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 Anritsu Corp (H10-212016) in view of Nakamura (US # 4,615,403). The Anritsu reference discloses a combination weighing apparatus comprising:
a chute (21) that is vertically opened and temporarily blocks the article supplied on the distribution table (11);
a lifting mechanism (30,50) that moves the chute (21) up and down with respect to the distribution table (para. # 57); and
a controller (70) that controls a timing at which the chute is moved up and down by the lifting mechanism based on a transmission timing of the control signal by the interface (para. # 0038-0053).
However, the Anritsu reference discloses that the interface that transmits a control signal for instructing an external apparatus to start or stop supply of an article based on the height of the article on a distribution table supplied from the external apparatus, rather than based on the weight of the article on a distribution table supplied from the external apparatus. However, it was a known alternative to control the operation of an external feeding apparatus to a combinational weigher based on the weight, measured by a load cell, of the article on a distribution table supplied from the external apparatus (Abstract). It would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to modify the operation of the feeder of the Anritsu combinational weigher to control the feeding of the supply of articles from an external source based on the measured weight of the articles on the distribution table, as taught by Nakamura, rather than on the detected height of the articles on the distribution table motivated by the art recognized suitability of this alternative control method.
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anritsu Corp (H10-212016) in view of Nakamura (US # 4,615,403) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Davis, Jr., et al (US PG Pub # 2011/0168455). Wirth respect to claims 2 & 3, although the Anritsu reference does not expressly state so, it would have been a matter of common sense to time the discharge of the article to take into account the amount of time that the articles would take to fall to the distribution table and to time the lowering of the distribution chute (gate) so that it cut off the falling articles just in time, as suggested by the example of Davis (Para # 0058-0059). It would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to program the controller to synchronize the lowering of the gate with the time that it took the product to fall from the supply conveyor to prevent jams and to improve efficiency.
With respect to claim 4, the gap between the chute and the distribution table was inherently part of the device; see the figures of the Anritsu reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The other references show an interface that instructs an external apparatus to stat or stop supply of articles to a combinational weigher based on a weight of articles on the distribution table.
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