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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-8 are currently pending. Claims 1, 2, and 6-8 have been amended. The limitation “image capturing device” in claims 1 and 7 has been amended and no longer invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 10 June 2025, as such the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation has been withdrawn. Claims 1 and 8 have been amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Y-axis” in line 3 of claim 2 should read as “a Y-axis”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 2-8 are further rejected due to their dependency to claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the end of each of the telescopic rods is pivotably attached to the stand platform via a universal joint” in lines 20-21. The disclosure does not teach the end of each of the telescopic rods having a universal joint. The disclosure merely recites that the end of each of the telescopic rods are pivotably attached to the stand platform, as mentioned in the Abstract, [0010], [0013], [0020], [0024], [0030], [0042], and [0046] of the PGPUB. Examiner suggests to remove this limitation as “an end of each of the telescopic rods being pivotably attached to the stand platform” is already recited in lines 7-8 of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al. ‘479 (US Pub No. 2014/0340479 – previously cited) in view of Biospace ‘429 (Japanese Pub No. 2003/265429) further in view of Kodama et al. ‘492 (US Pub No. 2004/0220492 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Moore et al. ‘479 teaches a body composition analysis system having image scanning function (Title, Abstract), the body composition analysis system comprising:
an image capturing lens (Fig. 5 one or more cameras on standards 500 and [0039]);
a body composition analyzer distanced from the image capturing device for a predetermined distance (Fig. 5 shows that the cameras on standards 500 are at a predetermined distance of the platform 302.), the body composition analyzer having a stand platform (Figs. 5, 19 platform 302 and [0052]), two handrails (Fig. 19 handles 308 and [0052]) and a non-transitory product (Fig. 20 processor 730 and [0052]), the stand platform being provided with two first electrode sets (Figs. 5, 19 two reference electrodes 720" and [0054]), the two handrails each having a telescopic rod and a handle ([0053]; "optionally telescoping"), each of the handles being disposed at another end of each of the telescopic rods (Figs. 5, 19 shows that the handles 308 are on one end of the rods.), each of the handles having a second electrode set (Figs. 5, 19 reference electrodes 720', 720" and [0054]), the non-transitory product being electrically connected with the image capturing device ([0037]; "microprocessor"), the non-transitory product comprising a body shape module database and a calculational logic ([0033]; "application"), the non-transitory product receiving resistance ([0050]; “the measurement of the height and the resistance over the whole body”) measured by the two first electrode sets and the two second electrode sets and receiving image data obtained by the image capturing device ([0036]; "one or more cameras 306 coupled to the computing device 304 for taking images of the body of the user and one or more handles 308"), and after comparing the image data obtained by the image capturing device with the body shape module database ([0047]; "these body type categories are based on several ratios that are captured and compared to the larger set of data"), calculating by the calculational logic to obtain a body composition data ([0049]); and
a control panel electrically connected with the body composition analyzer (Fig. 1 computing device 106 and [0033]), the image capturing device and the non-transitory product for displaying the body composition data ([0061]).
Moore et al. ‘469 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for an end of each of the telescopic rods being pivotably attached to the stand platform;
wherein the end of each of the telescopic rods is pivotably attached to the stand platform via a universal joint.
Biospace ‘429 teaches for an end of each of the handles 30 being pivotably attached to the case 10 ([0032]);
wherein the end of each of the handles 30 is pivotably attached to the case 10 via a universal joint 45 (Figs. 1, 2 and [0032], [0036], [0040]).
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 telescopic rods of Moore et al. ‘469 to include being pivotably attached to the stand platform; wherein the end of each of the telescopic rods is pivotably attached to the stand platform via a universal joint as Biospace ‘429 teaches that this will aid in holding the handle at any rotational position thereof ([0022]).
Moore et al. ‘469 in view of Biospace ‘429 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for the non-transitory product receiving resistance and capacitive reactance measured by the two first electrode sets and the two second electrode sets.
Kodama et al. ‘492 teaches measuring resistance and capacitive reactance ([0073]) from measurements taken from a person’s feet and hands (Fig. 1 and [0061]). Body composition data is displayed on a screen (Fig. 7 and [0104]).
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 body composition analysis system of Moore et al. ‘469 in view of Biospace ‘429 to include the non-transitory product receiving resistance and reactance measured by the two first electrode sets and the two second electrode sets as Kodama et al. ‘492 teaches that this would aid in determining the index of body build age and cell age ([0143]).
Regarding claim 2, Moore et al. ‘469 teaches wherein the image capturing lens is pivotably attached to the Y-axial stand ([0032]; “…one or more cameras 306 may rotate about the user…”) and movable along the Y-axis ([0039]; “The camera bay on each standard may be vertically adjusted to adjust the height of each camera to accommodate different users”).
Regarding claim 3, Moore et al. ‘469 teaches wherein the stand platform has a circular shape (Figs. 5 and 19 show that platform 302 is circular.); the stand platform is provided along an outer periphery thereof with an annular guide rail; the Y-axial stand is disposed on the annular guide rail and moveable along the annular guide rail (Fig. 19 shows that the standard is connected to a portion of the platform 302, interpreted as an annular guide rail.).
Regarding claim 4, Moore et al. ‘469 teaches wherein the stand platform is further provided with a rotary plate ([0037]; “…causes the platform 302a to rotate…”).
Regarding claim 5, Moore et al. ‘469 in view of Biospace ‘429 further in view of Kodama et al. ‘492 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein said another end of each of the telescopic rods is pivotably attached to each of the handles.
Biospace ‘429 teaches grip parts 36 can rotate about 360˚ about the pipes 35 as indicated by arrow T (Fig. 1 and [0033]).
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 telescopic rods of Moore et al. ‘469 in view of Biospace ‘429 further in view of Kodama et al. ‘492to include being pivotably attached to each of the handles as Biospace ‘429 teaches that this would aid in determining the index of body build age and cell age ([0143]).
Regarding claim 7, Moore et al. ‘479 teaches wherein the non-transitory product further comprises a determining logic to determine whether the image data obtained by the image capturing lens is correct or not by data in the body shape module database ([0032]; “…the backend system 104 may assign an identifier to each body mesh package of each user.” [0042]; “…a user body mesh package identifier is set (406) that is used to identify the body scan of the user in the system and the user is notified of the successful login (410).”).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al. ‘479 in view of Biospace ‘429 further in view of Kodama et al. ‘492 further in view of Schultes et al. ‘788 (US Pub No. 2019/0223788 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 6, Moore et al. ‘479 in view of Biospace ‘429 further in view of Kodama et al. ‘492 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the stand platform is further provided with a weight sensor, the weight sensor is electrically connected with the non-transitory product.
Schultes et al. ‘788 teaches wherein the stand platform is further provided with a weight sensor (Fig. 1 scale 18 and [0060]), the weight sensor is electrically connected with the calculation unit (Fig. 3 shows that the scale 18 is electrically connected with the processor 14.).
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 body composition analysis system of Moore et al. ‘479 in view of Biospace ‘429 further in view of Kodama et al. ‘492 to include a weight sensor as Schultes et al. ‘788 teaches that this will aid in measuring the mass of the human body ([0044]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al. ‘479 in view of Biospace ‘429 further in view of Kodama et al. ‘492 further in view of Lee et al. ‘944 (US Pub No. 2022/0369944 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, Moore et al. ‘479 teaches the image data obtained by the image capturing device comprises circumference ([0035]; “girth”), cross-sectional area ([0035]; “cross-sectional body segment”) and length of said each limb segment ([0035]; “length”).
Moore et al. ‘479 in view of Biospace ‘429 further in view of Kodama et al. ‘492 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the two first electrode sets and the two second electrode sets use alternating current of different frequencies to measure resistance and capacitive reactance of each limb segment.
As previously mentioned, Kodama et al. ‘492 teaches measuring resistance and reactance.
Lee et al. ‘944 teaches the degree of penetration of the alternating current for each body part may vary depending on the frequency of the alternating current. For example, the alternating current having a frequency of 50 kHz has low permeability to cell membrane. Accordingly, the alternating current of 50 kHz can be considered to measure extracellular water (ECW). Unlike this, the alternating current having a frequency equal to or lower than 1 mHz has high permeability to cell membrane and thus can be considered to measure even intercellular water (ICW). As described above, when different frequencies are used, extracellular water and intercellular water can be distinguished, which makes more accurate measurement of body composition possible ([0123]).
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 two first electrode sets and the two second electrode sets of Moore et al. ‘479 in view of Biospace ‘429 further in view of Kodama et al. ‘492 to include using alternating current of different frequencies to measure resistance and capacitive reactance of each limb segment as Lee et al. ‘944 teaches that this will aid in a more accurate measurement of body composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and Splane Jr. et al. ‘125 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AURELIE H TU whose telephone number is (571)272-8465. The examiner can normally be reached [M-F] 7:30-3:30.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/AURELIE H TU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791