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 Amendment
Response to Amendment Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant's Response filed August 18, 2026, in which claims 1, 10, 12 and 13 were amended and claims 2 and 11 were cancelled. The amendments have been fully considered. Additional search and consideration provided no prior art that reads on the limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more in the claims than the abstract idea itself. These Claims are directed to an abstract idea, which have been found ineligible by judicial exception under Supreme Court Cases including Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S., 134 S. Ct. 2368 (2014)[hereinafter “Alice Corp.”] and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 56/826 U. S. (2012) [hereinafter “Mayo”]. The Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because monitoring an object with a known sensor then processing without useful steps disclosed and displaying is just collecting and organizing in support of the abstract idea.
Applied to the present application, under step 1 of the Guidance analysis, the Claims belong to the statutory class of a process (method of Claims 1) and a machine (apparatus of Claims 10).
Turning now to eligibility step 2A, namely, does the claim recite an abstract idea, claim 1 merely recites “performing” which is data gathering steps, “calculating” step (which is a mathematical calculation).
Under prong one of revised eligibility step 2A (MPEP § 2106.04, subsection II), it is clear that this paragraph is reciting an abstract idea, as “mathematical calculations” are considered abstract ideas (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I, subsection (C)). Since the claim does not indicate anywhere that this calculation is carried out by a machine, or processor, or any other device, then it is clear that giving this paragraph its broadest reasonable interpretation, the “calculating” step is sufficiently broad enough to cover someone mentally calculating a number from the strain measurement data using an equation, possibly using pen and paper (see, also, MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
The analysis now turns to prong two of step 2A, namely, does the claim recite additional elements that serve to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? Other than a passing mention of a “magnetometer” and a couple of data gathering “measuring the weight”, there are no additional elements listed, and “calculating” is not applied to the functioning of any machine, system or automated process.
Dependent claims 3-9 and 12-14 do not add any additional elements would integrate these claims into a practical application.
Eligibility Step 2B: namely whether a claim amounts to significantly more (MPEP 2106.05). The claims when analyzed as a whole do not recite elements "significantly more" than just the abstract idea itself.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-14 are rejected under rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Claims 3-9 and 12-14 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.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, Bishop discloses a tilt compensation method (method of calibrating a weighing apparatus) applicable to a weighing system (weighing apparatus) having a column-type load cell (load cell), said method comprising the steps of: S1: performing tilt angle calibration (para [0010], ex: the present invention seeks to only tilt compensate for the component parts of the load cell output reading that actually vary with tilt and not tilt compensate for the component parts of the output reading that do not vary with tilt.) and horizontal rotation angle calibration (para [0011]) on the column-type load cell (load cell) of the weighing system (weighing apparatus); S2: selecting (para [0024]) to set different specified tilt angles and different specified horizontal rotation angles, and measuring weights, tilt angles, and horizontal rotation angles under different loads (ex: The preferred positional relationship aligns one or both axes of acceleration measured by the inclinometer to one or both corresponding axes of the load cell 10 shown in figure 1. For certain calibration steps according to the preferred example of the present invention the accelerometer 20 is required to measure the acceleration along both the X and Y axes of the load cell 10); S3: calculating (para [0067]) a weight compensation value (ex: correction factor) based on the set specified tilt angles (para [0067]) and the set specified horizontal rotation angles as well as the weights, tilt angles, and horizontal rotation angles obtained through measurement (para [0067]); and S4: calculating an actual weighing weight based on an actual measured weight (para [0067]) of the weighing system (weighing apparatus) and the weight compensation value (para [0067]).
The prior art fails to explicitly disclose performing a tilt angle calibration using an accelerometer or a tilt angle sensor and a horizontal rotation angle calibration using a magnetometer on the column-type load cell of the weighing system in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 10, Bishop discloses a tilt compensation apparatus (15) applicable to a weighing system (weighing apparatus) having a column-type load cell (10), said tilt compensation apparatus (15) comprising: a calibration module (not shown but mentioned ex: performing one or more calibration measurements) configured to perform tilt angle calibration (ex: calibrates for all initial inclination) and horizontal rotation angle calibration (ex: The first calibration step according to the preferred example is a single calibration measurement made when the load cell assembly 15 is flat to the horizontal) on the column-type load cell (10) of the weighing system (weighing apparatus) to obtain calibration data (ex: calibration measurements); a test module (not shown but mentioned ex: para [0053]) selecting to set different specified tilt angles (para [0013]) and different specified horizontal rotation angles (para [0013]), and obtaining weights (para [0049]), tilt angles (para [0042], [0044]), and horizontal rotation angles under different loads through measurement (para [0052]) ; a compensation value calculation module (not shown but mentioned in para [0067]) calculating a weight compensation value based on the weights, tilt angles, and horizontal rotation angles obtained by the test module (para [0053] and [0067]); and a weighing calculation module (not shown but mentioned in para [0067]) calculating an actual weighing weight based on an actual measured weight of the weighing system and the weight compensation value (para [0067]).
The prior art fails to explicitly disclose a test module configured for selecting different set specified tilt angles and different set specified horizontal rotation angles and for obtaining weights, tilt angles, and horizontal rotation angles measured under different loads in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
The remaining claims are allowable due to their dependency.
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 MIREILLE SANDRA SADATE-MOUALEU whose telephone number is (571)272-2862. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0730-1700.
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.
/MIREILLE S SADATE-MOUALEU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
