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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, 11-16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by O’Donnell et al. (US 20210199488).
Regarding claim 1, O’Donnell teaches a system comprising: a light source 26 configured to emit a light beam at a first time to impinge upon a reflector 34 36 positioned distally from the light source; a sensor 40 configured to receive a reflection of the emitted light beam from the reflector; and a controller configured to: (i) obtain an indication of a predefined measurement delay associated with a detection of a particular intensity of the reflection of the emitted light beam via the sensor (para 36), (ii) measure a reflection intensity of the received reflection at a second time identified based on the measurement delay and the first time (para 38), (iii) compare the measured reflection intensity to an expected reflection intensity for the second time (para 38), and (iv) determine whether an object is positioned in a path between the light source and the reflector based on the comparing of the measured reflection intensity at the second time to the expected reflection intensity (para 38).
Regarding claim 2, O’Donnell teaches a weigh platter 20 having a surface extending in a transverse plane, the weigh platter being configured to measure a weight of an object on the weigh platter, wherein the light source is configured to emit the light beam along the transverse plane (para 36).
Regarding claim 3, O’Donnell teaches the controller is further configured to (v) determine that an object is on the weigh platter based on the measured weight of the object, and (vi) determine an off-platter condition based on the comparing of the measured reflection intensity to the expected reflection intensity when the object is on the weigh platter (para 38).
Regarding claim 4, O’Donnell teaches the controller is further configured to cause a visual indication of the off-platter condition to be provided to a user via one or more output devices (para 39, 53, 57).
Regarding claim 5, O’Donnell teaches the particular intensity is a peak intensity of the reflection of the emitted light beam, and wherein the expected reflection intensity for the second time is an expected peak reflection intensity (para 57).
Regarding claim 6, O’Donnell teaches the controller stores the indication of the predefined measurement delay at a controller memory (para 62).
Regarding claim 8, O’Donnell teaches the controller is configured to determine whether an object is positioned in the path by determining whether a difference between the measured reflection intensity and the expected reflection intensity is equal to or greater than a nonzero threshold value (para 36-38).
Regarding claim 9, O’Donnell teaches the controller is further configured to, in response to determining that an object is positioned in the path between the light source and the reflector based on a difference between the measured reflection intensity and the expected reflection intensity, the controller is further configured to determine a further one or more properties of the object based on the difference (para 38).
Regarding claim 11, O’Donnell teaches a method comprising: at a first time, emitting a light beam via a light source to impinge upon a reflector positioned distally from the light source; receiving a reflection of the emitted light beam via a sensor; and via a controller: (i) obtaining an indication of a predefined measurement delay associated with a detection of a particular intensity of the reflection of the emitted light beam via the sensor, (ii) measuring a reflection intensity of the received reflection at a second time identified based on the measurement delay and the first time, (iii) comparing the measured reflection intensity to an expected reflection intensity for the second time, and (iv) determining whether an object is positioned in a path between the light source and the reflector based on the comparing of the measured reflection intensity at the second time to the expected reflection intensity (para 36-38).
Regarding claim 12, O’Donnell teaches via a weigh platter having a surface extending in a transverse plane, measuring a weight of an object on the weigh platter, wherein the light source emits the light beam along the transverse plane (para 36-38).
Regarding claim 13, O’Donnell teaches via the controller, (v) determining that an object is on the weigh platter based on the measured weight of the object, and (vi) determining an off-platter condition based on the comparing of the measured reflection intensity to the expected reflection intensity when the object is on the weigh platter (para 36-38).
Regarding claim 14, O’Donnell teaches via the controller, causing a visual indication of the off-platter condition to be provided to a user via one or more output devices (para 39, 53, 57).
Regarding claim 15, O’Donnell teaches the particular intensity is a peak intensity of the reflection of the emitted light beam, and wherein the expected reflection intensity for the second time is an expected peak reflection intensity (para 57).
Regarding claim 16, O’Donnell teaches the controller stores the indication of the predefined measurement delay at a controller memory (para 62).
Regarding claim 18, O’Donnell teaches determining whether an object is positioned in the path is based on determining whether a difference between the measured reflection intensity and the expected reflection intensity is equal to or greater than a nonzero threshold value (para 36-38).
Regarding claim 19, O’Donnell teaches the controller and in response to determining that an object is positioned in the path between the light source and the reflector based on a difference between the measured reflection intensity and the expected reflection intensity, determining a further one or more properties of the object based on the difference (para 36-38).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 10, 17 and 20 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the prior art fails to teach the controller is further configured to (v) sample the reflection intensity by measuring the reflection intensity at a plurality of time intervals after the first time, and (vi) use the reflection intensity measured at the second time and not at other ones of the plurality of time intervals to determine whether an object is positioned in the path between the light source and the reflector.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the prior art fails to teach a capacitor configured to be energized via the receiving of the reflection of the emitted light beam, wherein the controller is configured to cause the capacitor to be de-energized after the receiving of the reflection, wherein the second time is a time associated with an expected negative voltage during the de-energizing of the capacitor, and wherein the controller is configured to measure the reflection intensity by measuring a negative voltage of the capacitor at the second time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOON K SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2494. The examiner can normally be reached M to Th 10am to 7pm.
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, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/HOON K SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884