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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 04/29/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there does not exist a serious search burden and that the Examiner’s restriction requirement does not disclose the “additional limitations” integrated with the subcombination of Invention I. This is not found persuasive because Page 2 of the restriction requirement explicitly stated the addition of a temperature sensor paired with a monitoring device that communicates with one or more servers, which Invention I does not claim. Because these limitations are not considered for Invention I, a search for Invention I would not necessary yield results for Invention II. Additionally, because the resulting alerts generated by Invention II are based on a combination of weight data and temperature data, a search for Invention II would not necessarily yield results of Invention I, because Invention I only collects weight data without any consideration of temperature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4, and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 10, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 10,753,821 in view of Bromley (U.S. 2002/0078735 A1). Claim 1 of the present invention and claim 1 of the U.S. Patent are both drawn to an apparatus/system for monitoring a liquid nitrogen container. Claim 1 of the present invention clams a sensor base configured to accommodate and support the liquid nitrogen container on the top surface and claim 1 of the U.S. Patent claim a weight sensor configured to support the liquid nitrogen container. Claim 1 of the present invention further claims a scale such that the weight of the liquid nitrogen container is transferred to the scale and claim 1 of the U.S. Patent claims a weight sensor, wherein a scale is equivalent to a weight sensor. Claim 1 of the present invention further claims a monitoring device including a controller and a transmitter configured to receive container weight data and claim 1 of the U.S. Patent claims a monitoring device including a processor and a wireless transmitter. Claim 1 of the present invention further claims that the monitoring device transmits said container weight to one or more remote electronic devices. Bromley discloses an apparatus 10 having a wireless transmitter for transmitting weight measurements and stored information to a remote monitoring station (see Bromley, Paragraph [0017]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify claims 1 and 2 of the U.S. Patent with the remote monitoring station, as taught by Bromley. The motivation would be to enable monitoring of leaks (see Bromley, Paragraph [0005]) of the device of claim 1 from a single central location (see Bromley, Paragraph [0017]). Claim 1 of the U.S. Patent further claim the steps of analyzing liquid nitrogen container weight to calculate changes, determine if the rate of liquid nitrogen container weight change is within or outside of a weight change value range, and initiating an alarm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to remove the extra steps, as a matter of engineering choice, to conclude at claim 1 of the present invention. Such a modification would not render the invention inoperable for its intended purpose, and would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2144.04. Claim 1 of the present invention is further rejected in view of claim 3 of the U.S. Patent for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claim 4 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above, further in view of claim 10 of the U.S. Patent.
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above, in view of claim 1 of the U.S. Patent.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,187,611 in view of Bromley (U.S. 2002/0078735 A1). Claim 1 of the present invention and claims 1 and 2 of the U.S. Patent are both drawn to an apparatus/system for monitoring a liquid nitrogen container. Claim 1 of the present invention clams a sensor base configured to accommodate and support the liquid nitrogen container on the top surface and claims 1 and 2 of the U.S. Patent claim a weight sensor configured to support the liquid nitrogen container. Claim 1 of the present invention further claims a scale such that the weight of the liquid nitrogen container is transferred to the scale and claims 1 and 2 of the U.S. Patent claims a weight sensor, wherein a scale is equivalent to a weight sensor. Claim 1 of the present invention further claims a monitoring device including a controller and a transmitter configured to receive container weight data and claims 1 and 2 of the U.S. Patent claim a monitoring device including a processor and a wireless transmitter. Claim 1 of the present invention further claims that the monitoring device transmits said container weight to one or more remote electronic devices. Bromley discloses an apparatus 10 having a wireless transmitter for transmitting weight measurements and stored information to a remote monitoring station (see Bromley, Paragraph [0017]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify claims 1 and 2 of the U.S. Patent with the remote monitoring station, as taught by Bromley. The motivation would be to enable monitoring of leaks (see Bromley, Paragraph [0005]) of the devices of claims 1 and 2 from a single central location (see Bromley, Paragraph [0017]). Claims 1 and 2 of the U.S. Patent further claim the steps of analyzing liquid nitrogen container weight to calculate losses, determine if the rate of liquid nitrogen container weight loss continues to increase, indicating the weight loss. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to remove the extra steps, as a matter of engineering choice, to conclude at claim 1 of the present invention. Such a modification would not render the invention inoperable for its intended purpose, and would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 10 of the present invention is further rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5, 8, and 22, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,174,092 in view of Bromley (U.S. 2002/0078735 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present invention and claim 1 of the U.S. Patent are both drawn to an apparatus for monitoring a liquid nitrogen container/container content loss monitoring system. Claim 1 of the present invention claims a sensor base configured to accommodate and support the liquid nitrogen container on the top surface and claim 1 of the U.S. Patent claims a weight sensor having a housing with a top surface. Claim 1 of the present invention further claims a scale such that the weight of the liquid nitrogen container is transferred to the scale and claim 1 of the U.S. Patent claims a weight sensor, wherein a scale is equivalent to a weight sensor. Claim 1 of the present invention and claim 1 of the U.S. Patent further claim a monitoring device including a controller and a transmitter configured to receive container weight data. Claim 1 of the present invention further claims that the monitoring device transmit said container weight to one or more remote electronic devices. Bromley discloses an apparatus 10 having a wireless transmitter for transmitting weight measurements and stored information to a remote monitoring station (see Bromley, Paragraph [0017]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify claim 1 of the U.S. Patent with the remote monitoring station, as taught by Bromley. The motivation would be to enable monitoring of leaks (see Bromley, Paragraph [0005]) of the system of claim 1 from a single central location (see Bromley, Paragraph [0017]). Claim 1 of the U.S. Patent further claims the steps of analyzing weight reading data and weight change rate, determine if the weight falls below a predetermined threshold, determine if the weight change rate reaches or exceeds a predetermined value, and generate an alert. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to remove the extra steps, as a matter of engineering choice, to conclude at claim 1 of the present invention. Such a modification would not render the invention inoperable for its intended purpose, and would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2144.04. Claim 1 of the present invention is further rejected in view of claims 5 and 8 of the U.S. Patent, for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claim 2 of the present invention is further rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above, further in view of claim 22 of the U.S. Patent.
Claim 4 of the present invention is further rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above, further in view of claim 2 of the U.S. Patent.
Claim 7 of the present invention is further rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above, further in view of claim 3 of the U.S. Patent.
Claim 10 of the present invention is further rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
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 15-18 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 15 recites the word “common” with reference to a time dependent table. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the term “common”. What is common to one of ordinary skill in the art may not be common to another.
Claims 16-18 recite the phrases “acceptable rate change level”, “optimum fill level”, and “low fill level”, respectively. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the terms. What is “acceptable”, “optimum”, and “low” to one of ordinary skill in the art may not be “acceptable”, “optimum”, and “low” to another. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-7, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (U.S. 2011/0140865 A1) in view of Groholski et al. (U.S. 2013/0118184 A1).
Claim 1, Lin teaches:
An apparatus for monitoring a container (Lin, Fig. 3A and 5: 20, The container may be a metallic container or a non-metallic container (see Lin, Paragraph [0025]).), said apparatus comprising:
a sensor base having a housing with a top surface, wherein the housing, including the top surface, is configured to accommodate and support the container residing directly or indirectly on the top surface (Lin, Fig. 3A and 5, As can be seen in Figs. 3A and 5, the weight sensor 300 has a top surface on which the container 20 sits, i.e. the weight sensor 300 directly accommodates and supports the container 20.);
a scale located below the housing, or forming, at least in part, a portion of the housing such that weight of the liquid nitrogen container residing directly or indirectly on the top surface is transferred to the scale (Lin, Fig. 3A and 5: 300, Paragraph [0032], The weight sensor 300 is formed with the housing on which the container 20 sits.); and
a monitoring device (Lin, Fig. 3A: 31, Fig. 5: 32) including a controller (Lin, Paragraph [0033], In one example, the identification information generating device 31 may be integrated with a PDA, a mobile phone, or a notebook computer, each having at least one processor, i.e. controller.) and a transmitter (Lin, Fig. 3A: 310, Fig. 5: 320), the controller communicatively connected to the scale and configured to periodically receive container weight data therefrom (Lin, Paragraph [0032], The identification information generating device 31 is connected to detection device 30 for receiving quality information associated with the detection device.) and transmit said container weight data by way of the transmitter to one or more remote electronic devices (Lin, Paragraph [0033], The quality data is transmitted via the transceiver 310 to a remote data server 6.).
Lin does not specifically teach:
A liquid nitrogen container.
Groholski teaches:
A liquid nitrogen container (Groholski, Paragraph [0049], The dewar 120 is configured to be filled with liquid nitrogen.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to substitute the container 20 in Lin with the dewar, as taught by Groholski. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results.
Claim 4, Lin in view of Groholski further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 further comprising:
a temperature sensor (Groholski, Fig. 4: 254) in wired and/or wireless communication with the monitoring device (Groholski, Fig. 4: 250, Paragraph [0053]), wherein the monitoring device is configured to periodically receive container temperature data from the temperature sensor (Groholski, Fig. 3, Paragraphs [0052-0053], When the measured weight is less than a threshold weight, the temperature is measured after the step of adding liquid nitrogen. Steps 210 and 212 are repeated (see Groholski, Paragraph [0057]).) and transmit said container temperature data by way of the transmitter to one or more remote electronic devices (Lin, Paragraph [0033]).
Claim 6, Lin in view of Groholski further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 4 further comprising:
a connection port in the housing configured to receive a wired connection from the temperature sensor (Groholski, Fig. 4: 254a, Paragraph [0050], The communication line 254a functionally connects the temperature sensor 254 with controller 250, and therefore the portion of communication line 254a located inside wall 125 is functionally equivalent to a connection port.).
Claim 7, Lin in view of Groholski further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 4 wherein:
the temperature sensor is configured to measure an external surface temperature of the liquid nitrogen container (Groholski, Fig. 4: 254, Paragraph [0053], As can be seen in Fig. 4, the temperature sensor 254 is located on an outer surface of interior volume 122. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the temperature sensor 254 to be capable of sensing an external surface temperature of the interior volume 122.).
Claim 10, Lin in view of Groholski further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 wherein:
the controller of the monitoring device is configured to process and/or analyze, at least in part, the container weight data before transmission (Lin, Paragraph [0033], The identification information generating device 31 collects, in addition to information about the oil measured by the detection device, other data to be transmitted to data server 6. The collecting of data prior to transmission is functionally equivalent to processing data, because the data must first be prepared for transmission.).
Claim 12, Lin in view of Groholski further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 further comprising:
a housing for the monitoring device (Groholski, Fig. 3A: 31 and Fig. 5: 32, Paragraph [0033], Additionally or alternatively, the identification information generating device 31 may be integrated with a PDA, a mobile phone, or a notebook computer, each of which having a housing.);
a primary power source connection provided at the housing (Lin, Paragraphs [0032-0033], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the identification information generating device 31 to have a power source for purposes of reading and transmitting data. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results.); and
a backup power source comprising a battery for temporarily powering the monitoring device located within the housing (Lin, Paragraph [0033], In an embodiment wherein the identification information generating device 31 is integrated with a PDA, a mobile phone, or a notebook computer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the respective device’s battery to be equivalent to a backup power source to the integrated identification information generating device 31.).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (U.S. 2011/0140865 A1) in view of Groholski et al. (U.S. 2013/0118184 A1) in view of Waite et al. (U.S. 2017/0211969 A1).
Claim 2, Lin in view of Groholski teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1.
Lin in view of Groholski does not specifically teach:
Further comprising:
a wheeled base sized to accommodate the scale and the sensor base.
Waite teaches:
A wheeled base (Waite, Fig. 1: 118, 122) sized to accommodate the scale and the sensor base (Waite, Fig. 1: 140, Paragraph [0027], The base frame 118 accommodates the weight-measurement system 140.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Lin in view of Groholski by integrating the teaching of a base frame with wheel assemblies, as taught by Waite.
The motivation would be to enable easy movement of the corresponding container while maintaining support for the container (see Waite, Paragraph [0024]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (U.S. 2011/0140865 A1) in view of Groholski et al. (U.S. 2013/0118184 A1) in view of Rosenfeld (U.S. 2012/0293332 A1).
Claim 5, Lin in view of Groholski further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 4 further comprising:
an insulated lid configured to be selectively fit within an opening of the liquid nitrogen container (Groholski, Paragraphs [0046-0047], The valve 119 isolates the pump 127 and the liquid nitrogen source 129 from the interior volume 122. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the interior volume 122 to be insulated by the pump 119, because the contents of the interior volume 122 is liquid nitrogen.).
Lin in view of Groholski does not specifically teach:
Wherein said insulated lid comprises one or more orifices, at least one of which is configured to accommodate at least a measuring section of the temperature sensor.
Rosenfeld teaches:
Wherein said insulated lid comprises one or more orifices, at least one of which is configured to accommodate at least a measuring section of the temperature sensor (Rosenfeld, Fig. 3B, Paragraph [0024], The lid 50 includes a cavity 110 which enables a cable 114 to extend therethrough and connects with temperature sensor or probe 54.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to substitute the temperature sensor in Lin in view of Groholski with the probe temperature sensor, as taught by Rosenfeld, for purposes of measuring temperature. Such a modification would not render the invention inoperable for its intended purpose and would yield predictable results.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (U.S. 2011/0140865 A1) in view of Groholski et al. (U.S. 2013/0118184 A1) in view of Maresca, Jr. et al. (U.S. 5,263,371).
Claim 8, Lin in view of Groholski further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1.
Lin in view of Groholski does not specifically teach:
Further comprising:
an ultrasonic emitter in wired and/or wireless communication with the monitoring device, wherein the monitoring device is configured to periodically receive container fill level data from the ultrasonic emitter and transmit said container fill level data by way of the transmitter to one or more remote electronic devices.
Maresca teaches:
An ultrasonic emitter (Maresca, Fig. 6: 14) in wired and/or wireless communication with the monitoring device (Maresca, Fig. 6: 16), wherein the monitoring device is configured to periodically receive container fill level data from the ultrasonic emitter (Maresca, Col. 12, Lines 20-41, The transducer controller 14 transmits command data to the transducer 22 which transmits a series of accurately timed acoustic pulses up the probe. The reflected acoustic pulses are indicative of the surface level of the product 32. The acoustic and temperature data from the transducer controller 14 is transmitted back to system controller 16 each time the system controller 16 controls the transducer controller 14 (see Maresca, Col. 11, Lines 10-31). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the system controller 16 to periodically control transducer controller 14 in order to obtain acoustic and temperature data.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Lin in view of Groholski by integrating the teaching of an acoustic transducer, as taught by Maresca.
The motivation would be to reliably provide leak detection (see Maresca, Col. 6, Lines 52-55).
Lin in view of Groholski in view of Maresca further teaches:
Transmit said container fill level data (Maresca, Col. 12, Lines 20-41) by way of the transmitter to one or more remote electronic devices (Lin, Paragraph [0033]).
Claim 9, Lin in view of Groholski in view of Maresca further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 8 further comprising:
an ultrasonic wave guide for the ultrasonic emitter (Maresca, Col. 11, Lines 33-47, The transducer controller 14 includes the pulse waveform shaping, which is an ultrasonic wave guide.); and
an insulated lid configured to be selectively fit within an opening of the liquid nitrogen container (Groholski, Paragraphs [0046-0047], The valve 119 isolates the pump 127 and the liquid nitrogen source 129 from the interior volume 122. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the interior volume 122 to be insulated by the pump 119, because the contents of the interior volume 122 is liquid nitrogen. It is further noted that in the combination of Lin in view of Groholski in view of Maresca, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the transducer controller 14 to have or be an insulated lid for the storage tank 10 (see Maresca, Fig. 6).), wherein said insulated lid comprises one or more orifices, at least one of which is configured to accommodate the ultrasonic wave guide (Maresca, Fig. 6, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the transducer controller 14 to include at least one portion, i.e. an orifice, for receiving the assembly 12 and the pulse waveform shaping of the transducer controller 14. Such a modification to the shape or design of the transducer controller 14 would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2144.04.).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (U.S. 2011/0140865 A1) in view of Groholski et al. (U.S. 2013/0118184 A1) in view of Brown (U.S. 2001/0007982 A1).
Claim 11, Lin in view of Groholski further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 10 further comprising:
a housing for the monitoring device (Groholski, Fig. 3A: 31 and Fig. 5: 32, Paragraph [0033], Additionally or alternatively, the identification information generating device 31 may be integrated with a PDA, a mobile phone, or a notebook computer, each of which having a housing.).
Lin in view of Groholski does not specifically teach:
A local electronic display provided at the housing for the monitoring device, wherein the controller is configured to display information comprising an indication of the container weight data.
Brown teaches:
A local electronic display provided at the housing for the monitoring device, wherein the controller is configured to display information comprising an indication of the container weight data (Brown, Fig. 2: 16, Paragraph [0060], The display 16 displays the weight measurement of the scale 26.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Lin in view of Groholski by integrating the teaching of a scale with a display, as taught by Brown.
The motivation would be to confirm sensed weights are being properly saved and stored in a database (see Brown, Paragraph [0060]).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (U.S. 2011/0140865 A1) in view of Groholski et al. (U.S. 2013/0118184 A1) in view of Harish (U.S. 2007/0261894 A1).
Claim 13, Lin in view of Groholski teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1 further comprising:
the one or more remote electronic devices, wherein the one or more remote electronic device comprise one or more non-transitory electronic storage devices comprising software instructions (Lin, Paragraph [0033], The data server 6 performs management operations, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the data server 6 to have one or more non-transitory electronic storage devices comprising software instructions for performing said management operations.).
Lin in view of Groholski does not specifically teach:
When executed, configure one or more processors of the one or more remote electronic device to:
cause a display of container weights, as indicated by the container weight data, to be generated along with a time of weighing for each for each of the container weights.
Harish teaches:
When executed, configure one or more processors of the one or more remote electronic device (Harish, Paragraph [0098], The receiver module 1006 may process data.) to:
cause a display of container weights, as indicated by the container weight data, to be generated along with a time of weighing for each for each of the container weights (Harish, Paragraphs [0088-0089], The receiver module 1006 is configured to display the date and/or a time associated with the freight data, as well as the tare weight of the container.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system of Lin in view of Groholski by integrating the teaching of a receiver module, as taught by Harish.
The motivation would be to provide a receiver module 1006 capable of checking compliance with weight regulations (see Harish, Paragraph [0086]).
Claim 14, Lin in view of Groholski in view of Harish further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 13 further comprising:
a temperature sensor (Groholski, Fig. 4: 254) in wired and/or wireless communication with the monitoring device (Groholski, Fig. 4: 250, Paragraph [0053]), wherein the monitoring device is configured to periodically receive container temperature data from the temperature sensor (Groholski, Fig. 3, Paragraphs [0052-0053], When the measured weight is less than a threshold weight, the temperature is measured after the step of adding liquid nitrogen. Steps 210 and 212 are repeated (see Groholski, Paragraph [0057]).) and transmit said container temperature data by way of the transmitter to one or more remote electronic devices (Lin, Paragraph [0033]), and wherein the one or more remote electronic device comprise one or more non-transitory electronic storage devices comprising software instructions, which when executed, configure one or more processors of the one or more remote electronic device to:
cause a display of container temperatures, as indicated by the container temperature data, to be generated along with a time of temperature for each of the container temperatures with the display of container weights (Harish, Paragraphs [0088-0089], In the combination of Lin in view of Groholski in view of Harish for the receiver module 1006 to also display a temperature of a load (see Harish, Paragraph [0041]).).
Claim 15, Lin in view of Groholski in view of Harish further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 14 wherein:
the display of the container weights and the container temperatures comprises a common, time dependent table (Harish, Fig. 11, Paragraph [0087], The receiver module 1006 references, i.e. comprises, the table in Fig. 11. In the combination of Lin in view of Groholski in view of Harish, the temperature, as sensed by the temperature sensor in Groholski (see Groholski, Paragraphs [0052-0053]) are stored in the table.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
Claims 16-18 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include 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:
As per claim 3, the Lin in view of Groholski in view of Waite discloses an apparatus having a wheeled base to accommodate a scale (see Waite, Fig. 1: 118, 122). The cited references, however, do not teach each and very limitation of claim 3 regarding the wheeled base, i.e. the top surface is circular in shape; the wheeled base is circular in shape and comprises a circular shaped substructure, horizontally extending struts, each extending between portions of the circular shaped substructure, and vertically extending supports, each extending from the circular shaped substructure; the wheels are spaced apart about the circular shaped substructure; and the wheels are located at a downward extending portion of each of the vertically extending supports spaced apart about the circular shaped substructure. Additionally, it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the cited references to conclude at the Applicant’s claimed invention, without using improper hindsight reasoning.
As per claims 16-18, Lin in view of Groholski in view of Harish discloses the step of measuring a weight of liquid nitrogen in a dewar and comparing the weight to a weight threshold value to determine whether to terminate a re-fill procedure (see Groholski, Paragraphs [0049-0051]). Lin in view of Groholski in view of Harish further teaches measuring the weight of a container and transmitting the measured weight to a data server (see Lin, Paragraph [0033]). Lin in view of Groholski in view of Harish, however, does not teach the steps of determining a weight change, comparing the rate of weight change to an acceptable rate change level, and wherein the acceptable rate change level is reached or exceeded, cause an alert to be generated, as claimed in claim 16. Additionally, Lin in view of Groholski in view of Harish does not teach the step of comparing at least some of the container weights to an optimum fill level and when the optimum fill level is reached or exceeded, cause an alert to be generated, as claimed in claim 17. Furthermore, Lin in view of Groholski in view of Harish does not teach the step of comparing at least some container weights to a low fill level, wherein if the low fill level is reached cause an alert to be generated, as claimed in claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5170. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00p M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/JAMES J YANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights