DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received on December 13, 2024 concerning application No. 17/229,515 filed on April 13, 2021.
Claims 1, 5-8, 11 and 15-18 are currently pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 13, 2024 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/13/2024 regarding the 35 USC 103 claim rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach “the controller is configured to generate the body composition data, at least in part, by determining a cavity resonance and a cavity Q factor of the resonant cavity when empty, determining a body resonance and a body Q factor of the biological body, determining differences between the cavity resonance relative to the body resonance and the cavity Q factor relative to the body Q factor, and applying a correction factor to at least a portion of said differences to adjust for a fill factor of the cavity”, examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in the previous office action Oldroyd and Kotowski are relied upon for teaching the recited limitation. Specifically, pg. 2507, section 2.2 of Oldroyd discloses “the resonant frequencies of the empty room in both modes were determined”, “measured values of the ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ resonant frequencies for both the ‘empty’ and ‘loaded’ room”, and “the differences between the mean values were the resultant…resonant frequency shifts”. Which reads on determining a cavity resonance of the resonant cavity when empty, determining a body resonance of the biological body and determining differences of the cavity resonance relative to the body resonance.
Kotowski is then relied upon to teach the deficiencies of Oldroyd. Specifically, pg. 28, para. 2 discloses “this thesis focuses on perturbations to the resonant frequency and Q of an RF cavity”, pg. 54, section 2.5 discloses “shifts in resonant properties were measured by comparing the measured properties of the empty cavity to the properties of the cavity with a phantom inside”, and pg. 37, para. 1, “resonant cavities have two measurable properties of interest: resonant frequency and quality (Q-factor)”, meaning Q-factor is one of the resonance properties being measured. Therefore, by measuring the shifts in a measured property of the empty cavity to the measured property of the cavity with a phantom inside a difference between the cavity Q factor relative to the body Q factor is being determined. Additionally, pg. 29 discloses applying a shape factor K_sh to the fill factor Vs/Vc in order to determine the change in resonance and the change in Q factor using equations 1.13 and 1.14. The shape factor is a quantity that represents information about the geometry and distribution of materials inside the volume and is therefore considered a correction factor for at least a portion of said difference to adjust for a fill factor of the cavity. Examiner notes that as the claims are currently written they do not specify what form of a correction factor is being used just that a correction factor is being used. Applicant argues that Kotowski cannot be used to implement the claim limitations because Kotowski’s teachings cannot be used to measure body composition data of a human body, since the volume of a human body relative to the cavity would not be far less than 1. However, examiner notes that the claims do not recite the size of the body being measured, nor do they disclose what is an optimal fill factor for the system. The claims only state that “a body composition measurement of a biological body” is being measured. Additionally, Kotowski discloses the technique applied may provide an accurate, non-invasive, and inexpensive measurement of body composition in infants, therefore Kotowski can be applied to teach the limitations of the claims as currently written.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a height measurement system” in claims 1 and 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
For the purpose of examination “a height measurement system” is being interpreted as a camera or optical device or equivalent thereof configured to detect the biological body and derive a height measurement (see pg. 12 of the specification).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1, 5-7, 11 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Oldroyd et al. “Resonant cavity perturbation: a promising new method for the assessment of total body water in children”, hereinafter Oldroyd) in view of Margalit (US 20160120443), Kaditz et al. (US 20170007148, hereinafter Kaditz), Chai (US 20080183421) and Kotowski (“Measuring Water Content of Body Equivalent Materials Using an RF Resonant Cavity”).
Regarding claim 1, Oldroyd teaches a system for generating a body composition measurement of a biological body (pg. 2503, Abstract discloses measuring the total body water of a patient), comprising:
a resonant cavity (pg. 2503 Abstract discloses a resonant cavity is used for the measurement and figs. 1-2 on pg. 2506 shows an image of the resonant cavity unit) comprising a frame and metal material lining the frame, wherein the resonant cavity has a top panel, bottom panel, and four side panels to thereby define an enclosed volume (section 2.1 on pg. 2505 discloses “the principle of the RCP method is to measure the lower-order resonances of a large metal enclosure acting as a resonant cavity”. Fig. 1 on pg. 2506 further shows the resonant cavity as a metal enclosure, because the resonant cavity is an enclosure an based on the rectangular shape shown in fig. 1 it must have four side panels, a top panel and a bottom panel in order to be considered enclosed);
a scale configured to measure a weight of the biological body (pg. 2505, section 2 discloses measuring the body weight using “a SECA 880 digital weighing scale”);
a height measurement system configured to measure a height of the biological body (pg. 2505, section 2, para. 1 discloses the biological body’s height was measured using a “wall mounted digital stadiometer”);
at least one antenna in the resonant cavity (pg. 2506, para. 2 and fig. 2 discloses “a pair of antennas that are mounted in the cavity”);
a network analyzer in data communication with the at least one antenna (pg. 2506, para. 2 discloses “a network analyzer is connected to a pair of antennas”); and
a controller configured to receive data from the network analyzer and generate an output, wherein the output comprises data indicative of the body composition of the biological body (pg. 2506 discloses the network analyzer “automatically measures the power transmitted between them in order to find the resonant frequencies of the cavity” and section 2.2, para. 2 on pg. 2507 discloses “an automated computer program evaluated…resonant frequencies for both the ‘empty’ and ‘loaded’ room” and “the measured response of these parameters enables the determination of TBW”. In order for the computer to evaluate the resonant frequencies they must be received from the network analyzer and the determination of the TBW is considered the body composition output. Further see para. 1 of section 5 on pg. 2514, “resonant cavity perturbation (RCP) is a novel, electromagnetic method which can determine TBW from the dielectric properties of the body”), wherein the controller (pg. 2507, section 2.2 discloses the computer program) is configured to generate the body composition data, by determining a cavity resonance of the resonant cavity when empty (pg. 2507, section 2.2 discloses “the resonant frequencies of the empty room in both modes were determined”, determining a body resonance of the biological body (pg. 2507, section 2.2 “measured values of the ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ resonant frequencies for both the ‘empty’ and ‘loaded’ room”), determining differences of the cavity resonance relative to the body resonance (pg. 2507, section 2.2 “the differences between the mean values were the resultant…resonant frequency shifts”).
Oldroyd does not specifically teach a scale in physical communication with the resonant cavity and configured to measure a weight of the biological body in the enclosed volume and the controller is configured to receive data from the scale and generate an output, wherein the output comprises data indicative of the weight of the biological body.
However,
Margalit in a similar field of measuring a component of an object in a cavity teaches a scale in physical communication with the cavity and configured to measure a weight of the biological body in the enclosed volume ([0037] “weight scale 107 inside the chamber 100 allows for simultaneously measuring the subjects weight”), and a controller configured to receive data from the scale and generate an output, wherein the output comprises data indicative of the weight of the biological body ([0037] discloses display or computer 105 controls the operations of determining the weight and displays the results on a display unit and/or computer 105. In order to output the weight to be displayed on the display/computer, the display/computer must receive the calculated weight from the scale 107).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of having a scale in physical communication with the resonant cavity and configured to measure a weight of the biological body in the enclosed volume and the controller be configured to receive data from the scale and generate an output, wherein the output comprises data indicative of the weight of the biological body of Margalit to the cavity of Oldroyd to allow for the predictable results of making the procedure more efficient by having all of the necessary apparatus’s in one centralized location.
Oldroyd in view of Margalit does not specifically teach a height measurement system coupled to the resonant cavity and configured to measure a height of the biological body in the enclosed volume and the controller is configured to receive data from the height measurement system and generate an output, wherein the output comprises data indicative of the height of the biological body.
However,
Kaditz in a similar field of measuring a component of a biological body teaches a height measurement system coupled to the resonator and configured to measure a height of the biological body in the enclosed volume ([0115] discloses measurement device 124 which fig. 1 shows is connected to the scanner 110 and “measurement devices 124 may include….a measurement device that measures one or more dimensions of individual 112 (such as:…an optical imaging system)”. The dimension of an individual includes the height), and a controller configured to receive data from the height measurement system and generate an output, wherein the output comprises data indicative of the height of the biological body ([0119] discloses the computer system 114 stores the measurements in the biovault which is considered memory 120. In order to store the measurements they must first be received from the measurement device 124 and then the computer system 114 outputs the dimension data which is representative of the height of the biological body to the memory to be stored).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of having a height measurement system coupled to the resonant cavity and configured to measure a height of the biological body in the enclosed volume, and the controller is configured to receive data from the height measurement system and generate an output, wherein the output comprises data indicative of the height of the biological body of Kaditz to the cavity of Oldroyd in view of Margalit to allow for the predictable results of making the procedure more efficient by having all of the necessary apparatus’s in one centralized location.
Oldroyd in view of Margalit and Kaditz does not specifically teach the controller is further configured to determine a risk assessment of developing metabolic disease based on the data indicative of the body composition, the height, and the weight of the biological body.
However,
Chai in a similar field of endeavor teaches a controller configured to determine a risk assessment of developing metabolic disease based on the data indicative of the body composition, the height, and the weight of the biological body ([0047] discloses a control unit uses measurements such as height, weight and BMI (body composition) to determine the risk of metabolic syndrome).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Oldroyd in view of Margalit and Kaditz to have the controller be further configured to determine a risk assessment of developing metabolic disease based on the data indicative of the body composition, the height, and the weight of the biological body in order to determine whether the subject is at a higher risk for disease, as recognized by Chai ([00047]).
Oldroyd in view of Margalit, Kaditz and Chai does not specifically teach determining a cavity Q factor of the resonant cavity when empty, determining a body Q factor of the biological body, determining a difference of the cavity Q factor relative to the body Q factor, and applying a correction factor to at least a portion of said differences to adjust for a fill factor of the cavity.
However,
Kotowski in a similar field of endeavor teaches determining a cavity Q factor of the resonant cavity when empty, determining a body Q factor of the biological body, determining a difference of the cavity Q factor relative to the body Q factor (pg. 28, para 2 discloses “this thesis focuses on perturbations to the resonant frequency and Q of an RF cavity”. Pg. 54, section 2.5 discloses “shifts in resonant properties were measured by comparing the measured properties of the empty cavity to the properties of the cavity with a phantom inside” and pg. 37, para. 1 “resonant cavities have two measurable properties of interest: resonant frequency and quality factor (Q-factor)” meaning q-factor is one of the resonance properties having its shift measured) and applying a correction factor to at least a portion of said differences to adjust for a fill factor of the cavity (pg. 29 discloses applying a shape factor K_sh to the fill factor Vs/Vc in order to determine the change in resonance and the change in Q factor using equations 1.13 and 1.14. The shape factor is a quantity that represents information about the geometry and distribution of materials inside the volume and is therefore considered a correction factor for at least a portion of said difference to adjust for a fill factor of the cavity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of determining a cavity Q factor of the resonant cavity when empty, determine a body Q factor of the biological body, determine differences of the cavity Q factor relative to the body Q factor, and applying a correction factor to at least a portion of said differences to adjust for a fill factor of the cavity of Kotowski to the controller of Oldroyd in view of Margalit, Kaditz and Chai to allow for the predictable results ensuring that the determined body composition is correctly calculated.
Regarding claim 5, Oldroyd in view of Margalit, Kaditz Chai and Kotowski teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Kotowski further teaches an oscillator in data communication with the network analyzer (pg. 38, fig. 9 and its description discloses a sweep oscillator connected to the VNA (vector network analyzer)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of having an oscillator in data communication with the network analyzer of Kotowski to the system of Oldroyd in view of Margalit, Kaditz Chai and Kotowski to allow for the predictable results of more accurately identifying the oscillation frequency of the resonant signals.
Regarding claim 6, Oldroyd in view of Margalit, Kaditz, Chai and Kotowski teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Oldroyd further teaches at least one of the four side panels is a door and is configured to open and close in order to provide access to the enclosed volume (Fig. 1 shown below shows that one of the four sides is a door configured to open and close in order to provide access).
PNG
media_image1.png
412
701
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Oldroyd in view of Margalit, Kaditz Chai and Kotowski teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Oldroyd further teaches a second antenna, wherein the at least one antenna and the second antenna are turned to two different orthogonal directions in the resonant cavity (pg. 2506, para. 2 discloses “two pairs of antennas, located on the ceiling and side walls”. Fig. 2 shows that the antenna on the ceiling and the antenna on the wall are pointed in two different orthogonal directions within the resonant cavity).
Regarding claim 11, Oldroyd teaches a method for generating a body composition measurement of a biological body (pg. 2503, Abstract discloses measuring the total body water of a patient), comprising:
a resonant cavity (pg. 2503 Abstract discloses a resonant cavity is used for the measurement and figs. 1-2 on pg. 2506 shows an image of the resonant cavity unit) comprising a frame and metal material lining the frame, wherein the resonant cavity has a top panel, bottom panel, and four side panels to thereby define an enclosed volume (section 2.1 on pg. 2505 discloses “the principle of the RCP method is to measure the lower-order resonances of a large metal enclosure acting as a resonant cavity”. Fig. 1 on pg. 2506 further shows the resonant cavity as a metal enclosure, because the resonant cavity is an enclosure an based on the rectangular shape shown in fig. 1 it must have four side panels, a top panel and a bottom panel in order to be considered enclosed);
a scale configured to measure a weight of the biological body (pg. 2505, section 2 discloses measuring the body weight using “a SECA 880 digital weighing scale”);
a height measurement system configured to measure a height of the biological body (pg. 2505, section 2, para. 1 discloses the biological body’s height was measured using a “wall mounted digital stadiometer”);
at least one antenna in the resonant cavity (pg. 2506, para. 2 and fig. 2 discloses “a pair of antennas that are mounted in the cavity”);
a network analyzer in data communication with the at least one antenna (pg. 2506, para. 2 discloses “a network analyzer is connected to a pair of antennas”); and
a controller configured to receive data from the network analyzer and generate an output, (pg. 2506 discloses the network analyzer “automatically measures the power transmitted between them in order to find the resonant frequencies of the cavity” and section 2.2, para. 2 on pg. 2507 discloses “an automated computer program evaluated…resonant frequencies for both the ‘empty’ and ‘loaded’ room” and “the measured response of these parameters enables the determination of TBW”. In order for the computer to evaluate the resonant frequencies they must be received from the network analyzer and the determination of the TBW is considered the body composition output. Further see para. 1 of section 5 on pg. 2514, “resonant cavity perturbation (RCP) is a novel, electromagnetic method which can determine TBW from the dielectric properties of the body”),
measuring a cavity resonance of the resonant cavity when empty (pg. 2507, section 2.2 discloses “the resonant frequencies of the empty room in both modes were determined”);
measuring a weight of the biological body placed within the cavity (pg. 2505, section 2 discloses measuring the body weight of the subject);
measuring a height of the biological body placed within the cavity (pg. 2505, section 2, para. 1 discloses the biological body’s height was measured);
measuring a body resonance of the biological body placed within the cavity (pg. 2507, section 2.2 “measured values of the ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ resonant frequencies for both the ‘empty’ and ‘loaded’ room”),
determining a differential between the measured resonances (pg. 2507, section 2.2 “the differences between the mean values were the resultant…resonant frequency shifts”), measuring a total water content of the biological body by using the determined differential (pg. 2509, section 4, equation 4 shows that the combined (Vm + Hm) resonant frequency shifts were utilized to determine the total body water (TBW));
generating data indicative of the body composition of the biological body by using the total water content of the biological body (by generating the total body water and mass above, Oldroyd has generated data indicative of the body composition of the biological body).
Oldroyd does not specifically teach a scale in physical communication with the resonant cavity and configured to measure a weight of the biological body in the enclosed volume.
However,
Margalit in a similar field of measuring a component of an object in a cavity teaches a scale in physical communication with the cavity and configured to measure a weight of the biological body in the enclosed volume ([0037] “weight scale 107 inside the chamber 100 allows for simultaneously measuring the subjects weight”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of having a scale in physical communication with the cavity and configured to measure a weight of the biological body in the enclosed volume of Margalit to the cavity of Oldroyd to allow for the predictable results of making the procedure more efficient by having all of the necessary apparatus’s in one centralized location.
Oldroyd in view of Margalit does not specifically teach a height measurement system coupled to the resonant cavity and configured to measure a height of the biological body in the enclosed volume.
However,
Kaditz in a similar field of measuring a component of a biological body teaches a height measurement system coupled to the resonator and configured to measure a height of the biological body in the enclosed volume ([0115] discloses measurement device 124 which fig. 1 shows is connected to the scanner 110 and “measurement devices 124 may include….a measurement device that measures one or more dimensions of individual 112 (such as:…an optical imaging system)”. The dimension of an individual includes the height).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of having a height measurement system coupled to the resonant cavity and configured to measure a height of the biological body in the enclosed volume of Kaditz to the cavity of Oldroyd in view of Margalit to allow for the predictable results of making the procedure more efficient by having all of the necessary apparatus’s in one centralized location.
Oldroyd in view of Margalit and Kaditz does not specifically teach determining a risk assessment of developing metabolic disease based on the generated body composition measurement, the height, and the weight of the biological body.
However,
Chai in a similar field of endeavor teaches determining a risk assessment of developing metabolic disease based on the generated body composition measurement, the height, and the weight of the biological body ([0047] discloses a control unit uses measurements such as height, weight and BMI (body composition) to determine the risk of metabolic syndrome).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Oldroyd in view of Margalit and Kaditz to determine a risk assessment of developing metabolic disease based on the generated body composition measurement, the height, and the weight of the biological body in order to determine whether the subject is at a higher risk for disease, as recognized by Chai ([00047]).
Oldroyd in view of Margalit, Kaditz and Chai does not specifically teach measuring a cavity Q factor of the cavity when empty; measuring a body Q factor of the biological body placed within the cavity; determining a differential between the Q factors and applying a correction factor to at least a portion of said differences to adjust for a fill factor of the cavity.
However,
Kotowski in a similar field of endeavor teaches measuring a cavity Q factor of the cavity when empty, measuring a body Q factor of the biological body placed within the cavity, determining a differential between the Q factors (pg. 28, para 2 discloses “this thesis focuses on perturbations to the resonant frequency and Q of an RF cavity”. Pg. 54, section 2.5 discloses “shifts in resonant properties were measured by comparing the measured properties of the empty cavity to the properties of the cavity with a phantom inside” and pg. 37, para. 1 “resonant cavities have two measurable properties of interest: resonant frequency and quality factor (Q-factor)” meaning q-factor is one of the resonance properties having its shift measured) and applying a correction factor to at least a portion of said differences to adjust for a fill factor of the cavity (pg. 29 discloses applying a shape factor K_sh to the fill factor Vs/Vc in order to determine the change in resonance and the change in Q factor using equations 1.13 and 1.14. The shape factor is a quantity that represents information about the geometry and distribution of materials inside the volume and is therefore considered a correction factor for at least a portion of said difference to adjust for a fill factor of the cavity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of measuring a cavity Q factor of the resonant cavity when empty, measuring a body Q factor of the biological body, determining differences of the cavity Q factor relative to the body Q factor, and applying a correction factor to at least a portion of said differences to adjust for a fill factor of the cavity of Kotowski to the controller of Oldroyd in view of Margalit, Kaditz and Chai to allow for the predictable results ensuring that the determined body composition is correctly calculated.
Regarding claim 15, Oldroyd in view of Margalit, Kaditz, Chai and Kotowski teaches the system of claim 11, as set forth above.
Kotowski further teaches an oscillator in data communication with the network analyzer (pg. 38, fig. 9 and its description discloses a sweep oscillator connected to the VNA (vector network analyzer)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of having an oscillator in data communication with the network analyzer of Kotowski to the system of Oldroyd in view of Margalit, Kaditz Chai and Kotowski to allow for the predictable results of more accurately identifying the oscillation frequency of the resonant signals.
Regarding claim 16, Oldroyd in view of Margalit, Kaditz, Chai and Kotowski teaches the system of claim 11, as set forth above. Oldroyd further teaches at least one of the four side panels is a door and is configured to open and close in order to provide access to the enclosed volume (Fig. 1 shown below shows that one of the four sides is a door configured to open and close in order to provide access).
PNG
media_image1.png
412
701
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Oldroyd in view of Margalit, Kaditz, Chai and Kotowski teaches the method of claim 11, as set forth above. Oldroyd further teaches a second antenna, wherein the at least one antenna and the second antenna are turned to two different orthogonal directions in the resonant cavity (pg. 2506, para. 2 discloses “two pairs of antennas, located on the ceiling and side walls”. Fig. 2 shows that the antenna on the ceiling and the antenna on the wall are pointed in two different orthogonal directions within the resonant cavity).
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oldroyd in view of Margalit, Kaditz, Chai, and Kotowski as applied to claims 7 and 17 above, and further in view of Bouton et al. (US 20030036713, hereinafter Bouton).
Regarding claim 8, Oldroyd in view of Margalit, Kaditz Chai and Kotowski teaches the system of claim 7, as set forth above. Oldroyd in view of Margalit, Kaditz Chai and Kotowski does not specifically teach a third antenna, wherein the at least one antenna, the second antenna, and the third antenna are each turned to different orthogonal directions in the resonant cavity.
However,
Bouton in a similar field of endeavor teaches a third antenna, wherein the at least one antenna, the second antenna, and the third antenna are each turned to different orthogonal directions in the workspace ([0094] “shown in fig. 5 wherein a plurality of antennae 310 are arranged to surround the area to be monitored”, fig. 5 shows the at least 3 antennae turned to different orthogonal directions in the workspace).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Oldroyd in view of Margalit, Kaditz Chai and Kotowski to have a third antenna, wherein the at least one antenna, the second antenna, and the third antenna are each turned to different orthogonal directions in the resonant cavity in order to increase the sensitivity of the system, as recognized by Bouton ([0094]).
Regarding claim 18, Oldroyd in view of Margalit, Kaditz, Chai and Kotowski teaches the method of claim 17, as set forth above. Oldroyd in view of Margalit, Kaditz, Chai and Kotowski does not specifically teach a third antenna, wherein the at least one antenna, the second antenna, and the third antenna are each turned to different orthogonal directions in the resonant cavity.
However,
Bouton in a similar field of endeavor teaches a third antenna, wherein the at least one antenna, the second antenna, and the third antenna are each turned to different orthogonal directions in the workspace ([0094] “shown in fig. 5 wherein a plurality of antennae 310 are arranged to surround the area to be monitored”, fig. 5 shows the at least 3 antennae turned to different orthogonal directions in the workspace).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method disclosed by Oldroyd in view of Margalit, Kaditz, Chai and Kotowski to have a third antenna, wherein the at least one antenna, the second antenna, and the third antenna are each turned to different orthogonal directions in the resonant cavity in order to increase the sensitivity of the system, as recognized by Bouton ([0094]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW BEGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached on 5712701790. 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.
/ANDREW W BEGEMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights