DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
Replacement Sheets (five pages) corresponding to for Figs. 1-5 were received on January 16, 2026. These drawings are acceptable. The Drawing Objection is withdrawn.
Specification
The amendment filed January 16, 2026 is partially objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Paragraph [0029] has been amended to recite example structures that can be used for the claimed weighing sensor, including piezoelectric weighing sensors, capacitive weighing sensors, and resistive strain gage weighing sensors. However, the originally filed Specification did not include any specific structures for weighing sensors; as such the sentences that begins with “For example, …” represents new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed January 16, 2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of Claims 1-8 have been fully considered but they are only partially persuasive:
With regard to issues (i) – (iii) directed to Claim 1, and Claim 3, Applicant’s arguments are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of Claims 1, issues (i)-(iii), and Claim 3 has been withdrawn.
With regard to issues (iv) and (v) of Claim 1, Applicant argues that the proposed amendment to paragraph [0029] directed to examples of weighing sensors overcomes these indefiniteness concerns. However, these indefiniteness issues are directed to the lack of any positional/spatial relationship of the weighing sensor and suction cup relative to the other claimed features of Claim 1, which makes it unclear as to how the weighing sensor is able to weigh the Zirconia disc, or how the suction cup is able to perform adsorption and fixing operations. As best understood from the disclosure, the weighing sensor and suction cup are located at the end of the extendable/retractable clamping cylinder, and it is through the extension of the clamping cylinder that allows the weighing sensor and suction cup to contact the Zirconia disc so as to be able to perform their recited functions. As such, Claim 1 must recite that the weighing sensor and suction cup are provided at the end of the clamping cylinder in order to remove any indefiniteness associated with these claimed features.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed January 16, 2026, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection of Claims 1, 7, and 8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejection of Claims 1, 7, and 8 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “a weighing sensor is provided to weigh the Zirconia disc”. There is no positional/spatial relationship recited for the location of the weighing sensor. As such, it is unclear as to how the weighing sensor is able “to weigh the Zirconia disc” when it is unclear as to how the weighing sensor has contact with the Zirconia disc. As best understood by the disclosure, it is only by the weighing sensor being located at the end of the clamping cylinder, and the extension of the clamping cylinder that allows the weighing sensor to contact the Zirconia disc so as to be able to weigh the disc.
Claim 1 further recites, “a processing suction cup is provided to adsorb and fix the Zirconia disc clamped by the claw assembly after a suction force is generated on the processing suction cup by a negative pressure pump.” There is no positional/spatial relationship recited for the location of the suction cup. As such, it is unclear as to how the suction cup is able “to adsorb and fix” the Zirconia disc. As best understood by the disclosure, it is only by the suction cup being located at the end of the clamping cylinder, and the extension of the clamping cylinder that allows the suction cup to contact the Zirconia disc so as to be able to adsorb and fix the disc.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
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 LYNN E SCHWENNING whose telephone number is (313)446-4861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5 pm EST.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272 -7097. 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.
/LYNN E SCHWENNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652