 62);
at least one accelerometer (41) configured to generate a second signal representative of the vibrations induced on the bucket (65) at least during a use configuration of the multi-head weighing machine (Col. 11, II. 40-50);
a control unit (50) configured to compare and process the first signal and the second signal, the control unit (50) being configured to generate a rectified signal representative of the weight of at least one product contained in the bucket (Col. 11, II. 51-66).
With respect to claim 4, there are multiple accelerometers (Col. 11, II. 24-39).
With respect to claim 5, the accelerometers are the unused weighing buckets that are attached to the frame of the weighing machine (Col. 11, II. 40-50).
With respect to claim 7, there inherently has to be a mechanical means for connecting the load cells to the frame of the weighing machine.
With respect to claim 8, there is a comparison (i.e.: subtraction) mode for comparing the weighing signals to the vibration signals (Col. 12, II. 14-43).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura et al (US # 6,034,334). The Nakamura reference discloses a weighing head for a multi-head weighing machine (Fig. 7; Col. 10, II. 26-48), comprising:
at least one pre-dosing bucket (63) adapted to receive at least one product from feeding means (60, 62) for feeding at least one product of a multi-head weighing machine;
at least one weighing bucket (65) arranged below said pre-dosing bucket (63) along a vertical direction and configured to receive at least one part of the at least one product from said pre-dosing bucket; at least one weighing device (67),
the at least one weighing device being connected or connectable to the at least one weighing bucket (65) to generate a rectified signal representative of the weight of at least one product contained in the weighing bucket (Col. 10, II. 26-48; Col. 11, II. 51-66).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura et al (US # 6,034,334). The Nakamura reference discloses a multi-head weighing machine (Fig. 7) comprising:
a plurality of weighing heads (41), wherein at least one weighing head is a weighing head (41) comprising:
at least one pre-dosing bucket (63) adapted to receive at least one product from feeding means (60, 62) for feeding at least one product of a multi-head weighing machine;
at least one weighing bucket (65) arranged below said pre-dosing bucket (63) along a vertical direction and configured to receive at least one part of the at least one product from said pre-dosing bucket (Fig. 7);
at least one weighing device (67), the at least one weighing device (67) being connected or connectable to the at least one weighing bucket to generate a rectified signal representative of the weight of at least one product contained in the weighing bucket (Col. 10, II. 26-48; Col. 11, II. 51-66);
the multi-head weighing machine further comprising: feeding means (60,62) for feeding at least one product adapted to feed at least one product to at least one bucket of the plurality of weighing heads (Col. 7, II. 28-48);
at least one conveyor (69) adapted to receive the product from at least one weighing head and convey it towards a packaging machine (unlabeled bagging machine, shown below the chute 69 and under frame 70, in Figure 7).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al (US # 6,034,334) in view of Watanabe et al (US PG Pub # 2021/0283781). The Nakamura reference uses dummy load cells as the accelerometers, but it was known in the art that MEMs are functional equivalents, see Watanabe (para. # 0077), and it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to substitute MEMs accelerometers for the dummy load cells motivated by their art recognized functional equivalence.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al (US # 6,034,334) in view of Konishi et al (US # 4,593,778). The Nakamura reference uses dummy load cells as the accelerometers, but it was known in the art to use a separate, unloaded dummy load cell as the accelerometer as suggested by Nakamura in the first embodiment (Col. 5, II. 46-61). And the Konishi reference discloses that in such a configuration, the dummy load cell accelerometer should be mounted next to the main load cell for accuracy (Figs. 8-11; Col. 5, II. 10-65) for both sensors to detect the same influence from the same amplitude of vibrations; therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to place the accelerometer next to the force sensor (load cell) to insure the accuracy of the vibration readings.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al (US # 6,034,334) in view of Wu et al (US PG Pub # 2022/0099480). The Nakamura reference uses dummy load cells as the accelerometers, but it was known in the art that triaxial accelerometers are functional equivalents, see Wu (para. # 0074-0078), and it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to substitute triaxial accelerometers for the dummy load cells, motivated by their art recognized functional equivalence.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 scale cells output weight signals corresponding to the weights of objects being loaded. The mode of vibrations of the floor is detected from dummy signals from the dummy cells, vertical displacements of the floor at the positions of the scale cells are calculated, and their effects are eliminated from the weight signals. Those of the scale cells not selected after a cycle of combinational calculations can be used as dummy cells in the next cycle. A memory device may be provided to store preferred combinations of such scale cells not selected that may be used for this purpose …” (Abstract [emphasis added])
2 This is well known in the art. See Figures 2 & 5 of US # 4,926,359 (Konishi et al.); or, see Figure 6 of US # 6,987,227 (Wakasa), for examples.
Prosecution Insights