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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the length of the abstract exceeds the maximum of 150 words in length. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The paragraph numbers throughout the entirety of the specification are not numerically sequential and some sections of the specification reset and repeat previously used paragraph numbers. For example, after paragraph [0051] in the detailed description, the paragraph numbers reset back to paragraph [0009], which the subsequent paragraphs are sequential until pages 14-15 where after paragraph [0025], the paragraph numbers reset to paragraph [0001]. There should not be any repeat of any paragraph numbers in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following reasons:
FIGS. 12-17 contain letters that are blurry and measure below the required height of .32 cm (1/8 inch). See 37 C.F.R. 1.84 (l) and (p).
FIG. 18 is missing from the drawings. Additionally, the “Brief Description of the Drawings” lacks a brief description for FIG. 18.
FIGS. 21-34 and 36 contain letters that are blurry and measure below the required height of .32 cm (1/8 inch). See 37 C.F.R. 1.84 (l) and (p).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: system and method “100” in para 0015. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “23”, “30”-“31”, and “35” in FIG. 3; “83” in FIG. 5; “133” in FIG. 8; “289”, “295”-“297”, “304”-“305”, “314”, “316”, and “320”-“321” in FIG. 16; “330”, “336”, and “342”-“343” in FIG. 17; “505”-“513” in FIG. 32; “367” in FIG. 19; and “490” in FIG. 35. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “19” in FIG. 19 has been used to designate both the user’s body fat percentage calculation and the overall method of FIG. 19; the reference character “400” in FIG. 20 has been used to designate both the “Measurements” and all of the calculations shown in FIGS. 20-25; the reference character “45” in FIG. 26 has been used to designate both the “Fitness Score” and all the calculations shown in FIGS. 26-29; the reference character “475” in FIG. 30 has been used to designate both the “Workout Score” and all the calculations shown in FIG. 30.. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Independent claims 1 and 21 are narrative in form and set forth a plurality of elements or steps that should be separated by line indentations. See MPEP 608.01 (i)(i) and 37 C.F.R. 1.75.
In claim 1 lines 5-6, “a subject frontal image and a subject side image” should be changed to --said subject’s frontal image and said subject’s side image--.
In claim 1 line 8, “subject, method” should be changed to --subject, the method--.
In claim 1 line 10, “therethrough” should be changed to --into-- or --through-- or the like.
In claim 1 lines 10-11, “is at least one of stored thereupon and retrieved therefrom said non-transitory computer-readable medium” should be changed to --is at least one of: stored on said non-transitory computer-readable medium and retrieved from said non-transitory computer-readable medium--.
In claim 1 line 13, “torso and neck and limbs” should be changed to --torso, neck, and limbs--.
In claim 1 line 14, “characterizing” should be changed to --determining--.
In claim 1 line 19, “said exercise routine records” should be changed to --said plurality of exercise routine records--.
In claim 2 line 3, “said at least one body part measurement” should be changed to --said body part measurement--.
In claim 3 line 1, “the said body” should be changed to --said body--.
In claim 4 line 1, “the said body” should be changed to --said body--.
In claim 4 line 1, “the said subject’s” should be changed to --said subject’s--.
In claim 5 line 2, “height and weight and gender” should be changed to --height, weight, and gender--.
In claim 6 line 2, “height and weight and gender” should be changed to --height, weight, and gender--.
In claim 7 line 2, “height and weight and gender” should be changed to --height, weight, and gender--.
In claim 8 line 2, “height and weight and gender” should be changed to --height, weight, and gender--.
In claim 9 line 1, “thereupon said at” should be changed to --on at--.
In claim 9 line 2, “an equivalent” should be changed to --said equivalent--.
In claim 9 lines 3-4, “waist and chest and thigh and hip” should be changed to --waist, chest, thigh, and hip--.
In claim 10 line 1, “thereupon said at” should be changed to --on at--.
In claim 10 line 2, “an equivalent” should be changed to --said equivalent--.
In claim 10 lines 3-4, “waist and chest and thigh and hip” should be changed to --waist, chest, thigh, and hip--.
In claim 11 line 1, “thereupon at” should be changed to --on at--.
In claim 11 line 2, “an equivalent” should be changed to --said equivalent--.
In claim 11 lines 3-4, “bicep and elbow and wrist and calf and ankle and knee” should be changed to --biceps, elbow, wrist, calf, ankle and knee--.
In claim 12 line 2, “thereupon at” should be changed to --on at--.
In claim 12 lines 3-4, “bicep and elbow and wrist and calf and ankle and knee” should be changed to --biceps, elbow, wrist, calf, ankle and knee--.
In claim 13 line 2, “exercise routine database” should be changed to --exercise routine records database--.
In claim 14 line 2, “exercise routine database” should be changed to --exercise routine records database--.
In claim 15 line 2, “exercise routine database” should be changed to --exercise routine records database--.
In claim 16 lines 2-3, “at least one of calorie intake and protein intake and daily water intake for the subject” should be changed to --at least one of calorie intake, protein intake, and daily water intake--.
In claim 16 line 5, “subject’s said physical” should be changed to --said subject’s physical--.
In claim 16 line 5, “communicating” should be change to --communicate--.
In claim 17 lines 2-3, “at least one of calorie intake and protein intake and daily water intake for the subject” should be changed to --at least one of calorie intake, protein intake, and daily water intake--.
In claim 17 line 5, “subject’s said physical” should be changed to --said subject’s physical--.
In claim 17 line 5, “communicating” should be change to --communicate--.
In claim 18 lines 2-3, “at least one of calorie intake and protein intake and daily water intake for the subject” should be changed to --at least one of calorie intake, protein intake, and daily water intake--.
In claim 18 line 5, “subject’s said physical” should be changed to --said subject’s physical--.
In claim 18 line 5, “communicating” should be change to --communicate--.
In claim 19 lines 1-2, “identify said at least one of said subject’s at least one exercise routine” should be changed to --identify said at least one exercise routine record--.
In claim 19 lines 2-4, “at least one of said subject's waist measurement and said subject's waist circumference and subject's waist to height ratio and subject's cardio fitness level and subject's weight training level” should be changed to --at least one of: said subject’s waist measurement, said subject’s waist circumference, said subject’s waist to height ratio, said subject’s cardio fitness level, and said subject’s weight training level--.
In claim 20 lines 1-2, “identify said at least one of said subject’s at least one exercise routine” should be changed to --identify said at least one exercise routine record--.
In claim 20 lines 2-4, “at least one of said subject's waist measurement and said subject's waist circumference and subject's waist to height ratio and subject's cardio fitness level and subject's weight training level” should be changed to --at least one of: said subject’s waist measurement, said subject’s waist circumference, said subject’s waist to height ratio, said subject’s cardio fitness level, and said subject’s weight training level--.
In claim 21 lines 5-6, “a subject’s frontal image and a subject’s side image” should be changed to --said subject’s frontal image and said subject’s side image--.
In claim 21 line 8, “subject, method” should be changed to --subject, the method--.
In claim 21 line 9, “height and weight and gender” should be changed to --height, weight, and gender--.
In claim 21 line 10, “therethrough” should be changed to --into-- or --through-- or the like.
In claim 21 lines 10-12, “are at least one of processed by said processor and stored thereupon said non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded” should be changed to --are at least one of: processed by said processor and stored on said non-transitory computer-readable medium--.
In claim 21 lines 13-14, “waist and chest and thigh and hips” should be changed to --waist, chest, thigh, and hips--.
In claim 21 line 15, “data” should be deleted.
In claim 21 line 16, “characterizing” should be changed to --determining--.
In claim 21 line 21, “each of said exercise routine record” should be changed to --each said exercise routine record--.
In claim 21 line 22, “said exercise routine records” should be changed to --said plurality of exercise routine records--.
In claim 22 line 3, “neck and calf and bicep and elbow and wrist and ankle from subject’s side” should be changed too --neck, calf, biceps, elbow, wrist, and ankle from said subject’s side--.
In claim 22 line 4, “frontal image data and;” should be changed to --frontal image; and--.
In claim 23 lines 2-3, “at least one of calorie intake and protein intake and daily water intake for the subject” should be changed to --at least one of calorie intake, protein intake, and daily water intake--.
In claim 23 line 5, “subject’s said physical” should be changed to --said subject’s physical--.
In claim 23 line 5, “communicating” should be change to --communicate--.
In claim 24 line 1, “whereby said at least one of said subject’s body part” should be changed to --whereby at least one of said subject’s body part--.
In claim 24 line 3, “the said subject’s” should be changed to --said subject’s--.
In claim 24 line 6, “subjects side” should be changed to --subject’s side--.
In claim 25 line 1, “whereby said at least one of said subject’s body part” should be changed to --whereby at least one of said subject’s body part--.
In claim 25 line 3, “the said subject’s” should be changed to --said subject’s--.
In claim 25 line 6, “subjects side” should be changed to --subject’s side--.
In claim 26 line 6, “scaling at least one of said linear measurements” should be changed to --scaling at least one of said at least one linear measurement--.
In claim 26 line 7, “the said least one body part circumference measurement” should be changed to --said at least one of said subject’s body part equivalent circumference measurements--.
In claim 27 line 6, “scaling at least one of said linear measurements” should be changed to --scaling at least one of said at least one linear measurement--.
In claim 27 line 7, “the said least one body part circumference measurement” should be changed to --said at least one of said subject’s body part equivalent circumference measurements--.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “computer executable instructions that, as a result of being executed by a processor coupled to a display and an image capture system, whereby said image capture system captures a subject frontal image and a subject side image” in lines 3-6, which is vague and indefinite. It is unclear by the ungrammatical sentence structure what the result of the computer executable instructions being executed by a processor is.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “method comprising: using a human machine interface” in lines 8-9, which is vague and indefinite. It is unclear how a processor can “use” a human machine interface. The action of “using” is typically performed by a user, not a component of a machine.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “using a body part measurement” in line 12, which is vague and indefinite. It is unclear how a processor can “use” a body part measurement. The action of “using” is typically performed by a user, not a component of a machine.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one body part measurement of said subject’s body developed therefrom at least one of said subject’s side image and said subject’s frontal image” in lines 15-16, which is vague and indefinite. It is unclear, due to the ungrammatical nature of the sentence, from what the at least one body part measurement is developed. Furthermore, the term “developed” appears to be misused here as measurements aren’t “developed”. It appears that the term “developed” should be replaced with --determined--. Additionally, the term “therefrom” should be changed to --from--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “using an exercise routine records database” in line 17, which is vague and indefinite. It is unclear how a processor can “use” an exercise routine records database. The action of “using” is typically performed by a user, not a component of a machine.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “said physical fitness level is based thereupon said at least one of said circumference measurement and an equivalent circumference measurement comprising at least one of said subject’s waist and chest and thigh and hip” in lines 1-4, which is vague and indefinite. It is unclear from the ungrammatical sentence structure of the claim why the limitation “comprising at least one of said subject’s waist and chest and thigh and hip” is appended at the end of this claim. When taking the limitation “an equivalent circumference measurement comprising at least one of said subject’s waist and chest and thigh and hip” alone and without context from the rest of the claim, it is unclear how a measurement can comprise at least one of said subject’s waist and chest and thigh and hip. A measurement cannot comprise parts of a body.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “said physical fitness level is based thereupon said at least one of said circumference measurement and an equivalent circumference measurement comprising at least one of said subject’s waist and chest and thigh and hip” in lines 1-4, which is vague and indefinite. It is unclear from the ungrammatical sentence structure of the claim why the limitation “comprising at least one of said subject’s waist and chest and thigh and hip” is appended at the end of this claim. When taking the limitation “an equivalent circumference measurement comprising at least one of said subject’s waist and chest and thigh and hip” alone and without context from the rest of the claim, it is unclear how a measurement can comprise at least one of said subject’s waist and chest and thigh and hip. A measurement cannot comprise parts of a body.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “said physical fitness level is based thereupon said at least one of said circumference measurement and an equivalent circumference measurement comprising at least one of said subject’s bicep and elbow and wrist and calf and ankle and knee” in lines 1-4, which is vague and indefinite. It is unclear from the ungrammatical sentence structure of the claim why the limitation “comprising at least one of said subject’s bicep and elbow and wrist and calf and ankle and knee” is appended at the end of this claim. When taking the limitation “an equivalent circumference measurement comprising at least one of said subject’s bicep and elbow and wrist and calf and ankle and knee” alone and without context from the rest of the claim, it is unclear how a measurement can comprise at least one of said subject’s bicep and elbow and wrist and calf and ankle and knee. A measurement cannot comprise parts of a body.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “said body part measurement and circumference further comprising at least one of said subject’s bicep and elbow and wrist and calf and ankle and knee” in lines 2-4, which is vague and indefinite. Firstly, there is lack of antecedent basis for the term “circumference.” Is the term “circumference” referring back to said circumference measurement or said equivalent circumference measurement as previously recited in parent claim 4? Secondly, it is unclear from the ungrammatical sentence structure of the claim why the limitation “further comprising at least one of said subject’s waist and chest and thigh and hip” is appended at the end of this claim. When taking the limitation “circumference further comprising at least one of said subject’s bicep and elbow and wrist and calf and ankle and knee” alone and without context from the rest of the claim, it is unclear how a measurement such as circumference can comprise at least one of said subject’s bicep and elbow and wrist and calf and ankle and knee. A measurement cannot comprise parts of a body.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “at least one of an exercise routine record identifier and said subject’s equipment and schedule and location and age and injury status” in lines 3-4, which is vague and indefinite. It is unclear what the alternatives are in the list. Are there two alternatives: 1) exercise routine record identifier and 2) subject’s equipment, schedule, location, age, and injury status? Or are there six alternatives: 1) exercise routine record identifier, 2) subject’s equipment, 3) subject’s schedule, 4) subject’s location, 5) subject’s age, and 6) subject’s injury status? Or are there a different number of alternatives?
Claim 14 recites the limitation “at least one of an exercise routine record identifier and said subject’s equipment and schedule and location and age and injury status” in lines 3-4, which is vague and indefinite. It is unclear what the alternatives are in the list. Are there two alternatives: 1) exercise routine record identifier and 2) subject’s equipment, schedule, location, age, and injury status? Or are there six alternatives: 1) exercise routine record identifier, 2) subject’s equipment, 3) subject’s schedule, 4) subject’s location, 5) subject’s age, and 6) subject’s injury status? Or are there a different number of alternatives?
Claim 15 recites the limitation “at least one of an exercise routine record identifier and said subject’s equipment and schedule and location and age and injury status” in lines 3-4, which is vague and indefinite. It is unclear what the alternatives are in the list. Are there two alternatives: 1) exercise routine record identifier and 2) subject’s equipment, schedule, location, age, and injury status? Or are there six alternatives: 1) exercise routine record identifier, 2) subject’s equipment, 3) subject’s schedule, 4) subject’s location, 5) subject’s age, and 6) subject’s injury status? Or are there a different number of alternatives?
Claim 16 recites the limitation “system of claim 1, further determining” in line 1, which is vague and indefinite. It is unclear how a system performs the act of further determining. A system/apparatus claim comprises structural elements, whereas a method/process claim comprises steps. The phrase “further determining” is a step and should not be used with a system claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "said computer" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “system of claim 14, further determining” in line 1, which is vague and indefinite. It is unclear how a system performs the act of further determining. A system/apparatus claim comprises structural elements, whereas a method/process claim comprises steps. The phrase “further determining” is a step and should not be used with a system claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "said computer" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “system of claim 15, further determining” in line 1, which is vague and indefinite. It is unclear how a system performs the act of further determining. A system/apparatus claim comprises structural elements, whereas a method/process claim comprises steps. The phrase “further determining” is a step and should not be used with a system claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "said computer" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “computer executable instructions that, as a result of being executed by a processor coupled to a display and an image capture system, whereby said image capture system captures a subject’s frontal image and a subject’s side image” in lines 3-6, which is vague and indefinite. It is unclear by the ungrammatical sentence structure what the result of the computer executable instructions being executed by a processor is.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “method comprising: using a human machine interface” in lines 8-9, which is vague and indefinite. It is unclear how a processor can “use” a human machine interface. The action of “using” is typically performed by a user, not a component of a machine.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “characterizing said subject’s physical fitness score based on said subject’s body part equivalent circumference measurements of said subject's waist and chest and thigh and hip equivalent circumference measurements and said subject's height and weight and gender” in lines 16-19, which is vague and indefinite. Due to the ungrammatical nature of the sentence, it is unclear what the subject’s physical fitness score is based on. Is the physical fitness score based on: 1) said subject’s body part equivalent circumference measurements of said subject's waist, chest, thigh, and hip and 2) said subject's height, weight, and gender? If this is the case, then the limitation “characterizing said subject’s physical fitness score based on said subject’s body part equivalent circumference measurements of said subject's waist and chest and thigh and hip equivalent circumference measurements and said subject's height and weight and gender” should be changed to --determining said subject’s physical fitness score based on said subject’s body part equivalent circumference measurements of said subject's waist, chest, thigh, and hip and based on said subject's height, weight, and gender--.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “using an exercise routine records database” in line 20, which is vague and indefinite. It is unclear how a processor can “use” an exercise routine records database. The action of “using” is typically performed by a user, not a component of a machine.
Claim 22 recites the limitations “system of claim 21, further comprising” in line 1, then follows up with a “predicting” step in line 2 and a “determining” step in line 5, which are vague and indefinite. It is unclear how a system comprises the acts of predicting and determining. A system/apparatus claim comprises structural elements, whereas a method/process claim comprises steps. The predicting and determining steps should not be used with a system claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “system of claim 22, further determining” in line 1, which is vague and indefinite. It is unclear how a system performs the act of further determining. A system/apparatus claim comprises structural elements, whereas a method/process claim comprises steps. The phrase “further determining” is a step and should not be used with a system claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "said computer" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the outer contours" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "said subject’s extracted images" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the outer contours" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "said subject’s extracted images" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 1 recites many limitations incorporating the term “subject” into the claim as a necessary part of the system. These limitations encompass a human organism as these limitations can only be met with the presence of the human organism, i.e., the subject. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests amending the claim to incorporate --configured to-- language. Claims 2-20 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “determined from at least one portion of said subject’s torso and neck and limbs” in lines 12-13 and the limitation “said subject’s body” in line 14. These limitations encompass a human organism as these limitations can only be met with the presence of the human organism, i.e., the subject. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests amending the claim to incorporate --configured to-- language. Claims 2-20 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a body part of said subject” in lines 3-4. This limitation encompasses a human organism as this limitation can only be met with the presence of the human organism, i.e., the subject. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests amending the claim to incorporate --configured to-- language. Claims 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 19 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 3.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a body part of said subject” in lines 3-4. This limitation encompasses a human organism as this limitation can only be met with the presence of the human organism, i.e., the subject. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests amending the claim to incorporate --configured to-- language. Claims 8, 10, 12, 15, 18, and 20 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 4.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “comprising at least one of said subject’s waist and chest and thigh and hip” in lines 3-4. This limitation encompasses a human organism as this limitation can only be met with the presence of the human organism, i.e., the subject. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests amending the claim to incorporate --configured to-- language. Claims 11, 13, 14, 17, and 19 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 9.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “comprising at least one of said subject’s waist and chest and thigh and hip” in lines 3-4. This limitation encompasses a human organism as this limitation can only be met with the presence of the human organism, i.e., the subject. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests amending the claim to incorporate --configured to-- language. Claims 12, 15, 18, and 20 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 10.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “comprising at least one of said subject’s bicep and elbow and wrist and calf and ankle and knee” in lines 3-4. This limitation encompasses a human organism as this limitation can only be met with the presence of the human organism, i.e., the subject. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests amending the claim to incorporate --configured to-- language. Claims 14, 17, and 19 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 11.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “comprising at least one of said subject’s bicep and elbow and wrist and calf and ankle and knee” in lines 3-4. This limitation encompasses a human organism as this limitation can only be met with the presence of the human organism, i.e., the subject. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests amending the claim to incorporate --configured to-- language. Claims 15, 18, and 20 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 12.
Claim 21 recites many limitations incorporating the term “subject” into the claim as a necessary part of the system. These limitations encompass a human organism as these limitations can only be met with the presence of the human organism, i.e., the subject. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests amending the claim to incorporate --configured to-- language. Claims 22-27 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 21.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “predicting body part equivalent circumference measurements for said subject’s waist and chest and thigh and hips” in lines 13-14. This limitation encompasses a human organism as this limitation can only be met with the presence of the human organism, i.e., the subject. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests amending the claim to incorporate --configured to-- language. Claims 22-27 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 21.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “predicting body part equivalent circumference measurements for at least one of said subject’s neck and calf and bicep and elbow and wrist and ankle” in lines 2-3 and the limitation “determining a body fat percentage calculation for said subject’s body”. These limitations encompass a human organism as these limitations can only be met with the presence of the human organism, i.e., the subject. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests amending the claim to incorporate --configured to-- language. Claims 23-27 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 22.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm Eastern.
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached on 571-272-4966. 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.
/Joshua Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights