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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive because it is too generic. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. See MPEP § 606.01.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filing et al (US # 5,717,167) in view of 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 plane1;
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 position2; 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 detected3.
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 state that it has a temperature sensor, but it was known that load cells, especially the strain gage load cells disclosed in the Filing reference4 have their accuracy affected by changes in temperature as shown by the example of the Schmidt reference5, 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)6 and an electrical accelerometer (28)7 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(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filing et al (US # 5,717,167) in view of Schmidt et al (US # 3,603,418). The filing reference discloses a weighing method including:
a light emitting unit (48) configured to make the inside luminescent when turned on,
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 plane8,
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 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 reference11, 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.
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
1 “…As is well known in the art, a clinometer 24 is a divided-circle instrument which simplifies the transfer of angles between planes. In the preferred embodiment, a dual-axis clinometer identified as the Accu-Star II supplied by Lucas Sensing Systems of Hampton, Va. may be employed. The scale 22, in cooperation with the clinometer 24, has one axis that corresponds to the left and right of the scale 22 and another axis that corresponds to the front and back of the scale 22. As such, the left-right axis and the front-back axis are mutually perpendicular (orthogonal). It will be appreciated that when the clinometer 24 detects a one-degree fit downward to the right, the clinometer 24 will detect a corresponding one-degree tilt upward to the left to generate angle signal 25. Of course, tilt along the front-back axis of the scale 22 provides a similar angular relationship on the clinometer 24 to generate angle signal 26. Accordingly, the clinometer 24 generates two independent angle signals 25 and 26 proportional to the deflection of each corresponding axis. It will be appreciated that the clinometer 24 could generate the independent angle signals 25 and 26 proportional to the out-of-level condition of the scale 22, directly to the convertor 70. In the preferred embodiment, the clinometer 24 is carried by the scale 22; however, it would be within the contemplation of the present invention for the clinometer 24 to be secured anywhere on the vehicle 12 so as to detect an out-of-level condition…”
2 “…Amplitude comparator 32 independently receives and compares each tilt signal 29, 30 to a preselected error level. If either one of the tilt signals 29, 30 exceeds the preselected error level, an interrupt signal 33 is generated. Otherwise, the amplitude comparator 32 passes each respective tilt signal 29, 30 therethrough without adjustment as comparator signals 35, 36, respectively. In the preferred embodiment, the preselected error level is three degrees from horizontal along either the left-right axis or the front-back axis. In other words, if the clinometer 24 detects the scale 22 tilting more than three degrees forward or more than three degrees back, the interrupt signal 33 is generated. Likewise, if the clinometer detects the scale 22 tilting more than three degrees to the right or three degrees to the left, the interrupt signal 33 is generated…”
3 “…It will be appreciated that if the conditioning circuitry 27 generates an interrupt signal 33, it is received by microcomputer 40. Microcomputer 40 may be any processor capable of performing the necessary operations described hereinafter. Supporting microcomputer 40 is memory 42 which has conventional program ROM 44 and non-volatile data memory 46. 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…”
4 “…In the preferred embodiment, the scale 22 is operative with a single tension load cell which has a capacity of up to 25,000 pounds and generates an analog weight output signal in the form of signal voltage 23. Scale 22 may be a component identified as part number 60001 supplied by Sensortronics of Corvina, Calif…”
5 “…As will be more fully explained later, grid 82b is employed to compensate for variations in the resistance of grid 82a produced by temperature changes adjacent gauge 82. Grid 82b is thus referred to herein as a temperature compensating grid in the gauge…”
6 “…he weighing platform 8 rests on the load-bearing section 20 of the load cell and is attached to it. The platform includes a levelling chamber 24 for indicating the horizontal position of the platform…”
7 “…Referring now to FIG. 3, there is illustrated a weighing device 26 in which the load cell 6 and inclinometer 28, which is also a load cell, form one integral unit. This simplifies manufacturing and reduces costs. Both the load cell and the inclinometer are fixed to the base 4 by a common anchoring section 18. A common cable 38 including wires from the inclinometer 28 and from the load-bearing section 20 of the load cell extends from the scale to a processor 40. The processor integrates the output from both devices and corrects the weight measured by the load-bearing section for inaccuracies due to any deviation of the load cell from levelness as measured by the inclinometer. The corrected output is then transmitted to the display means 32 where the corrected weight is displayed on a display 34. The above configuration can of course be used with a display means as illustrated in FIG. 2, and the configuration illustrated in FIG. 2 can be used with the display means of FIG. 3. Furthermore, the inclinometer can be of any of the standard types, and not just of the load cell type…”
8 “…Amplitude comparator 32 independently receives and compares each tilt signal 29, 30 to a preselected error level. If either one of the tilt signals 29, 30 exceeds the preselected error level, an interrupt signal 33 is generated. Otherwise, the amplitude comparator 32 passes each respective tilt signal 29, 30 therethrough without adjustment as comparator signals 35, 36, respectively. In the preferred embodiment, the preselected error level is three degrees from horizontal along either the left-right axis or the front-back axis. In other words, if the clinometer 24 detects the scale 22 tilting more than three degrees forward or more than three degrees back, the interrupt signal 33 is generated. Likewise, if the clinometer detects the scale 22 tilting more than three degrees to the right or three degrees to the left, the interrupt signal 33 is generated…”
9 “…It will be appreciated that if the conditioning circuitry 27 generates an interrupt signal 33, it is received by microcomputer 40. Microcomputer 40 may be any processor capable of performing the necessary operations described hereinafter. Supporting microcomputer 40 is memory 42 which has conventional program ROM 44 and non-volatile data memory 46. 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…”
10 “…In the preferred embodiment, the scale 22 is operative with a single tension load cell which has a capacity of up to 25,000 pounds and generates an analog weight output signal in the form of signal voltage 23. Scale 22 may be a component identified as part number 60001 supplied by Sensortronics of Corvina, Calif…”
11 “…As will be more fully explained later, grid 82b is employed to compensate for variations in the resistance of grid 82a produced by temperature changes adjacent gauge 82. Grid 82b is thus referred to herein as a temperature compensating grid in the gauge…”
Prosecution Insights