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) 1-2, 11, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20200090114 A1 (Conway).
Regarding claim 1: Conway teaches a control system for a bulk product weighing system, the control system comprising: one or more processors (hub processor 300); at least one memory device configured to store product data (“The scale then electronically transmits the digital data (re: food portion weight, unit price, etc.) to the hub processor 300, which then processes, stores and transmits receipt info to the printer 320 and the user touchscreen interface 310.”, Paragraph [0059], emphasis added; and/or “The server database 123 may be configured to store information regarding the various bulk food items being sold in the individual storage bins”, Paragraph [0137]), the product data comprising information associated with a bulk product and a corresponding bulk product dispenser for the product (“The scale then electronically transmits the digital data (re: food portion weight, unit price, etc.)”, wherein the scale corresponds to a bulk product dispenser, Paragraph [0059], Fig. 2); wherein the control system is configured to: receive, from a sensor associated with the bulk product dispenser, a detection signal indicative of a dispensing event being detected at the bulk product dispenser (“the strain gauge scale 130 senses the change in compression at its front-side beam, digitally processing this information into a “change in weight Delta,” then transmitting this information to the System's hub processor 300.”, Paragraph [0060]); identify the bulk product corresponding to the bulk product dispenser in dependence on the product data (digital data includes unit price, which is inherently tied to the identity of the bulk product; Paragraph [0059]); output a control signal to control a display device of the weighing system to display an indication of the bulk product (“The scale then electronically transmits the digital data (re: food portion weight, unit price, etc.) to the hub processor 300, which then processes, stores and transmits receipt info to the printer 320 and the user touchscreen interface 310.”, Paragraph [0059]; display 28a, 28b; display 38); and in dependence on a threshold expiry time period elapsing since detection of the dispensing event, output a control signal to the display device to remove the indication of the bulk product (“The display 28a, 28b may also provide a countdown clock or timeout period following the dispensing of an amount of bulk food.”, Paragraph [0118]).
Regarding claim 2: Conway teaches the control system of claim 1 (see above), wherein the control system is configured to: receive, from a user input device associated with the weighing system, a weighing request for the bulk product (“the customer chooses the product and desired portion via the touchscreen interface 310”, Paragraph [0069]); output a control signal to control a weighing apparatus of the weighing system to weigh the bulk product (“a scale attached to/integrated with its rear bracket mount to measure the change in weight associated with a customer's purchase”, Paragraph [0059]); and in dependence on the weighing of the bulk product, output a control signal to the display device to remove the indication of the bulk product (“The label printer may be configured to print any type of label or receipt that identifies the article (e.g., bulk food item) that has been dispensed” (indicating the expiration of the indication of the bulk product as the production of a receipt, such that the system is ready for the next purchase), Paragraph [0104], emphasis added).
Regarding claim 11: Conway teaches the control system of claim 1 (see above), wherein the display device is a user interface (kiosk 16 includes display 38), and wherein the indication of the bulk product comprises an icon for selection of the bulk product at the display device (“The customer may be able to input information on the touchscreen display to request information about a particular bulk food item”, Paragraph [0106]).
Regarding claim 14: Conway teaches a bulk product weighing system, the bulk product weighing system comprising: the control system of claim 1 (see above); a bulk product dispenser arranged to store and dispense a bulk product (bulk food bin dispenser 400); a sensor arranged to detect a dispensing event at the bulk product dispenser (integrated scale 100 and hub processor 300); a weighing apparatus configured to weigh the dispensed bulk product (integrated scale 100); and a display device associated with the weighing apparatus arranged to display an indication of the bulk product to a user in dependence on the detection of the dispensing event by the sensor (display 38; touchscreen user interface 310).
Regarding claim 15: Conway teaches a computer-implemented method for controlling a bulk product weighing system, the method comprising: storing product data, the product data comprising information associated with a bulk product and a corresponding bulk product dispenser for the product (“The scale then electronically transmits the digital data (re: food portion weight, unit price, etc.) to the hub processor 300, which then processes, stores and transmits receipt info to the printer 320 and the user touchscreen interface 310.”, Paragraph [0059], emphasis added; and/or “The server database 123 may be configured to store information regarding the various bulk food items being sold in the individual storage bins”, Paragraph [0137]); receiving, from a sensor associated with the bulk product dispenser, a detection signal indicative of a dispensing event being detected at the bulk product dispenser (“the strain gauge scale 130 senses the change in compression at its front-side beam, digitally processing this information into a “change in weight Delta,” then transmitting this information to the System's hub processor 300.”, Paragraph [0060]); identifying the bulk product corresponding to the bulk product dispenser in dependence on the product data (digital data includes unit price, which is inherently tied to the identity of the bulk product; Paragraph [0059]); controlling a display device of the weighing system to display an indication of the bulk product (“The scale then electronically transmits the digital data (re: food portion weight, unit price, etc.) to the hub processor 300, which then processes, stores and transmits receipt info to the printer 320 and the user touchscreen interface 310.”, Paragraph [0059]; display 28a, 28b; display 38); and in dependence on a threshold expiry time period elapsing since detection of the dispensing event, controlling the display device to remove the indication of the bulk product (“The display 28a, 28b may also provide a countdown clock or timeout period following the dispensing of an amount of bulk food.”, Paragraph [0118]).
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200090114 A1 (Conway).
Regarding claim 12: Conway teaches the control system of claim 1 (see above), but does not directly teach that the threshold expiry time is between 5 minutes and 60 minutes.
However, Conway does teach “In certain examples, the timeout period is between 1-10 seconds, 5-10 seconds, or 5-7 seconds.” (Paragraph [0118]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the timeout period of Conway with a range suitable for the situation. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize that a range of time should match the time it takes to complete the measured behavior. This is important in order to not time out too soon, and in fact time out after the action(s) is(/are) complete.
Claim(s) 3-9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200090114 A1 (Conway) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 4059384 A1 (Pavlich).
Regarding claim 3: Conway teaches the control system of claim 1 (see above), wherein the control system is configured to store an amount of dispensing events for the bulk product detected within a preceding window corresponding to the threshold expiry time period (Conway: “The countdown clock may be activated when the dispensing handle 26 is closed and the load cell detects no further change in weight of the storage bin housing the bulk food.”, Paragraph [0118]).
Conway does not explicitly teach a dispense counter.
However, Pavlich teaches a dispense quantity count 162 and a controller 114 having a timer or clock.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the countdown clock of Conway with the dispense quantity counter of Pavlich. This is because they are both automations of bulk food dispensers. This is important in order to have an accurate measurement of the amount of product dispensed.
Regarding claim 4: Modified Conway teaches the control system of claim 3 (see above), wherein the control system is configured to: receive, from the sensor associated with the bulk product dispenser, a further detection signal indicative of a further dispensing event being detected at the bulk product dispenser and increment the dispense counter in dependence on receiving the further detection signal (Pavlich: dispense quantity count 162; Conway: “The countdown clock may be activated when the dispensing handle 26 is closed and the load cell detects no further change in weight of the storage bin housing the bulk food.”, Paragraph [0118], wherein the countdown clock is not activated if another dispensing event is detected; keeping track of the dispensing events is required in order for the countdown clock to properly function).
Regarding claim 5: Modified Conway teaches the control system of claim 4 (see above), wherein the control system is configured to: determine whether a time between the detection of the further dispensing event and the detection of a preceding dispensing event at the bulk product dispenser is less than an event threshold time (Conway requires a time comparison based on the last dispensing event: “The countdown clock may be activated when the dispensing handle 26 is closed and the load cell detects no further change in weight of the storage bin housing the bulk food”, Paragraph [0118]); and if the time is determined to be less than the event threshold time, suppress the incrementation of the dispense counter (Pavlich: “Should the timer or clock time out of this time threshold, then the dispense event is deemed concluded and the dispense quantity count 162, estimated dispense amount 160, and estimated total price 164 are reset.”).
Regarding claim 6: Modified Conway teaches the control system of claim 5 (see above), wherein the event threshold time is less than five seconds (Conway: “In certain examples, the timeout period is between 1-10 seconds, 5-10 seconds, or 5-7 seconds.”, Paragraph [0118]).
Regarding claim 7: Modified Conway teaches the control system of claim 4 (see above), wherein the control system is configured to: start a respective expiry timer in dependence on receiving each further detection signal (Conway’s requirements for starting a countdown clock meet this limitation: “The countdown clock may be activated when the dispensing handle 26 is closed and the load cell detects no further change in weight of the storage bin housing the bulk food”, Paragraph [0118]); and in dependence on each respective expiry timer reaching the threshold expiry time, decrement the dispense counter (Pavlich: “Should the timer or clock time out of this time threshold, then the dispense event is deemed concluded and the dispense quantity count 162, estimated dispense amount 160, and estimated total price 164 are reset.”).
Regarding claim 8: Modified Conway teaches the control system of claim 7 (see above), wherein the control system is further configured to decrement the dispense counter in dependence on each weighing of the bulk product by a weighing apparatus of the weighing system (Pavlich: “Should the timer or clock time out of this time threshold, then the dispense event is deemed concluded and the dispense quantity count 162, estimated dispense amount 160, and estimated total price 164 are reset.”).
Regarding claim 9: Modified Conway teaches the control system of claim 3 (see above), wherein the control system is configured to retain the indication of the bulk product displayed on the display device if the dispense counter is non-zero (Pavlich: “the controller 114 may operate to make a determination of when a dispense event has started and stopped.”; “Should the timer or clock time out of this time threshold, then the dispense event is deemed concluded and the dispense quantity count 162, estimated dispense amount 160, and estimated total price 164 are reset.”; “additional information, for example user inputs, detection of with proximity, ranging or computer vision systems, RFID detection or others may be used to determine if a user is still in a position to interact with the dispenser 100 and incorporate this information into the determination of a completed dispense event.”).
Regarding claim 13: Conway teaches the control system of claim 1 (see above), wherein the control system is configured to receive a selection signal indicative of a user input for selecting the threshold expiry time, and adjust the threshold expiry time in dependence on the selection signal (Pavlich: “the controller 114 may operate to make a determination of when a dispense event has started and stopped.”; “Should the timer or clock time out of this time threshold, then the dispense event is deemed concluded and the dispense quantity count 162, estimated dispense amount 160, and estimated total price 164 are reset.”; “additional information, for example user inputs, detection of with proximity, ranging or computer vision systems, RFID detection or others may be used to determine if a user is still in a position to interact with the dispenser 100 and incorporate this information into the determination of a completed dispense event.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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:
Claim 10 includes novel limitations regarding a loss counter and incrementing said loss counter when the time period started at the dispensing event expires without the product being weighed. The prior art previously cited is silent regarding this limitation and does not teach or suggest a need for this system. In fact, Conway teaches away from this by instead teaching that the automatic printing of a label is advantageous for reducing theft or loss. The Examiner has not found any prior art that teaches or suggests these missing limitations and/or cures the deficiencies of Conway and/or Pavlich. Therefore, the subject matter of claim 10 would be allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
BR 112019001540 B1 teaches a dosing and weighing device with a control unit wherein a detected pressure difference is used to correct the weight detected by the weight sensor.
US 20180261036 A1 teaches a product speed checking apparatus for attaching to a vibratory conveying system and a method thereof for dispensing product.
WO 2016095066 A1 teaches a moving dynamic weighing system, a product dispenser and a method for dispensing products which enable specific quantities of products having different properties to be weighed and dispensed in multiple directions, minimizing the error margin of said specifications.
WO 2013132078 A1 teaches a weighing platform and a weighing system including such a weighing platform for dynamically weighing a flow of items while being conveyed over the weighing platform.
US 20110168455 A1 teaches a method for operating a weighing apparatus and system contemplates that the system is operated in a ratio of two modes of operation, including a first, non-sampling mode, and a second, sampling mode.
US 7541549 B2 teaches a vacuum transfer system having a weighing hopper mounted via at least one load cell to a frame.
AU 646829 B2 teaches an apparatus for automatically weighing a bulk product of particle-like material.
WO 9208960 A1 teaches an apparatus for automatically weighing a bulk product of particle-like material with a set weight, provided with a weighing bunker, automatic supply and discharge means for feeding the particle-like material to and from the bunker respectively, weighing means for the weighing bunker provided with a number of electromechanical load cells on a number of suspension points for giving an electrical signal which is used for controlling the supply and discharge means, and in which weight-checking means are present for checking the correctness of the measured values given by the load cells for the final determination of the total weight of the weighing bunker.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA FITZPATRICK whose telephone number is (703)756-5783. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-4pm.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571)272-2160. 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.
/JULIA FITZPATRICK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN SWEENEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights