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 14 and 15 seem to indicate the same part on figure 6. 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 10 and 20 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “Tubular elements” in claims 10 and 20 is used by the claims to mean “cylindrical conduits” while the accepted meaning is “tubular electrical wires” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, the limitation “Tubular elements” is unclear. It is unclear because it is not defined by the specification. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will read the claim limitation as electrical wires.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7, 10, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedrick et al (US 20210255028 A1) in view of Mairot et al (FR 2795505 A1) in further view of Weihs (EP 0139204 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Pedrick discloses in figures 1-8 a dynamic weighing system (weigh-in-motion sensor construction) of a vehicle comprising: a beam (104) comprising: a hollow longitudinal body (116; para [0028]); a first end portion (not labeled but shown on figures 1-3, 6 and 8) and a second end portion (not labeled but shown on figures 1-3, 6 and 8) which are opposite (not labeled but shown on figures 1-3, 6 and 8) one another and parallel (not labeled but shown on figures 1-3, 6 and 8) to one another and which comprise a part of the relative neutral axis (para [0051]) of the beam (104); the first end portion (not labeled but shown on figures 1-3, 6 and 8) and the second end portion (not labeled but shown on figures 1-3, 6 and 8); the remaining portion of the beam (104); an upper rest surface (110) for receiving the wheel of a vehicle in transit (para [0023]; Fig.1); a first lower rest surface (212) which is arranged at the first end portion (not labeled but shown on figures 1-3, 6 and 8) and a second lower rest surface (214) which is arranged at the second end portion (not labeled but shown on figures 1-3, 6 and 8); the first lower rest surface (212) and the second lower rest surface (214) being opposite (Fig.2) the upper rest surface (110) and extending on the horizontal plane (Fig.2) defined by the neutral axis of the beam (104); a base (112) to be arranged in such a way as to be beneath (Fig.1) the road surface (109) and comprising a seat (114) conformed so as to receive the beam (104); a plurality of compression load cells (228) which are interposed between the base (112) and the beam (104) in such a way that at least a first compression load cell (para [0032]) supports the beam (104) at the first lower rest surface (not labeled but shown on figures 1-3, 6 and 8) and the at least a second compression load cell (para [0032]) supports the beam (104) at the second lower rest surface (not labeled but shown on figures 1-3, 6 and 8); interposed between the beam (104); the seat (114) so as to limit the displacements of the beam (104) along a transversal direction to the relative longitudinal axis (Fig.1); the dynamic weighing system (weigh-in-motion sensor construction) of a vehicle being configured in such a way that, during the transit of a wheel (Fig.1) of the vehicle on the upper rest surface (110), the at least a first compression load cell (para [0032]) and the at least a second compression load cell (para [0032]); the first lower rest surface (212) and the second lower rest surface (214).
Pedrick fails to explicitly disclose a relative transversal section that is smaller than the transversal section; a plurality of abutments which are interposed; lateral walls (not shown however, examiner notes 114 is foundation structure adding lateral walls would be a design choice); detect the force exerted when abutting, respectively.
Mairot teaches in figures 1-4 a plurality of abutments (22) which are interposed (Figs. 1-4); detect the force exerted when abutting, respectively (para [0009]).
Lateral walls not shown however, examiner notes 114 is a foundation structure and adding lateral walls would be a design choice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Pedrick’s weigh-in-motion sensor construction with a plurality of abutments as taught by Mairot because these will provide better structural integrity.
Pedrick and Mairot fail to explicitly disclose a relative transversal section that is smaller than the transversal section.
Weihs teaches in figure 1 a relative transversal section (112, 114, 116, 118) that is smaller.
The motivation would be to greatly reduce structural weight.
Regarding claim 2, Pedrick discloses in figures 1-8 the dynamic weighing system (weigh-in-motion sensor construction) of a vehicle wherein: the first end portion (not labeled but shown on figures 1-3, 6 and 8) ; at least partially along a first longitudinal edge of the beam (104); the second end portion (not labeled but shown on figures 1-3, 6 and 8) ; at least partially along the first longitudinal edge of the beam (104); the at least a first compression load cell (para [0032]) is arranged to abut; the at least a second compression load cell (para [0032]) is arranged to abut.
Pedrick, Mairot and Weihs fail to explicitly disclose a first step and a second step however, examiner notes the addition of steps would be a design choice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Pedrick as modifier with a first and second step because these would prevent structural failure.
Regarding claim 7, Pedrick discloses in figures 1-8 the dynamic weighing system (weigh-in-motion sensor construction) of a vehicle wherein the base (112) is made of reinforced concrete (para [0025]).
Regarding claim 10, Pedrick discloses in figures 1-8 the dynamic weighing system (weigh-in-motion sensor construction) of a vehicle wherein the beam (104) comprises a plurality of tubular elements (118) arranged internally of the hollow longitudinal body (116; para [0028]) and in such a way as to extend transversally and/or parallel to the relative longitudinal axis (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 12, Pedrick discloses in figures 1-8 a dynamic weighing system (weigh-in-motion sensor construction) of a vehicle comprising: a beam (104) comprising: a hollow longitudinal body (116; para [0028]); a first end portion (not labeled but shown on figures 1-3, 6 and 8) and a second end portion (not labeled but shown on figures 1-3, 6 and 8) which are opposite (not labeled but shown on figures 1-3, 6 and 8) one another and parallel (not labeled but shown on figures 1-3, 6 and 8) to one another and which comprise a part of the relative neutral axis (para [0051]) of the beam (104); the first end portion (not labeled but shown on figures 1-3, 6 and 8) and the second end portion (not labeled but shown on figures 1-3, 6 and 8); the remaining portion of the beam (104); an upper rest surface (110) for receiving the wheel of a vehicle in transit (para [0023]; Fig.1); a first lower rest surface (212) which is arranged at the first end portion (not labeled but shown on figures 1-3, 6 and 8) and a second lower rest surface (214) which is arranged at the second end portion (not labeled but shown on figures 1-3, 6 and 8); the first lower rest surface (212) and the second lower rest surface (214) being opposite (Fig.2) the upper rest surface (110) and extending on the horizontal plane (Fig.2) defined by the neutral axis of the beam (104); a base (112) to be arranged in such a way as to be beneath (Fig.1) the road surface (109) and comprising a seat (114) conformed so as to receive the beam (104); a plurality of compression load cells (228) which are interposed between the base (112) and the beam (104) in such a way that at least a first compression load cell (para [0032]) supports the beam (104) at the first lower rest surface (not labeled but shown on figures 1-3, 6 and 8) and the at least a second compression load cell (para [0032]) supports the beam (104) at the second lower rest surface (not labeled but shown on figures 1-3, 6 and 8); interposed between the beam (104); the seat (114) so as to limit the displacements of the beam (104) along a transversal direction to the relative longitudinal axis (Fig.1); the dynamic weighing system (weigh-in-motion sensor construction) of a vehicle being configured in such a way that, during the transit of a wheel (Fig.1) of the vehicle on the upper rest surface (110), the at least a first compression load cell (para [0032]) and the at least a second compression load cell (para [0032]); the first lower rest surface (212) and the second lower rest surface (214).
Pedrick fails to explicitly disclose a relative transversal section that is smaller than the transversal section; a plurality of abutments which are interposed; lateral walls (not shown however, examiner notes 114 is foundation structure adding lateral walls would be a design choice); detect the force exerted when abutting, respectively.
Mairot teaches in figures 1-4 a plurality of abutments (22) which are interposed (Figs. 1-4); detect the force exerted when abutting, respectively (para [0009]).
Lateral walls not shown however, examiner notes 114 is a foundation structure and adding lateral walls would be a design choice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Pedrick’s weigh-in-motion sensor construction with a plurality of abutments as taught by Mairot because these will provide better structural integrity.
Pedrick and Mairot fail to explicitly disclose a relative transversal section that is smaller than the transversal section.
Weihs teaches in figure 1 a relative transversal section (112, 114, 116, 118) that is smaller.
The motivation would be to greatly reduce structural weight.
Pedrick, Mairot and Weihs fail to explicitly disclose a first step and a second step however, examiner notes the addition of steps would be a design choice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Pedrick as modifier with a first and second step because these would prevent structural failure.
Regarding claim 17, Pedrick discloses in figures 1-8 the dynamic weighing system (weigh-in-motion sensor construction) of a vehicle wherein the base (112) is made of reinforced concrete (para [0025]).
Regarding claim 20, Pedrick discloses in figures 1-8 the dynamic weighing system (weigh-in-motion sensor construction), wherein the beam (104) comprises a plurality of tubular elements (118) arranged internally of the hollow longitudinal body (116) and in such a way as to extend transversally and/or parallel to the relative longitudinal axis (Fig.1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 8-9, 11, 13-16 and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
Regarding claims 3-6 and 13-16, the prior art fails to explicitly disclose a third step which is opposite the first step and which extends at least partially along a second longitudinal edge of the beam; the second end portion comprises a fourth step which is opposite the second step and which extends at least partially along the second longitudinal edge of the beam; the plurality of compression load cells comprises: a third compression load cell which is arranged so as to abut the third step and a fourth compression load cell which is arranged so as to abut the fourth step; a first projection which is interposed between the first step and the third step and which is conformed so as to abut the base, when the beam is received in the seat; the second end portion comprises a second projection which is interposed between the second step and the fourth step and which is conformed so as to abut the base, when the beam is received in the seat; a first cover conformed so as to cover the base and comprising a through-opening.
Regarding 8-9, 11 and 18-19, the prior art fails to explicitly disclose lateral walls of the seat form a plurality of projections and recesses which are arranged in succession to one another; the base comprises a rest surface for restingly receiving the first cover; the plurality of projections and recesses form additional rest surfaces coplanar to the rest surfac; the area being crossed by the horizontal plane defined by the neutral axis of the beam.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights