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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the labels in Figs. 5-6 need to be translated into English and the ‘fins’ from claims 8 and 9 are not labelled in any of the Figures. 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.
Additionally, the Examiner recommends that the ‘ribs’ referred to in claims 8 and 9 be given a reference character in order to better understand the claimed invention from the drawings.
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.
Claim 1 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 1 recites “an operator identification system” twice; once in line 2 and again across lines 7-8. It is unclear whether there is one or two operator identification systems. For the purposes of examination, there is assumed to be one operator identification system. If there is only one operator identification system, the second occurrence (lines 7-8) of the limitation should be removed. If there is meant to be two operator identification systems, the second occurrence should be referred to as “another” or “a second” operator identification system.
Claim 1 also recites “an operator interaction system” (lines 2-3) and “a contactless operator-device interaction system” (line 8). While these are written differently, their proximity to the occurrences of the “operator identification system” cause indefiniteness as well. It is unclear whether the second occurrence (line 8) is meant to be the same limitation as the first occurrence (lines 2-3). If so, it should be handled similarly to the “operator identification system” instances described above. If they are in fact two separate limitations, additional distinction between the two, along with the resolution to the issue above, should overcome the indefiniteness.
Claim 1 additionally recites “a flat surface matching at least one integrated circuit” in line 10. It is unclear what is meant by “matching” in this case. It is assumed, for the purposes of examination, that matching is meant to refer to the elevation of the different parts, such that they are connected without any change in elevation. Therefore, claims 2-9 are also rejected under U.S.C. 112(b) based on their dependency to claim 1.
Claims 8 and 9 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 8 recites the limitation "the side ribs with parallel ribs" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the lower ribs" in line 3 and “the ribs” in lines 3 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Additionally, it is unclear what the Applicant is referring to as “ribs”. Neither the specification nor the drawings refer to these elements with description beyond what is written in these claims. The Examiner is not able to examine and effectively read any prior art onto the claim without this information.
Claim 8 is further rejected because the meaning of the phrase “the side ribs with parallel ribs” is unclear. Is this intended to mean that all of the side ribs have parallel ribs? Or is it intended to mean that only some of the side ribs have parallel ribs and that these are the ones being referred to here?
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100139989 A1 (Atwater).
Regarding claim 1: Atwater teaches an electronic static weighing scale with a terminal, comprising an operator identification system ("the embodiments disclosed herein may be utilized by other automated data collection/capture techniques including, but not limited to, magnetic stripes, optical card readers, voice recognition, and smart card or radio frequency identification") and an operator interaction system ("the embodiments disclosed herein may be utilized by other automated data collection/capture techniques including, but not limited to, magnetic stripes, optical card readers, voice recognition, and smart card or radio frequency identification"), a graphic display with a touch panel (display device 270, input controller 280 ; "The standard input controller 280 may be provided to receive user input from a keyboard, a pointing device, or other wired/wireless input devices. Other input devices may be included, such as a microphone, touchscreen, touchpad, and trackball.") connected to an upper part of a two-part terminal housing, consisting of upper and lower parts (lower housing portion 122 and upper housing portion 124), and a contactless operator-device interaction system (processing unit 240), characterized in that the inner surface of the lower part of the terminal housing has at least one elevation with a flat surface matching at least one integrated circuit on the computer board of the weighing terminal (Figs. 1-2) and the surfaces of the integrated circuits and elevations with a flat surfaces are in contact with each other directly or via a heat-conducting material (Figs. 1-2).
Atwater does not directly teach the lower part of which is at least partially made of heat-conducting material, in which housing a weighing terminal's computer is included in the form of a printed circuit board with a set of interfaces and at least one integrated circuit that requires cooling. Atwater does teach that the imager 330 and the signal processor 340 may be contained in the same integrated circuit. Applicant has not disclosed that a printed circuit board provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem other than the well-known and unsurprising function of connecting different circuit elements.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the integrated circuitry of Atwater with a printed circuit board. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected a printed circuit board to be one of several straightforward ways of connecting circuitry elements because it is a common connection for the circuit elements.
Additionally, Atwater is silent in regards to the material of the lower housing portion. However, Applicant has not disclosed that the lower housing portion is made of heat conducting material provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem other than the well-known and unsurprising function of not thermally insulating the object being weighed.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lower housing portion of Atwater with a heat conducting material. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected a heat conducting material to be one of several straightforward ways of forming the housing and reducing thermal noise.
Regarding claim 2: Atwater teaches the electronic static scale with a terminal according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the operator identification system of the weighing terminal consists of an upper housing part and a lower housing part and uses at least one of the sensors such us RFID tag reader and/or a fingerprint reader and/or a camera connected to the computer of the weighing terminal ("the embodiments disclosed herein may be utilized by other automated data collection/capture techniques including, but not limited to, magnetic stripes, optical card readers, voice recognition, and smart card or radio frequency identification").
Regarding claim 3: Atwater teaches the electronic static scale with a terminal according to claim 2 (see above), wherein the operator identification system of the weighing terminal is based on data from the operator database installed on the weighing terminal computer. It is inherent that the operator identification system will be the one that is installed on the computer.
Regarding claim 4: Atwater teaches the electronic static scale with a terminal according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the system of contactless interaction with the operator in the weighing terminal consists of the upper housing part and the lower housing part (lower housing portion 122 and upper housing portion 124) and uses at least one of the sensors in the form of a camera and/or a microphone and/or a proximity sensor connected to the computer of the weighing terminal ("the embodiments disclosed herein may be utilized by other automated data collection/capture techniques including, but not limited to, magnetic stripes, optical card readers, voice recognition, and smart card or radio frequency identification": voice recognition would require at least a microphone).
Regarding claim 5: Atwater teaches the electronic static scale with the terminal of claim 4 (see above), wherein the system of contactless interaction with the operator in the weighing terminal is based on data from the operator database installed on the weighing terminal computer. It is inherent that the system of contactless interaction with the operator in the weighing terminal will be the one that is installed on the computer.
Regarding claim 6: Atwater teaches the electronic static scale with a terminal according to claim 1 (see above), wherein that the lower part of the housing has at least one adjustable support connected to its lower part, which, resting on a flat surface, forms a space between this surface and the surface of the lower housing part (“A rigid frame or spider may be interposed between the weigh platter 110 and the load cell to provide additional support for the weigh platter 110.” Paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 7: Atwater teaches the electronic static balance with a terminal according to claim 6 (see above), wherein the lower housing part has radiation fins placed on the sides of the lower housing part (mirrors 1240), but does not teach that it has radiation fins on the bottom of the lower housing part.
Applicant has not disclosed that radiation fins provide an advantage, are used for a particular purpose, or solve a stated problem other than the well-known and unsurprising function of directing heat.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lower housing of Atwater with radiation fins. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected mirrors to be one of several straightforward ways of directing radiation because of their reflective properties.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20200088397 A1 teaches a heat-conductive polymer heatsink with a lightweight heat-radiating structure.
US 20200056929 A1 teaches a weighing scale for a retail store counter includes a housing, a load-receiving platform on top of the housing, and operating components enclosed therein, including a weighing cell.
US 20170122797 A1 teaches a balance with a weighing pan, a housing, an electronics compartment, a thermoelectric heat pump module, and heat flow controller.
US 20140326787 A1 teaches a symbol-reading system includes a system housing having a horizontal housing portion and a vertical housing portion, the vertical housing portion being configured substantially orthogonal to the horizontal housing portion.
US 20110214904 A1 teaches a heatsink is provided with a base body opposed to a heat generating body and absorbing heat from the heat generating body.
US 20100230178 A1 teaches a balance that has a balance housing, a balance pan, a weighing compartment, a draft shield, balance electronics, and structure similar to the claimed invention (see Fig. 1).
DE 102007039446 A1 teaches a method for displaying information by means of a display mounted in a motor vehicle, in which graphic data is generated by a user interface device, which controls the display.
US 20060038009 A1 teaches POS-based bar code symbol reading systems are disclosed having an integrated customer-kiosk terminal having Integrated Internet-Enabled Customer-Kiosk Terminals.
US 20030051926 A1 teaches an electronic balance including a housing, a weighing scale, a windshield, which preferably at least partially surrounds the weighing scale, and a display and operating unit which is connected to the balance housing.
US 6266685 B1 teaches a hand-held data input system having a radio frequency receiver, input keys, and handwriting recognition capability.
US 5747744 A teaches a weighing device for the point-of-sale of a retail outlet with a reading device installed therein, with a rigid support for a load plate of the weighing device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA FITZPATRICK whose telephone number is (703)756-5783. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-4pm.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571)272-2160. 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.
/JULIA FITZPATRICK/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN/SPE, Art Unit 2855