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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that:
…neither the Filing, Schmidt, or Zefira references discloses or suggests the recited "light emitting unit configured to make the inside of the level gauge luminescent when turned on;..", much less the capability of this unit "of switching between a first operation mode when the weighing apparatus is installed horizontally and a second operation mode…
However,, the examiner notes that the Filing reference teaches, contrary to applicant’s assertion:
…The microcomputer 40 receives the interrupt signal 33 from the amplitude comparator 32 and generates an appropriate response to the out-of-level condition detected by the clinometer 24. In the preferred embodiment, when the microcomputer 40 receives an interrupt signal 33, a corresponding visual indication is displayed by the weight display 48, and the operation of the device 10 is inhibited. This visual indication allows the operator of the device 10 to know that the scale 22 is too far out of level for the device to work properly. Of course, other similar type error messages can be generated on the weight display 48…
Obviously the Filing reference discloses that the electrical display 48 switches between two different modes, one where the weight is displayed, and another mode where an out of level condition is displayed instead. Also, although the Filing reference does not expressly say so, it was customary to illuminate electrical vehicle displays to aid in reading the display in low light conditions.
The general idea of illuminating a spirit level so that it was easier to read in low light conditions was known at least as early as 1932 as shown by the example of US # 1,839,661 (Ellison). Furthermore, it was known to illuminate a spirit level only when a certain condition was met, such as being level, or too far out of level, as shown by the examples of: US # 2,789,362 (Col. 1, ll. 39-46); and, US # 3,196,552 (Col. 1, ll. 53-63; Col. 3, ll. 50-73).
In short, applicant’s amendments did not add anything to the claimed device that was not already old and well known, and thus fails to render the claims non-obvious over the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filing et al (US # 5,717,167), in view of Richards (US # 3,196,552), Schmidt et al (US # 3,603,418) and Zefra (US # 6,137,065). The Filing reference discloses a weighing apparatus comprising:
a weight sensor (22);
a multi-axial accelerometer (24) configured to detect acceleration changes of two axes of X, Y by setting the x-axis and y-axis on a virtual horizontal plane of the weight sensor and setting a z-axis in a direction orthogonal to the virtual horizontal plane.
a storage unit (inherent; the "comparator 32" stores a preset reference signal) configured to store reference outputs of the two axes of the multi-axial accelerometer (24) when the weight sensor (22) is installed horizontally and at a reference position; and an arithmetic processing unit (27, 40),
a light emitting unit (48); the arithmetic processing unit (27, 40) compares current outputs of the two axes generated in the multi-axial accelerometer at an installation position of the weighing apparatus with the reference outputs, and detects an output change occurring in the x-axis and/or y-axis y of the multi-axial accelerometer as a tilt occurring in the weighing apparatus, and the light emitting unit (48) is configured to be capable of switching between a first operation mode when the weighing apparatus is installed horizontally and a second operation mode when a tilt of the weighing apparatus is detected.
It is not entirely clear if the display (48) contains a "light emitting unit", but the examiner notes that most digital displays were backlit to make them easier to read; in addition most digital displays had a low power mode where they are not backlit, and a read mode where they are backlit (usually triggered when the displayed value changes) and since the display (48) of Filing was installed into a cab of a truck, and that displays in a vehicle were usually backlit (especially when the headlights or interior cabin lights are switched on), it would have been obvious, if not inherently present already, to equip the display (48) with a light to make it easier to read.
The Filing reference does not disclose a separate spirit level that is illuminated when turned on, but making an illuminated spirit level with a mercury or ball switch that illuminates the inside of the level when switched on was known as shown by the example of Richards (Col. 1, ll. 53-63; Col. 3, ll. 50-73), and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the scale of Filing with a separate, illuminated level as a separate, illuminated level display.
The Filing reference does not state that it has a temperature sensor, but it was known that load cells, especially the strain gage load cells disclosed in the Filing reference have their accuracy affected by changes in temperature, as shown by the example of the Schmidt reference, so it would have been obvious to equip the load cells of Filing with a temperature correcting resistor to insure their accuracy under all weather conditions.
The Filing reference does not have a mechanical level gage separate from the accelerometer to give a visual confirmation as to whether horizontal tilt of the weighing apparatus is suitable; however, the Zefra reference discloses a scale with both a mechanical level indicator (24) and an electrical accelerometer (28) for detecting an out of level condition, and it would have been a trivial matter of design choice to include a traditional spirit level on the lifting arm of the lift of Filing for a person outside of the cab to double check that the scale was level.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filing et al (US # 5,717,167) in view of Richards (US # 3,196,552), Schmidt et al (US # 3,603,418). The Filing reference discloses a weighing method including:
a light emitting unit (48),
a weight sensor (22),
a multi-axial accelerometer (24) configured to detect acceleration changes of two axes of X,Y by setting the x-axis and y-axis on a virtual horizontal plane of the weight sensor and setting a z-axis in a direction orthogonal to the virtual horizontal plane,
a storage unit (inherent; the "comparator 32" stores a preset reference signal) configured to store reference outputs of the two axes of the multi-axial accelerometer when the weight sensor is installed horizontally and at a reference position, and
an arithmetic processing unit (27,40), wherein the arithmetic processing unit executes: a current output acquiring step in which current outputs on the two axes generated in the multi-axial accelerometer at an installation position of the weighing apparatus are acquired; an output change acquiring step in which the current outputs are compared with the reference outputs and an output change occurring in the x-axis and/or y-axis of the multi-axial accelerometer is acquired; a tilt detecting step in which whether the weighing apparatus has a tilt is detected based on the output change; and an installed state notifying step in which the light emitting unit is operated in either a first operation mode or a second operation mode based on whether a tilt has been detected⁹. It is not entirely clear if the display (48) contains a "light emitting unit", but the examiner notes that most digital displays were backlit to make them easier to read; in addition most digital displays had a low power mode where they are not backlit, and a read mode where they are backlit (usually triggered when the displayed value changes) and since the display (48) of Filing was installed into a cab of a truck, and that displays in a vehicle were usually backlit (especially when the headlights or interior cabin lights are switched on), it would have been obvious, if not inherently present already, to equip the display (48) with a light to make it easier to read.
The Filing reference does not disclose a separate spirit level that is illuminated when turned on, but making an illuminated spirit level with a mercury or ball switch that illuminates the inside of the level when switched on was known as shown by the example of Richards (Col. 1, ll. 53-63; Col. 3, ll. 50-73), and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the scale of Filing with a separate, illuminated level as a separate, illuminated level display.
The Filing reference does not state that it has a temperature sensor, but it was known that load cells, especially the strain gage load cells disclosed in the Filing reference¹⁰ have their accuracy affected by changes in temperature as shown by the example of the Schmidt reference¹, so it would have been obvious to equip the load cells of Filing with a temperature correcting resistor to insure their accuracy under all weather conditions.
Conclusion
Claims 2-6 and 8 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.
Claim 9 is allowable over the art of record.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RANDY W GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2103. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Friday 10AM-6PM.
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.
RANDY W. GIBSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2856
/RANDY W GIBSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights