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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1149 filed 02/15/2024. This IDS has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “system for filling, draining, and maintaining the quality and quantity of the liquid foundation in the pit” recited in claim 12 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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 6, 7, and 15 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the digital output signals" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
This claim depends on claim 1 which does not recited any digital output signals. However, claim 5 recites a digital output signal. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting claim 6 as depending on claim 5.
Claim 7 inherits the deficiencies of claim 6 and is likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention or is only being provided as an example. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) should be made. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhuang (CN 201610953467; see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Zhuang discloses a weighbridge for weighing a rail car (¶ [0004]), the weighbridge comprising a foundation pit (no reference numeral see ¶ [0024]) said foundation pit having a base (61) (see figure 3), a weighing platform (1) positioned in the foundation pit, bearing upon the base (61) (¶ [0024]), and a plurality of load cells (4), arranged in the foundation pit such that, collectively, the load cells (4) bear the weight of the weighing platform (1) (¶ [0024]).
Zhuang does not explicitly disclose the weighbridge is for a ladle car, but rather a generic rail car. However, this appears to be an intended use of the weighbridge and does not impose any structural limitations on it. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP § 2114 (II).
Similarly, Zhuang doesn’t explicitly disclose the pit containing a liquid during use, a level thereof being maintained to at least partially submerge each of the load cells. However, this appears to also be directed to how the weighbridge is to be used and it is unclear whether or not this limitation imposes any structural limitations on the weighbridge itself as claimed. Therefore, it is generally being interpreted as an intended use of the weighbridge. Nevertheless, Examiner notes that Zhuang does disclose that the positioning sleeve (62) has a notch (621) for draining accumulated water (¶ [0027]). This indicates that 1) the weighbridge does contain water in use at least some of the time and 2) based on the placement of the notch, the load cells would have to be at least partially submerged before the accumulated water drains. Therefore, Zhuang’s weighbridge is explicitly capable of accumulating and maintaining water long enough for the load cells to be submerged thereby meeting the claim limitations while clearly demonstrating the foundation pit is capable of containing liquid enough to partially submerge the load cells.
Regarding claim 2, Zhuang discloses the liquid in the foundation pit is water (¶ [0027], see also explanation in rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Zhuang discloses each of the load cells (4) is adapted for submersible use in the liquid (¶ [0027], see also explanation in rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Zhuang discloses during use, the level of liquid in the foundation pit is being maintained below a bottom surface of the weighing platform (1) (¶ [0027], see also explanation in rejection of claim 1).
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.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhuang in view of Johnson et al. (USPN 4,134,464; “Johnson”).
Regarding claim 5, Zhuang discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Zhuang is silent to a digital output.
In the same field of endeavor, Johnson teaches an inground weighing scale for railcars wherein each of the load cells (LC1, LC2) provides a digital output signal (col. 9, lines 33-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to use digital load cells as taught by Johnson as the load cells in Zhuang’s scale for the purpose of allowing the signals to be sent to a remote communication device for logging and record keeping.
Regarding claim 6, Zhuang discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Zhuang is silent to a terminal.
In the same field of endeavor, Johnson teaches an inground weighing scale for railcars wherein a terminal (41) in electronic communication with each of the load cells (LC1, LC2) for receiving the digital output signals for processing and for controlling the weighing functions (col. 9, line 65 through col. 10, line 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include a terminal as taught by Johnson in Zhuang’s scale for the purpose of allowing the signals to be sent to a remote communication device for logging and recordkeeping.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhuang in view of Johnson as applied to claim 6 and further in view of Beshears et al. (US 2006/0111868; “Beshears”).
Regarding claim 7, Zhuang and Johnson disclose all the limitations of claim 6 on which this claim depends.
Zhuang and Johnson are silent to wireless communications.
In the same field of endeavor, Beshears teaches in at least figure 7 a ground scale for cargo vehicles wherein the electronic communication is wireless (¶¶ [0022], [0103]-[0107]), [0126]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include wireless communications in Zhuang’s scale as taught by Beshears for the purpose of allowing a handheld, remote device to obtain data for remote recordkeeping and datalogging.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhuang in view of Thurston (USPN 2,716,547).
Regarding claim 8, Zhuang discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Zhuang further discloses the weighing platform (1) comprises a roadway (top surface of platform 1, see figure 2) at least one set of beams upon which the roadway is supported (see vertical beams of platform 1, platform is described as “box-shaped” in ¶ [0009], see also figure 2) and a plurality of vertical posts (13) positioned between the at least one set of beams and the base (61) of the foundation pit to support the weighing platform (¶¶ [0024]-[0026]).
Zhuang does not explicitly disclose that the platform is sized to receive the entire weight of the rail car being weighed.
However, how large the weighbridge is appears to be a matter of scaling the invention in order to fit a specific purpose which is considered within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A).
For example, Thurston teaches in figure 1 that it is known to size and inground weighbridge so that it supports the entire weight of a rail car.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to size Zhuang’s platform such that the weighbridge itself can support the entire rail car so that one weigh measurement can accurately reflect the weight of the cargo which can be subject to weight distribution shifts according to vibrations and oscillations during travel.
As noted in the rejection of claim 1 on which this claim depends, the purpose of the rail car being a ladle transfer is considered intended use and does not necessarily impose any structural limitation on the claim. See MPEP § 2114 (II).
Regarding claim 9, Zhuang discloses each of the vertical posts (13) has at least one of the plurality of load cells (4) associated therewith (¶ [0026]).
Regarding claim 10, Zhuang discloses in figures 1 and 2 an upper surface of the roadway (top surface of 1) is arranged in the foundation pit at grade level for receiving the rail car being weighed.
As noted in the rejection of claim 1 on which this claim depends, the purpose of the rail car being a ladle transfer is considered intended use and does not necessarily impose any structural limitation on the claim. See MPEP § 2114 (II).
Regarding claim 11, Zhuang discloses in figures 1 and 2 a pair of rails (11), recessed in the roadway (top of 1), for receiving the rail car when the ladle transfer car is a rail car (¶ [0024]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhuang in view of Chen et al. (CN 110595590; “Chen”, see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 13, Zhuang discloses in figures 1 and 2 a weighing system for weighing a railcar the weighing system having a weighbridge (¶ [0004]) comprising a weighing platform (1) and a foundation pit (no reference numeral, see ¶ [0024]) having a base (61) associated with the weighing platform (1) (see figure 3) and a plurality of load cells (4) associated with the weighing platform (1), each of the load cells (4) arranged below the weighing platform (1) between a bottom surface of the weighing platform (1) and the base (61) of the associated foundation pit to measure the weight borne by the base (61) from the weighing platform (1) (¶ [0024]).
Zhuang does not explicitly disclose a ladle transfer car having at least a fore truck assembly and a rear truck assembly, each truck assembly having at least one axle bar with a pair of steel wheels, but rather discloses a generic railcar.
However, this appears to be an intended use of the weighbridge and does not impose any structural limitations on it. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP § 2114 (II).
Similarly, Zhuang doesn’t explicitly disclose the pit containing a liquid during use, a level thereof being maintained to at least partially submerge each of the load cells. However, this appears to also be directed to how the weighbridge is to be used and it is unclear whether or not this limitation imposes any structural limitations on the weighbridge itself as claimed. Therefore, it is generally being interpreted as an intended use of the weighbridge. Nevertheless, Examiner notes that Zhuang does disclose that the positioning sleeve (62) has a notch (621) for draining accumulated water (¶ [0027]). This indicates that 1) the weighbridge does contain water in use at least some of the time and 2) based on the placement of the notch, the load cells would have to be at least partially submerged before the accumulated water drains. Therefore, Zhuang’s weighbridge is explicitly capable of accumulating and maintaining water long enough for the load cells to be submerged thereby meeting the claim limitations while clearly demonstrating the foundation pit is capable of containing liquid enough to partially submerge the load cells.
Zhuang does not explicitly disclose that the weighbridge is comprised of two weighbridges having corresponding fore and rear features.
However, how many weighbridges the system comprises appears to be a matter of duplicating parts of the invention in order to fit a specific purpose which is considered within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B).
For example. Chen teaches in figure 2 a weighbridge for a railcar comprised of two identical pits each comprising respective platforms and load cells (page 3, paragraph 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to embody Zhuang’s weighbridge as two separate pits with corresponding features as suggested by Chen for the purpose of easily identifying unbalance and overload conditions (Chen, page 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 14 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 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 12, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious a weighbridge as claimed comprising a system for filling, draining, and maintaining the quality and quantity of the liquid in the foundation pit in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Regarding claim 14, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious a weighing system as claimed wherein the fore foundation pit and rear foundation pit are in selective liquid communication in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Regarding claim 15, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious a method for weighing a ladle transfer car as claimed, wherein the foundation pit contains a liquid of sufficient depth to at least partially submerge each of the load cells in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and represents the general state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALIE HULS whose telephone number is (571)270-5914. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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.
/NATALIE HULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights