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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments below filed 12/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive | moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks pages 10-15, filed 12/27/2025, with respect to the 35 USC § 101 rejections of claims 1-3 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 101 rejections of claims 1-3 have been withdrawn.
The Applicant asserts on pages 9-10 of the Response:
“Amended claims 23-25 are "product" claims directed to an electronic device, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and a non-transitory computer program product. Claims 23-25 focus on the functional configuration of the device or the stored program instructions.
As described in paragraphs [0156]-[0157] and [0162] of the specification, a person skilled in the art would understand that the programs, when executed by a processor, implement the method according to claim 1, which comprises determining a measurement region of an object, determining a positioning portion of the object according to the measurement region, sending a control instruction to the positioning apparatus to control movement of the positioning apparatus, so as to complete positioning of the positioning portion. A feedback signal may be received such that a measurement posture meets a predetermined condition.
Claims 23-25 do not require the processor itself to move a body part; they require the processor to execute a control logic, the result of which is the physical positioning of the positioning portion by the processor-controlled positioning apparatus. Therefore, claims 23-25 are definite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).”
In response the examiner respectfully asserts that the specification does not disclose a control instruction to the positioning apparatus to control movement of the positioning apparatus. The specification also does not disclose physical positioning of the positioning portion by the processor-controlled positioning apparatus. The positioning parts of the positioning apparatus are disclosed in [0138] “the preparing the supporting part and the positioning part according to the measurement region and the positioning portion so as to obtain the positioning apparatus”, [0149] “the relationship between the positioning part and the supporting part satisfies at least one of: the positioning part being arranged on the supporting part, the positioning part being connected to the supporting part, and the positioning part being embedded in the supporting part”, [0072] “The positioning part being arranged on the supporting part may refer to that the positioning part exists in a form of a protrusion on the supporting part. The positioning part being connected to the supporting part may refer to that the positioning part and the supporting part are connected through a connector. The positioning part being embedded in the supporting part may refer to that the positioning part is embedded inside the supporting part”, and [0078] “A preparation method may include 3D printing or machining”. Therefore the positioning is performed by preparing the positioning parts by 3D printing or machining and positioning the object onto the positioning apparatus. Therefore claims 23-25 remain rejected under 35 USC § 112(b).
The Applicant asserts on page 20 of the Response:
“Tsuruki's "wrist position" and "elbow joint position" are input parameters for determining the measurement region, not "positioning portions" to be fixed for indirectly stabilizing the measurement region. Tsuruki's support directly contacts/fixes the elbow joint for measurement, i.e., fixing the limb to facilitate measurement, not embodying the present invention's concept of "non-contact indirect stabilization by fixing A to stabilize B". Tsuruki's support structure aims to reduce limb movement affecting a probe directly attached to the measurement region, which is completely contrary to the present application's design philosophy of "reducing contact with the measurement region". Tsuruki aims to reduce fluctuations from different probe attachment positions, while the present application aims to reduce errors introduced by the positioning apparatus contacting the measurement region itself and non-repeatable measurement posture. Tsuruki does not disclose or suggest the concept of "non-contact indirect stabilization".”
In response the examiner respectfully asserts that the elbow region and the wrist region of Tsuruki are both fixed to stabilize the measurement region (test area A). The claims do not require non-contact indirect stabilization by fixing A to stabilize B, therefore Tsuruki reads on the amended limitation by providing fixing belts that limit a change in position change of the measurement region.
The Applicant asserts on pages 20-21 of the Response:
“Riddler does not disclose positioning a positioning portion via a positioning apparatus to non-contact indirectly stabilize the measurement region. In Riddler, the measurement region (forearm underside) precisely needs intimate contact with the sampling head, which is completely contrary to the present application's design philosophy of "reducing contact with the measurement region". Riddler's fixation of fingers and elbow is merely a common ergonomic support method, without recognition of its effect on stabilizing the state and posture of the distant measurement region. Riddler teaches "the measurement region needs contact with the sampling device", while the present application teaches "the measurement region should have reduced contact with the positioning apparatus". Combining these opposing design philosophies would be non-obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Both Tsuruki and Riddler are limited to the paradigm of "how to more accurately and stably perform contact-based measurement or sampling on the measurement region". They completely fail to recognize the existence of the technical problem-"the lack of high-precision repeatability of the measurement region's state and measurement posture across multiple measurements"-and naturally provide no teaching or motivation towards solving it via "non-contact indirect stabilization" meeting a "quantified precision standard".”
In response the examiner respectfully asserts that the claims do not require non-contact indirect stabilization by fixing A to stabilize B, therefore Tsuruki reads on the amended limitation by providing fixing belts that limit a change in position change of the measurement region and Tsuruki can be combined with Riddler to teach independent claim 13.
Specification
Content of Specification
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT: See MPEP § 310.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. See 37 CFR 1.71(g).
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM: The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and MPEP § 608.05. See also the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System posted on the USPTO website (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) and MPEP § 502.05
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 37 CFR 1.77.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.”
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.”
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE: See 37 CFR 1.72 (b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING: See 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 and MPEP §§ 2421 - 2431. The requirement for a sequence listing applies to all sequences disclosed in a given application, whether the sequences are claimed or not. See MPEP § 2422.01.
The specification is currently missing reference to the foreign priority application in the (b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS:
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 23-25 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.
Regarding claims 23-25, claims 23-25 claim an electronic device, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer programs stored thereon and a non-transitory computer program product each being configured to implement the method according to claim 1. However claim 1 recites “positioning the positioning portion to position the measurement region and ensure that a measurement posture meets a predetermined condition” and “positioning the positioning portion through a positioning apparatus to position the measurement region and ensure that the measurement posture meets the predetermined condition”. The specification discloses the positioning portion and measurement regions are parts of the human body such as the hand, arm, or head. The specification does not disclose any moving parts that are controlled for the positioning apparatus to be positioned. Therefore the positioning portion (hand, arm , or head) being positioned through a positioning apparatus would be performed by the subject by positioning their hand, arm, or head through the positioning apparatus. Therefore it is unclear how a processor would perform the method step of positioning the positioning portion. For examination purposes the claims will be interpreted as “implement a method comprising: acquiring a measurement region of an object; and determining a positioning portion of the object according to the measurement region.”
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.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuruki (JP2007259960A).
Regarding claim 1, Tsuruki discloses a positioning method ([0009] – “a positioning unit that positions the elbow joint of the subject relative to a pedestal”), comprising:
determining a measurement region of an object ([0060] – “a processing unit such as a computer can calculate the position of the test area”);
determining a positioning portion of the object according to the measurement region ([0060] – “when the wrist position is identified in some way, a processing unit such as a computer can calculate the position of the test area corresponding to the input wrist position information”); and
positioning the positioning portion to position the measurement region and ensure that a measurement posture meets a predetermined condition ([0051] – “it is possible to present the test area A, which is a suitable attachment area for the probe 10 that is determined based on the wrist position P and the elbow joint position Q, so that the operator can easily recognize the suitable attachment position of the probe 10, and it is possible to reduce fluctuations in measurement values due to variations in the attachment state and attachment position depending on the operator”),
wherein the positioning the positioning portion to position the measurement region and ensure that a measurement posture meets a predetermined condition comprises: positioning the positioning portion through a positioning apparatus to position the measurement region and ensure that the measurement posture meets the predetermined condition (Figs. 1 and 2, [0051] – “it is possible to present the test area A, which is a suitable attachment area for the probe 10 that is determined based on the wrist position P and the elbow joint position Q, so that the operator can easily recognize the suitable attachment position of the probe 10, and it is possible to reduce fluctuations in measurement values due to variations in the attachment state and attachment position depending on the operator”, [0022] – “hold the arm 100 with the fixing belts 2c, 3c, 4”).
Tsuruki does not explicitly teach wherein the measurement posture meeting the predetermined condition comprises: after each positioning is completed, a change of a relative position of skin tissues in the measurement region is within a predetermined position change range; However Tsuruki teaches fixing belts 2c and 3c to restrict movement of the arm therefore one with ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that after positioning is complete the fixing belts would limit a change of a relative position of skin tissues in the measurement region to be within a predetermined position change range depending on the material, thickness and tightness of the fixing belts. One would have motivation because it “provide an arm support stand for non-invasive body component measurement that can further reduce measurement errors caused by variations in the subject's body movements” (Tsuruki – [0008]).
Regarding claim 2, Tsuruki discloses all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Tsuruki further discloses wherein the determining a positioning portion of the object according to the measurement region comprises: determining the positioning portion of the object according to a tissue structure relative position of the object, a feature condition of the object and the measurement region of the object ([0023] – “wrist position P) is used as the reference position, the test area A can be identified as an area whose longitudinal distance from the reference position is a predetermined ratio to the length of the forearm 101 (i.e., the distance between wrist position P and elbow joint position Q)”, [0041] – “the region where X is 45% or less, i.e., the region from approximately the center of the forearm 101 toward the wrist, has many tendons and is less affected by muscle movements associated with changes in position, and that when the region gets too close to wrist position P (region where X is less than 25%), slight movements of the palm move the wrist joint, causing wrinkles on the skin surface and the like, resulting in larger fluctuations in contact pressure” paragraph [0041] is referring to Fig. 6b and the positions for the test region).
Regarding claim 4, Tsuruki discloses all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Tsuruki further discloses wherein the positioning apparatus comprises a supporting part ([0015] – “an arm support base”) and a positioning part ([0016] – “the recess 1c corresponds to the positioning portion”); and a relationship between the positioning part and the supporting part satisfies at least one of: the positioning part being arranged on the supporting part; the positioning part being connected to the supporting part; and the positioning part being embedded in the supporting part (Figs. 1 and 2 – recess 1c); and
wherein the positioning the positioning portion through the positioning apparatus to position the measurement region and ensure that the measurement posture meets the predetermined condition (Figs. 1 and 2, [0051] – “it is possible to present the test area A, which is a suitable attachment area for the probe 10 that is determined based on the wrist position P and the elbow joint position Q, so that the operator can easily recognize the suitable attachment position of the probe 10, and it is possible to reduce fluctuations in measurement values due to variations in the attachment state and attachment position depending on the operator”, [0022] – “hold the arm 100 with the fixing belts 2c, 3c, 4”) comprises:
carrying the measurement region and/or the positioning portion through the supporting part (Figs. 1 and 2 show test region A [measurement region] as well as the wrist and elbow being carried through the support base 1); and
positioning the positioning portion through the positioning part to position the measurement region and ensure that the measurement posture meets the predetermined condition (Figs. 1 and 2, [0051] – “it is possible to present the test area A, which is a suitable attachment area for the probe 10 that is determined based on the wrist position P and the elbow joint position Q, so that the operator can easily recognize the suitable attachment position of the probe 10, and it is possible to reduce fluctuations in measurement values due to variations in the attachment state and attachment position depending on the operator”, [0022] – “hold the arm 100 with the fixing belts 2c, 3c, 4”).
Regarding claim 23, Tsuruki further discloses an electronic device ([0034] – “a personal computer”), comprising: one or more processors ([0060] – “a processing unit such as a computer”); a memory configured to store one or more programs ([0034] – “a personal computer”); wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement the method according to claim 1 ([0060] – “a computer can calculate the position of the test area corresponding to the input wrist position information”).
Regarding claim 24, Tsuruki further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer programs stored thereon, wherein the programs, when executed by a processor, implement the method according to claim 1 ([0060] – “a processing unit such as a computer can calculate the position of the test area corresponding to the input wrist position information”).
Regarding claim 25, Tsuruki further discloses a non-transitory computer program product comprising computer programs, wherein the computer programs, when executed by a processor, implement the method according to claim 1 ([0060] – “a processing unit such as a computer can calculate the position of the test area corresponding to the input wrist position information”).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuruki (JP2007259960A) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Riddler (US20050261560).
Regarding claim 5, Tsuruki discloses all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 1 and 4.
Conversely Tsuruki does not teach wherein the supporting part comprises a hollow region corresponding to the measurement region.
However Riddler discloses wherein the supporting part comprises a hollow region corresponding to the measurement region (Fig. 10, [0074] – “The ergonomic cradle 210 includes a base 221 having an opening 223 therethrough. The opening receives the sample head 216 to position the sampling surface 204 generally coplanar with an upper surface 225 of the base 221”).
The disclosure of Riddler is an analogous art considering it is in the field of a positioning device to take measurements from the forearm.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Tsuruki to incorporate the hollow region of Riddler to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it would eliminate the need to attach a measurement probe to the body and therefore would save time and make the process more comfortable for the patient.
Regarding claim 6, Tsuruki discloses all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 1 and 4.
Tsuruki further discloses wherein the positioning part comprises […] an elbow joint part configured to position an elbow joint ([0016] – “the elbow joint 103 is placed against the recess 1c”); and the positioning part is arranged on the supporting part or embedded in the supporting part (Figs. 1 and 2);
wherein the measurement region comprises an arm region (Figs. 1 and 2 show test region A as being on the arm); and
the positioning portion comprises the elbow joint ([0016] – “the elbow joint 103 is placed against the recess 1c”), […]; and
wherein the carrying the measurement region and/or the positioning portion through the supporting part comprises: carrying the measurement region and the positioning portion through the supporting part (Figs. 1 and 2 show the test region A and the elbow being carried through the support 1);
Conversely Tsuruki does not teach wherein the positioning part comprises a knuckle part configured to position at least one of a little finger, a ring finger, a middle finger and an index finger and the positioning portion comprises the […] at least one of the little finger, the ring finger, the middle finger and the index finger;
However Riddler discloses wherein the positioning part comprises a knuckle part configured to position at least one of a little finger, a ring finger, a middle finger and an index finger ([0075] – “The adjustable hand rest 224 is designed to hold the fingers”) and the positioning portion comprises the […] at least one of the little finger, the ring finger, the middle finger and the index finger ([0075] – “The adjustable hand rest 224 is designed to hold the fingers”);
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Tsuruki to incorporate the knuckle positioning part of Riddler to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it “the adjustable hand rest 224 is designed to hold the fingers in a relaxed manner” (Riddler [0075]), therefore it allows the user to be comfortable.
Claims 13-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riddler (US20050261560) and further in view of Tsuruki (JP2007259960A).
Regarding claim 13, Riddler discloses a positioning apparatus ([0031] – “FIG. 10 is a perspective view of an ergonomic apparatus for holding the sampling surface and positioning a tissue surface thereon”)), comprising a supporting part ([0074] – “The ergonomic cradle 210 includes a base 221”) and a positioning part ([0074] – “The ergonomic cradle 210 references the elbow and upper arm of the subject via a bracket 222 in conjunction with a float-to-fit handgrip 224”, wherein a relationship between the positioning part and the supporting part satisfies at least one of: the positioning part being arranged on the supporting part; the positioning part being connected to the supporting part; and the positioning part being embedded in the supporting part (Fig. 10);
wherein the supporting part is configured to carry a measurement region and/or a positioning portion of an object (Fig. 10, “In the case of sampling the underside of the forearm, an ergonomic cradle design can encourage good contact with the sampling interface. The ergonomic cradle 210 includes a base 221 having an opening 223 therethrough”); and
wherein the positioning part is configured to position the positioning portion to position the measurement region and ensure that a measurement posture meets a predetermined condition ([0074] – “The ergonomic cradle 210 references the elbow and upper arm of the subject via a bracket 222 in conjunction with a float-to-fit handgrip 224 to accurately position the forearm on the tissue sampling interface”).
Conversely Riddler does not teach wherein the measurement posture meeting the predetermined condition comprises: after each positioning is completed, a change of a relative position of skin tissues in the measurement region is within a predetermined position change range.
However Tsuruki discloses wherein the measurement posture meeting the predetermined condition comprises: after each positioning is completed, a change of a relative position of skin tissues in the measurement region is within a predetermined position change range (fixing belts 2c and 3c to restrict movement of the arm therefore one with ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that after positioning is complete the fixing belts would limit a change of a relative position of skin tissues in the measurement region to be within a predetermined position change range depending on the material, thickness and tightness of the fixing belts).
The disclosure of Tsuruki is an analogous art considering it is in the field of a positioning device to take measurements from the forearm.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Riddler to incorporate the change of a relative position of skin tissues in the measurement region being within a predetermined position change range of Tsuruki to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it “provide an arm support stand for non-invasive body component measurement that can further reduce measurement errors caused by variations in the subject's body movements” (Tsuruki – [0008]).
Regarding claim 14, Riddler and Tsuruki disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 13.
Riddler further discloses wherein the supporting part comprises a hollow region corresponding to the measurement region (Fig. 10, [0074] – “The ergonomic cradle 210 includes a base 221 having an opening 223 therethrough. The opening receives the sample head 216 to position the sampling surface 204 generally coplanar with an upper surface 225 of the base 221”).
Regarding claim 15, Riddler and Tsuruki disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 13 and 14.
Riddler further discloses wherein a positional relationship between the positioning portion and the measurement region meets a predetermined tissue structure relative position ([0074] – “The ergonomic cradle 210 references the elbow and upper arm of the subject via a bracket 222 in conjunction with a float-to-fit handgrip 224 to accurately position the forearm on the tissue sampling interface. Sampling error can result from improper sampling interface design.”).
Regarding claim 18, Riddler and Tsuruki disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 13.
Riddler further discloses wherein the positioning part comprises a knuckle part configured to position at least one of a little finger, a ring finger, a middle finger and an index finger ([0075] – “The adjustable hand rest 224 is designed to hold the fingers”) and an elbow joint part configured to position an elbow joint ([0075] – “The bracket 222 forms an elbow rest”); and the positioning part is arranged on the supporting part or embedded in the supporting part (Fig. 10);
wherein the measurement region is an arm region ([0074] – “In the case of sampling the underside of the forearm”), and the positioning portion comprises the elbow joint ([0075] – “The bracket 222 forms an elbow rest”), and at least one of the little finger, the ring finger, the middle finger and the index finger ([0075] – “The adjustable hand rest 224 is designed to hold the fingers”); and
wherein the supporting part is configured to carry the measurement region and the positioning portion (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 19, Riddler and Tsuruki disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 13 and 18.
Riddler further discloses wherein the arm region comprises a forearm extensor side (Fig. 10, [0074] – “A preferred ergonomic apparatus 210 is depicted in FIG. 10. In the case of sampling the underside of the forearm”); and the positioning portion comprises the little finger, the ring finger, the middle finger, the index finger (Fig. 10, [0075] – “The adjustable hand rest 224 is designed to hold the fingers”) and the elbow joint ([0075] – “The bracket 222 forms an elbow rest”).
Regarding claim 20, Riddler and Tsuruki disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 13, 18 and 19.
Conversely Riddler does not teach wherein the arm region comprises a forearm extensor side; and the positioning portion comprises the little finger, the ring finger, the middle finger, the index finger and the elbow joint.
However Tsuruki discloses wherein the positioning part further comprises a carpus part configured to position a carpus ([0018] – “fixing belt 2c on the wrist side”); and the positioning portion further comprises the carpus (Figs. 1 and 2, [0018] – “fixing belt 2c on the wrist side”, [0009] – “arm fixing means that fixes the elbow joint and wrist of the subject's arm”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Riddler to incorporate the carpus as a positioning part and positioning portion of Tsuruki to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it “provide an arm support stand for non-invasive body component measurement that can further reduce measurement errors caused by variations in the subject's body movements” (Tsuruki – [0008]).
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 RENEE C LANGHALS whose telephone number is (571)272-6258. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Thurs. alternate Fridays 8:30-6.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at 571-272-7230. 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.
/R.C.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/CHRISTOPHER KOHARSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights