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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 14,2025 has been entered.
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 2, 7-10 and 16, and the cancellation of claim 15. Claims 1-14 and 16-17 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed April 14, , with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered. While Applicant’s amendments have overcome some of the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), some previous indefiniteness issues remain in the claims. See 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below.
Applicant's arguments filed April 14, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s argument that the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 should be withdrawn because the independent claims as amended (i.e., amended to recite “an output unit configured to display or output the body shape data acquired by the body shape data acquisition unit”) constitute a practical application as the displayed or output body shape data can be effectively used in various fields, such as healthcare, apparel, and body sculpting, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Though Applicant alleges the displayed or output body shape data can be effectively used in various fields, such as healthcare, apparel, and body sculpting, as written in the independent claims, the display of the body shape data acquired by the body shape data acquisition unit does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the system does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the displayed body shape data, nor does the system use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea. Therefore, the mere assertion that there is a practical application of the claims as amended is not persuasive. Therefore, the claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. See 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections below.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Black should be withdrawn because Black fails to teach the fat mass, lean mass, the fat thickness, and the muscle mass are calculated using at least one of the bioimpedance between limbs, the bioimpedance between both hands, and the bioimpedance between both feet obtained through impedance measurement of the user, Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed April 14, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-17 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of applicant's arguments and amendments made to the claims. See 35 USC 103 rejections below.
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: biometric information acquisition unit, storage unit, selection unit, body shape data acquisition unit, and output unit in claims 1 & 16.
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. As described in the specification, the biometric information acquisition unit, the selection unit, and the body shape data acquisition unit are all elements of a user terminal of a general-purpose computer that runs a program executing the body shape data acquisition system (see specification, par 0045), and the output unit is a screen that displays a human body model based on body shape data (see specification, par 0021).
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 § 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 7-10 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.
Claims 7-10 recite “wherein the body shape data acquisition unit is configured to modify size and/or posture of a skeleton of the user”. It is unclear how a body shape data acquisition unit can modify a size or posture of a user. The examiner respectfully requests clarification. For examination purposes, this claim limitation will be interpreted as a body model representative of the user on a screen is modified by changing the size or posture of the body model to depict the user’s body shape.
Dependent claims are similarly rejected as their base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a system comprising a series of elements that performs steps or acts, including selecting reference body shape data. Thus, the claim is directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The steps of acquiring biometric information of a user, storing a plurality of reference body shape data, selecting reference body shape data, and acquiring body shape data of a user sets forth a judicial exception. These steps describe concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea. The system of claim 1 is configured to perform the Abstract Idea. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 1 further recites an output unit that is configured to display or output the body shape data acquired by the body shape data acquisition unit, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The display of the body shape data acquired by the body shape data acquisition unit does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the system does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the displayed body shape data, nor does the system use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional steps of acquiring biometric information of a user, storing a plurality of reference body shape data, and acquiring body shape data of a user. The acquiring and storing steps are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and comparing activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the acquiring and storing steps do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
The same rationale applies to claims 16 and 17.
The dependent claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they generally recite method steps pertaining to data gathering and the display of data. The acquiring, selecting, and storing steps recited in the independent claims maintain a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the recited program is not a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The examiner suggests modifying claim 16 to recite a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a program that is configured to perform the limitations recited in claim 16.
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(s) 1-14 & 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2010/0111370 --as previously cited--, hereinafter referenced as "Black" in view of US Patent Application Publication 2017/0188854, hereinafter referenced as “Banet”.
With respect to claim 1, Black teaches a body shape data acquisition system (see Black, abstract, par 0018), comprising:
a biometric information acquisition unit 103, 106 configured to acquire user biometric information (see Black, par 0048, 0050, 0053-0054, fig. 1), which is at least one of the following information of a user: bioimpedance between limbs, bioimpedance between both hands, bioimpedance between both feet, fat mass, lean mass, fat thickness, and muscle mass (i.e., a distribution of soft tissue including muscle and fat of a user is acquired) (see Black, par 0020);
a storage unit 208, 601 (i.e., a database) configured to store a plurality of reference body shape data corresponding to reference biometric information (see Black, par 0061, 0064, 0066, 0068, fig. 2 & 6);
a selection unit 207 (i.e., a body shape matching component) configured to select reference body shape data corresponding to the user biometric information acquired by the biometric information acquisition unit from the plurality of reference body shape data stored in the storage unit (see Black, par 0066, fig. 2);
a body shape data acquisition unit 209 configured to acquire body shape data of the user using the reference body shape data selected by the selection unit (see Black, par 0067, fig. 2),
and an output unit 112, 204 configured to display or output the body shape data acquired by the body shape data acquisition unit (i.e., a fitted model is graphically represented on an output device such as a computer monitor, hand-held screen, or television) (see Black, par 0062, figs. 1 & 2).
Black fails to teach the fat mass, lean mass, the fat thickness, and the muscle mass are calculated using at least one of the bioimpedance between limbs, the bioimpedance between both hands, and the bioimpedance between both feet obtained through impedance measurement of the user.
Banet teaches a floormat physiological sensor (see Banet, figs. 1, 2A-2B, 4A-4B) that comprises impedance electrodes configured to obtain bioimpedance measurements from the feet of a user that stands on the floormat physiological sensor for a period of time, wherein parameters such as body fat percentage and muscle mass can be calculated from the obtained bioimpedance measurements (see Banet, par 0005-0006, 0029, 0031, 0160-0162, equation 16). Obtaining bioimpedance measurements from the feet of a user to calculate parameters such as body fat percentage and muscle mass is advantageous for obtaining accurate measurements by simply standing on the physiological sensor, especially in populations such as individuals that are obese or morbidly obese that have difficulty with using attached electrodes (see Banet, par 0066).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Black such that the fat mass, lean mass, the fat thickness, and the muscle mass are calculated using at least one of the bioimpedance between limbs, the bioimpedance between both hands, and the bioimpedance between both feet obtained through impedance measurement of the user because that would improve the system of Black by obtaining accurate bioimpedance measurements from the feet of a user to calculate parameters such as body fat percentage and muscle mass that is advantageous in populations such as individuals that are obese or morbidly obese that have difficulty with using attached electrodes (see Banet, par 0066).
With respect to claim 2, Black as modified by Banet teaches the body shape acquisition system according to claim 1, and Black further teaches the selection unit 207 is configured to select a plurality of the reference body shape data corresponding to the user biometric information obtained by the biometric information acquisition unit (see Black, par 0066, fig. 2), and the body shape data acquisition unit 209 is configured to generate composite body shape data by combining the plurality of reference body shape data selected by the selection unit (see Black, par 0067, fig. 2), and acquire the body shape data using the composite body shape data (see Black, par 0067, fig. 2).
With respect to claim 3, Black as modified by Banet teaches the body shape acquisition system according to claim 1, and Black further teaches the selection unit 207 is configured to select one of the plurality of reference body shape data corresponding to the user biometric information acquired by the biometric information acquisition unit 103, 106 (i.e., reference body shape data is selected using input from the user input interface obtained) (see Black, par 0066, fig. 1 & 2), and the body shape data acquisition unit is configured to obtain the body shape data by modifying the one of the plurality of reference body shape data selected by the selection unit (i.e., the fitted model is modified using the data obtained from user input and the data acquisition unit to generate the body shape data) (see Black, par 0066).
With respect to claim 4, Black as modified by Banet teaches the body shape acquisition system according to claim 2, and Black further teaches the body shape data acquisition unit is configured to acquire the body shape data by modifying the composite body shape data (i.e., a list of matching body shapes is aggregated to produce the best matches and an optional match score that represents the best body shape match for a user) (see Black, par 0067).
With respect to claim 5, Black as modified by Banet teaches the body shape acquisition system according to claim 3, and Black further teaches that the body shape data acquisition unit is configured to perform the modification according to modification instruction (i.e., user input), and the storage unit is configured to store contents of the modification (i.e., the user input is stored) (see Black, par 0061 & 0066).
With respect to claim 6, Black as modified by Banet teaches the body shape acquisition system according to claim 5, and Black further teaches the body shape data acquisition unit is configured to perform the modification according to operation input (i.e., user input) (see Black, par 0066), information representing the body shape of the user (i.e., height and weight) (see Black, par 0143) , or the contents of the modification stored in the storage unit as the modification instruction (see Black, par 0061 & 0066).
With respect to claim 7, Black as modified by Banet teaches the body shape acquisition system according to claim 3, and Black further teaches the body shape data acquisition unit 209 is configured to modify size and/or posture of a skeleton of the user 111 (i.e., a fitted model of the user is generated, being modified for the size and posture of the user) (see Black, par 0056-0060, 0062, 0066, fig. 1).
With respect to claim 8, Black as modified by Banet teaches the body shape data acquisition system according to claim 4, and Black further teaches the body shape data acquisition unit 209 is configured to modify size and/or posture of a skeleton of the user 111 (i.e., a fitted model of the user is generated, being modified for the size and posture of the user) (see Black, par 0056-0060, 0062, 0066, fig. 1).
With respect to claim 9, Black as modified by Banet teaches the body shape data acquisition system according to claim 5, and Black further teaches the body shape data acquisition unit 209 is configured to modify size and/or posture of a skeleton of the user 111 (i.e., a fitted model of the user is generated, being modified for the size and posture of the user) (see Black, par 0056-0060, 0062, 0066, fig. 1).
With respect to claim 10, Black as modified by Banet teaches the body shape data acquisition system according to claim 6, and Black further teaches the body shape data acquisition unit 209 is configured to modify size and/or posture of a skeleton of the user 111 (i.e., a fitted model of the user is generated, being modified for the size and posture of the user) (see Black, par 0056-0060, 0062, 0066, fig. 1).
With respect to claim 11, Black as modified by Banet teaches the body shape data acquisition system according to claim 5, and Black further teaches that the system comprises a display unit 112 configured to display a human body model 111 based on the body shape data (see Black, par 0047-0048, 0060-0062, fig. 2), wherein the body shape data acquisition unit is configured to perform the modification according to the modification instruction by operation input (i.e., user input) (see Black, par 0066), and the display unit 112 is configured to receive the operation input and display a screen including the human body model reflecting the modification (i.e., the body model is modified according to user input and is then displayed to the user, reflecting the user input) (see Black, par 0047-0048, 0060-0062, fig. 2).
With respect to claim 12, Black as modified by Banet teaches the body shape data acquisition system as described in claim 1, and Black further teaches that the storage unit 208, 601 is a database configured to store the reference biometric information and the reference body shape data in correspondence with each other (see Black, par 0061, 0064, 0066, 0068), and the selection unit 207 is configured to identify the reference biometric information having a close Euclidean distance to the user biometric information acquired by the biometric information acquisition unit from the reference biometric information stored in the database (see Black, par 0066, 0274, 0291, 0380, fig. 2), and select the reference body shape data corresponding to the reference biometric information identified in the database (see Black, par 0064).
With respect to claim 13, Black as modified by Banet teaches the body shape data acquisition system according to claim 1, and Banet further teaches the storage unit 208, 601 is a database configured to store the reference biometric information and the reference body shape data in correspondence with each other (see Black, par 0061, 0064, 0066, 0068, the selection unit 207 is configured to identify the biometric data that is close to the biometric data acquired by the biometric information acquisition unit from among the biometric data stored in the storage unit using a composite vector amount of new eigenvectors with the biometric data acquired by the biometric information acquisition unit (see Black, par 0127-0129, 0194) as the origin and processed by principal component analysis (see Black, par 0127-0129, 0207, 0276), select the reference body shape data corresponding to the reference biometric information identified in the database (see Black, par 0064).
With respect to claim 14, Black as modified by Banet teaches the body shape data acquisition system according to claim 1, and Black further teaches that the storage unit is configured to store a prediction algorithm 606 (see Black, fig. 6) learned with the reference biometric information as input (see Black, par 0148-0149 & 0163) and the plurality of reference body shape data corresponding to the biometric information as output (see Black, par 0163), and the selection unit 207 is configured to select the output obtained by inputting the user biometric information acquired by the biometric information acquisition unit into the prediction algorithm as the reference body shape data corresponding to the user biometric information acquired by the biometric information acquisition unit (see Black, par 0066).
With respect to claim 16, Black teaches a body shape data acquisition program (see Black, claims 75-84 & 86) that enable a computer equipped with a storage unit 208, 601 (i.e., a database) (see Black, par 0061, 0064, 0066, 0068, & 0492, fig. 2) configured to store a plurality of reference body shape data corresponding to biometric information (see Black, par 0061, 0064, 0066, 0068, fig. 2 & 6) to function as:
a biometric data acquisition unit 103, 106 configured to acquire user biometric information (see Black, par 0048, 0050, 0053-0054, fig. 1), which is at least one of the following information of a user: bioimpedance between limbs, bioimpedance between both hands, bioimpedance between both feet, fat mass, lean mass, fat thickness, and muscle mass (i.e., a distribution of soft tissue including muscle and fat of a user is acquired) (see Black, par 0020);
a selection unit 207 (i.e., a body shape matching component) configured to select, from the reference body shape data stored in the storage unit, a reference body shape data corresponding to the biometric information acquired by the biometric information acquisition unit (see Black, par 0066, fig. 2);
a body shape data acquisition unit 209 configured to acquire body shape data of the user using the reference body shape data selected by the selection unit (see Black, par 0067, fig. 2);
and an output unit 112, 204 configured to display or output the body shape data acquired by the body shape data acquisition unit (i.e., a fitted model is graphically represented on an output device such as a computer monitor, hand-held screen, or television) (see Black, par 0062, figs. 1 & 2).
Black fails to teach the fat mass, lean mass, the fat thickness, and the muscle mass are calculated using at least one of the bioimpedance between limbs, the bioimpedance between both hands, and the bioimpedance between both feet obtained through impedance measurement of the user.
Banet teaches a floormat physiological sensor (see Banet, figs. 1, 2A-2B, 4A-4B) that comprises impedance electrodes configured to obtain bioimpedance measurements from the feet of a user that stands on the floormat physiological sensor for a period of time, wherein parameters such as body fat percentage and muscle mass can be calculated from the obtained bioimpedance measurements (see Banet, par 0005-0006, 0029, 0031, 0160-0162, equation 16). Obtaining bioimpedance measurements from the feet of a user to calculate parameters such as body fat percentage and muscle mass is advantageous for obtaining accurate measurements by simply standing on the physiological sensor, especially in populations such as individuals that are obese or morbidly obese that have difficulty with using attached electrodes (see Banet, par 0066).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Black such that the fat mass, lean mass, the fat thickness, and the muscle mass are calculated using at least one of the bioimpedance between limbs, the bioimpedance between both hands, and the bioimpedance between both feet obtained through impedance measurement of the user because that would improve the system of Black by obtaining accurate bioimpedance measurements from the feet of a user to calculate parameters such as body fat percentage and muscle mass that is advantageous in populations such as individuals that are obese or morbidly obese that have difficulty with using attached electrodes (see Banet, par 0066).
With respect to claim 17, Black as modified by Banet teaches a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a body shape data acquiring program according to claim 16 (see Black, par 0492).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Destiny J Cruickshank whose telephone number is (571)270-0187. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-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, Charles Marmor II can be reached on (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHARLES A MARMOR II/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/D.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3791