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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I encompasses claims 1-17 and 20 in the reply filed on April 23, 2026 is acknowledged.
An action on the merits of the elected claims 1-17 and 20 follows.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “245 (in fig. 8)”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
If claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step"), they 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, if claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step"), they 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
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.
Claims 1-13, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Waite et al. (hereinafter “Waite” (US 2019/0224935 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Waite discloses a bale weighing kit comprising:
a scale (182, 183; fig. 16);
an elongated support channel (200) configured to couple with the scale and support a baler (120) (fig. 15); and
an anchor brace (124, 2) configured to couple with the elongated support channel (200) (figs. 16-18) and laterally constrain movement of the elongated support channel with respect to a ground support surface (2), the anchor brace comprising an anchor plate (fig. 20) with a surface configured to receive and support a portion of the scale (fig. 21).
Regarding claim 2, the bale weighing kit of claim 1, wherein the elongated support channel is configured to be removably coupled with a structural feature (see a removable cover as shown in the drawing below) of a base of the baler, wherein the structural feature is a laterally-extending flange of the base of the baler (see a removable cover as shown in the annotated drawing #1 below).
Drawing #1:
PNG
media_image1.png
172
365
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the bale weighing kit of claim 1, wherein the elongated support channel (200) defines a slot (see a hole in element 200 in fig. 16) configured to align with a hole defined by a base (2) of the baler (see figs. 23-24 and para. 101).
Regarding claim 4. The bale weighing kit of claim 1, wherein the elongated support channel (200) is configured to be coupled with the anchor brace (122) in a parallel direction (see the annotated drawing #2 below).
Drawing #2:
PNG
media_image2.png
128
531
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, the bale weighing kit of claim 1, wherein the anchor brace has a pair of opposing, lateral walls and a capture plate opposing the anchor plate, the anchor plate configured to rest on the ground support surface, wherein a lateral wall of the pair of opposing, lateral walls define a notch.
Regarding claim 6, the bale weighing kit of claim 4, wherein the anchor plate (2) extends longitudinally under the scale (121) (fig. 25-29), and a foot (183) of the scale (121) is configured to rest on the anchor plate (2) (see figs. 25-29).
Regarding claim 7, the bale weighing kit of claim 4, wherein the anchor plate is configured to be secured to the ground support surface (2) at one or more mounting points (see “held securely” in para. 101).
Regarding claim 8, the bale weighing kit of claim 1, wherein the scale (182) comprises a shear beam load cell (para. 89) having a first end extending over and secured to the elongated support channel (200) (figs. 16-17), and a second end supported on a foot (183) (fig. 16) resting on the ground support surface (fig. 22).
Regarding claim 9, the bale weighing kit of claim 8, wherein the scale further comprises a second shear beam load cell (182) extending over and secured to the elongated support channel (200) (see the drawing # 3 below), the second shear beam load cell including a third end supported on a second foot (183) resting on the ground support surface (see the drawing # 3 below), wherein the shear beam load cell is a first shear beam load cell (see the drawing # 3 below), the foot is a first foot (see the drawing # 3 below), and wherein the elongated support channel (200) extends between the first and second shear beam load cells (see the drawing # 3 below).
Drawing #3:
PNG
media_image3.png
237
860
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, the bale weighing kit of claim 8, wherein the shear beam load cell (182) is secured to the elongated support channel (200) by one or more retainers (fig. 16).
Regarding claim 11, the bale weighing kit of claim 1, further comprising a processor (25) operatively connected to the scale (para. 52) and configured to receive and transmit data output from the scale (para. 52).
Regarding claim 12, the bale weighing kit of claim 11, wherein the data output is a weight of a waste container of the baler, a ram of the baler, and/or a material in the waste container (see para. 85-88).
Regarding claim 13, the bale weighing kit of claim 11, further comprising a user interface (84, 95, 184, 195) configured to present the data output of the scale to a user (see para. 84, and digital display 195).
Regarding claim 15, the bale weighing kit of claim 1, wherein the baler (120) is a vertical baler (fig. 15).
Regarding claim 16, the bale weighing kit of claim 1, wherein the scale (121) is responsive to a weight of a waste container of the baler, a ram of the baler, and a material in the waste container (see para. 86).
Regarding claim 20, Waite discloses a baling system, comprising:
a baler (120) comprising:
a baler base (fig. 15);
a waste container (an area between element 64 and 81 in fig. 2) adapted to hold a quantity of material to be baled;
a compression ram (63) positioned to compress material within the waste container to form a bale; and
a bale weighing kit (figs. 16-18 and 25-29) comprising:
a scale (182, 183; fig. 16);
an elongated support channel (200) configured to couple with the scale and support a baler (120) (fig. 15); and
an anchor brace (124 or 2) configured to couple with the elongated support channel (200) (figs. 16-18) and laterally constrain movement of the elongated support channel with respect to a ground support surface (2), the anchor brace (124) comprising an anchor plate (fig. 20) with a surface configured to receive and support a portion of the scale (fig. 21).
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waite in view of Chan et al. (hereinafter “Chan”) (CA 3035600 A1).
Regarding claim 14, the bale weighing kit of claim 11, Waite discloses the invention substantially as claimed as set forth above. Waite does not expressly disclose a printer configured to print the data output of the scale to a user.
Chan can be applied to teach a vertical baler (101) includes a printer (175) to print label that includes a weight of a bale (see page 7, lines 9-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the baler of Waite with a printer, as taught by Chan, in order to print a weight of a bale, for documentation purpose.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 17, the claim would be allowable because the prior art of record, considered alone or combination, neither anticipated nor renders obvious “wherein the elongated support channel defines a first notch configured to receive and interlock with a second notch defined by the anchor brace” in combination with the base claim and any intervene claim.
With the structural arrangement of the support channel and the anchor brace as disclosed by Waite, it is not capable to modify each of the support channel and the anchor brace to include a notch for interlocking the support channel to the anchor brace.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DE 10 2106 107 875 A1, US 2019/0293478 A1, and US 2,378,276 B1 discloses balers having a weighing scale.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4520. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-5pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER L TEMPLETON can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
JIMMY T. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/JIMMY T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights