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 .
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 1-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a height of an upper end of at least one of the first beam portions is equal to a height of a conveyance surface” is unclear and confusing. For purpose of examination, examiner will interpret that both rails are at the same height as the belt surface.
All dependent claims are rejected for their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamakawa (US 20150352596 A1) in view of Hu et al (CN 107521758 A).
Regarding claim 1, Yamakawa discloses in figures 1-10 a weight inspection apparatus (inspection system) comprising: a conveyance weighing unit ( weight inspection device 20) that measures (Abstract) a weight of an object (P) to be inspected (Abstract) while conveying the object (P) in a conveyance direction (para [0058]); and a frame ( see Fig. 1; para [0127]; the combination of 51a and 51b) that supports the conveyance weighing unit (20), wherein the frame (see Fig. 1; para [0127]; the combination of 51a and 51b) includes: conveyance weighing unit (20) in plan view (Fig.1 can be used to deduct the plan view); and at least four beam portions (53,54,63,64) forming a quadrangle (Fig.1, 3, 4) in plan view (Fig.1 can be used to deduct the plan view), each of the at least four beam portions (53,54,63,64); and the beam portions include (53,54,63,64) a pair of first beam portions (53, 63), each of the pair of first beam portions (53, 63) ; arranged in the conveyance direction (para [0058]), and a height of an upper end (see Fig.1) of at least one of the first beam portions (53, 63); conveyance surface (see Fig.1) of the conveyance weighing unit (20); the conveyance surface (see Fig.1).
Examiner notes the frame and support columns are inherent, they provide support for the movable parts.
Yamakawa fails to explicitly disclose at least four support columns disposed at positions not overlapping; being connected to any two of the support columns, first beam portions equal to a height or higher than the height.
Hu teaches in figures 1-3 at least four support columns (combination of 7 and 8) disposed at positions not overlapping (Figs.1-3); being connected to any two of the support columns (Figs.1-3 show a beam 11 connected to support columns 8), first beam portions equal to a height (Figs. 1 and 2) or higher than the height. Hu also teaches a frame (7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Yamakawa’s inspection system with Hu’s frame and support columns because these will provide better support and stability for the movable parts.
Regarding claim 2, Yamakawa discloses the weight inspection apparatus (inspection system), wherein the beam portions (53,54,63,64) include a pair of second beam portions (54, 64), each of the pair of second beam portions (54, 64); conveyance direction (Fig.1; para [0058]); the second beam portions (54, 64).
Yamakawa fails to explicitly disclose beam portions connected to two support columns arranged in a width direction orthogonal; a height lower than a height of the two support columns.
Hu teaches in figures 1-3 beam portions (11) connected to two support columns (combination of 7 and 8) arranged in a width direction orthogonal (Figs.1 and 2); a height of the second beam portions (11) lower (see Figs. 1 and 2) than a height of the two support columns (combination of 7 and 8).
Examiner notes that the limitation lower than a height of the two support columns is a design choice. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice) See MPEP 2144.04 VI(C).
The motivation would be the same as the one stated above.
Regarding claim 3, Yamakawa discloses the weight inspection apparatus (inspection system) wherein the conveyance weighing unit (20) is supported by the second beam portions (54 and 64).
The motivation would be the same as the one stated above.
Regarding claim 4, Yamakawa discloses the weight inspection apparatus (inspection system) wherein the conveyance weighing unit (20); second beam portions (54 and 64); first beam portions (53 and 63). Yamakawa fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second beam portions are shorter than the first beam portions.
Hu teaches in figures 1-3 second beam portions (these do not appear to be labeled but are shown in figures 1 and 2) that are shorter than the first beam portions (11).
The motivation would be the same as the one stated above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 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 5-8, the prior art fails to explicitly the beam portions include a pair of long-side beam portions forming long sides of the quadrangle and a pair of short-side beam portions forming short sides of the quadrangle, and the conveyance weighing unit is supported by the short-side beam portions; a base member that is bridged between the at least two second beam portions and supports the conveyance weighing unit, and a base width that is a size in the width direction of the base member is equal to a lower end width that is a size in the width direction of a lower end of the conveyance weighing unit or larger than the lower end width; wherein the frame includes a base member that is bridged between the pair of second beam portions and supports the conveyance weighing unit, and a base width that is a size in the width direction of the base member is equal to a lower end width that is a size in the width direction of a lower end of the conveyance weighing unit or larger than the lower end width; wherein the frame includes a base member that is bridged between the pair of short-side beam portions and supports the conveyance weighing unit, and a base width that is a size of the base member in a direction of the short sides is equal to a lower end width that is a size of a lower end of the conveyance weighing unit in a direction of the short sides or larger than the lower end width.
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
Prosecution Insights