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 § 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natio et al (US # 5,756,943) in view of Wolfe et al (US # 6,835,899). With respect to claim 1, the Natio reference discloses:
a U-shaped plate (Fig. 2, ref. nr. 12) for a weighing module, said U-shaped plate comprising:
a first side surface and a second side surface (Fig. 2, ref. nr. 11b, 10b), and
an upper end surface (Fig. 2, ref. nr. 10a, 11a) connecting the first side surface and the second side surface;
the first and the second side each comprising a bottom end and an upper portion together forming four corners of the U-shaped plate (Fig. 2);
wherein said U-shaped plate is of an inverted U-shaped structure (Fig. 2),
the U-shaped plate further comprises an opening suitable for mounting a sensor (Fig 2, ref. nr. 40),
wherein said opening extends from the bottom end of the first side surface to the upper portion of the second side surface via an upper end surface (Fig. 2);
wherein each of the four corners of the U-shaped plate is configured as a recessed structure (Fig. 2, a recess is formed at the four corners between surfaces 11c and 11b, as well as between surface 11b and 11a, see also ref. nr. 5).
However, Naito does not disclose that a lower width of the U-shaped plate is greater than its upper width. However, this design seems to be an obvious variation of the vertical sidewalls a show by the example of Wolfe (Col. 4, line 59 to col. 5, line 20; Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to use this alternative design with the slightly flared bottom in the apparatus of Naito as the Wolf reference shows that this was an art recognized alternative for the external housing of the sensor.
With respect to claims 2, 3, 5, 7-9, 12 and 13, see Fig.2 of Naito.
With respect to claim 4, it would have been obvious to provide both side surfaces with connecting holes for studs or bolts to pass through to allow the parts to be easily fastened together (instead of being welded together).
With respect to claim 6, the width of the opening would have been an obvious parameter to optimize through routine trial and error.
With respect to claim 10, the slope of recessed structure would have been an obvious parameter to optimize through routine trial and error.
With respect to claim 11, the height of the recessed structure have been an obvious parameter to optimize through routine trial and error.
With respect to claim 14, using “studs” to fasten the parts of the weighing module together was an art recognized alternative to welding the parts together.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Figure 2 of US PG Pub # 2015/0226601 (Perrea et al) which shows a U-shaped plate similar to the applicant’s claims. The other references show the general state of the art.
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