DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s arguments, see "Remarks", pages 7-8, filed October 16, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections regarding the use of “significant” and “substantially” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Additionally, Applicant’s amendments to claims 31, 34, and 35 resolve the rejections of antecedent basis regarding “a processor” for claims 31-35.
The 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections of July 16, 2025 have been withdrawn.
3. Applicant’s arguments, see "Remarks", page-9, filed October 16, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 20-22, 30-31, 33, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and with respect to the have been fully considered and are persuasive. The newly amended claim limitations overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection in view of Bronner (WO2019109119A1; cited in prior PTO-892). Namely, Bronner does not teach the use of a plurality of stretchable waveguides (claims 20-22, 30-31, and 33), nor does Bronner teach a method for measuring a plurality of length dimensions of a region of a user’s body (claim 36). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. §103, as described below.
4. Applicant's arguments, see "Remarks", pages 8-12, filed October 16, 2025, with respect to rejections of claims 23-29, 32, and 34-35 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant's arguments to the rejections of claims 23-28 under 35 U.S.C. §103 in view of Bronner in view of Connor (US20160338644A1; cited in prior PTO-892):
In response to applicant's argument that Bronner fails to disclose "a device for measuring a plurality of length dimensions of a region of a user's body", a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Namely, Bronner’s device could be used to measure a multitude of length dimensions of a region of a user’s body, limb, or foot.
Further, Applicant argues that Connor has no relevance to measuring any dimensions of a user (pages 9-11). Examiner would draw Applicant’s attention to para. [0320]-[0324] where Connor describes measuring a plurality of lengths of a limb of a human body [shown in Fig. 11] and comparing the lengths in order to measure body joint configuration.
Further, Applicant argues that Connor is not specific as to “none of the considered sensors relate to measuring time-of-flight of a light pulse” as required by amended claim 20. Examiner would clarify that amended claim 20 reads “each waveguide associated with a respective sensor, wherein each sensor comprises a light emitter arranged and operable to emit at least one light pulse through the associated waveguide, and a light detector arranged to receive the at least one light pulse conveyed through the waveguide, each sensor is operable to measure a time period between emitting and receiving a light pulse” (interpreting Applicant’s statement of “time-of-flight” to mean “a time period between emitting and receiving a light pulse”). Additionally, Examiner would argue that although Connor is not explicit to measuring the time period between emitting a receiving a light pulse, Connor describes the use of a light energy sensor, and an optical bend enhanced fiber to encompass an energy pathway – otherwise, an elongate stretchable waveguide – and the measurement of a time period between emitting a receiving a light pulse via a sensor associated with an aforementioned waveguide was an obvious, well-known engineering practice as disclosed in the prior art acknowledged by Connor {para. [0073]}.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments to the rejections of claims 29 and 34-35 under 35 U.S.C. §103 in view of Bronner in view of Connor in further view of Maezawa (CA3048594A1; provided in prior PTO-892) as well as claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. §103 in view of Bronner in view of Maezawa:
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references (“Remarks”, pages 11-12). See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
5. Claims 20-28, 30-31, 33, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bronner in view of Connor.
In regard to claim 20, Bronner teaches a device for measuring at least one length dimension, [device for measuring trees], the device comprising: at least one body {band} having at least a portion configured to be extendable and arranged along, or around, an object {band has at least one stretchable section para. [0006]}, the at least one body carrying a stretchable waveguide, the waveguide configured to elastically stretch along its length, the at least one body connected to the waveguide to cause stretching of the waveguide along their length when the body and the at least one body and the waveguide are tensioned along, or around, an object {para. [0006] describes the waveguide stretching along the band and by extension the length of the tree}; the waveguide associated with a respective sensor, wherein the sensor comprises a light emitter arranged and operable to emit at least one light pulse through the associated waveguide, and a light detector arranged to receive the at least one light pulse conveyed through the waveguide, the sensor is operable to measure a time period between emitting and receiving a light pulse {para. [0005]-[0008] describe an optical measuring device comprised of a light source, a light detector, and the measurement of time between light waves}; and a communication module communicatively coupled with the sensor and configured to communicate measured time period data from the sensor to a processor to cause determining a length dimension based on the measured time period data {para. [0011] describes a communication unit for transmitting data to be evaluated at a remote location, para. [0005] describes calculating the change in time interval into length}. Bronner does not teach the use of a plurality of waveguides and associated sensors to measure a plurality of length dimensions. Additionally, Bronner is not specific as to the device measuring a region of a user’s body – however, as previously discussed, Bronner’s device could be used to measure a multitude of length dimensions of a region of a user’s body, limb, or foot, and doing so would have been an obvious application of the device.
However, Connor also teaches a device for measuring [smart clothing] a plurality of length dimensions of a user’s body by using a plurality of waveguides and sensors {para. [0320]-[0324] describes measuring a plurality of lengths of a limb of a human body}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Connor’s use of multiple waveguides and associated with Bronner’s measuring device in order to better capture ambulatory motion of a body joint, as described by Connor {para. [0323]-[0324]}.
In regard to claim 21, Bronner further teaches wherein each waveguide is configured as an elongate stretchable fiber and arranged to extend at least partway along the associated body {para. [0006] describes the light guide stretching around the tree}.
In regard to claim 22, Bronner further teaches wherein each waveguide is arranged in a loop to extend partway along the associated body in a first direction and partway along the body in a second, opposed direction, such that the loop defines a pair of parallel portions {shown in Fig. 1 & 2}.
In regard to claim 23, Bronner in view of Connor teaches the device of claim 20.
Bronner does not teach wherein the device is configured to measure at least one length dimension of a limb of a user, or wherein the at least one body is configured as an elongate strap securable relative to the limb to extend along, or around, the limb.
However, Connor teaches wherein the device is configured to measure at least one length dimension of a limb of a user {para. [0185] describes measuring bending, stretching, elongation and twisting of a body member using a sensor with a light energy sensor, and an optical bend enhanced fiber to encompass an energy pathway}, wherein the at least one body is configured as an elongate strap securable relative to the limb to extend along, or around, the limb {para. [0187] describes using these energy pathways in an array for a variety of garment types, to include straps, and para. [0189] describes a variety of limbs the array can be used on}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized Bronner’s waveguide measuring device for Connor’s device designed for measuring limbs using straps and energy pathways with light energy sensors in order to more accurately measure human anatomy using non-intrusive methods, as taught by Connor {para. [0078]-[0079]}.
In regard to claim 24, Bronner in view of Connor teaches the device of claim 23.
Bronner does not teach a plurality of the straps and respective associated waveguides and sensors, wherein the straps are arranged such that securing each strap relative to the limb allows the communication module to communicate the measurement data from each sensor to the processor to cause the processor to determine a plurality of length dimensions of the limb.
However, Connor teaches a plurality of the straps and respective associated waveguides and sensors {para. [0211] describes first energy pathway 1036 and second energy pathway 1035}, wherein the straps are arranged such that securing each strap relative to the limb allows the communication module to communicate the measurement data from each sensor to the processor to cause the processor to determine a plurality of length dimensions of the limb {para. [0211] describes the energy pathways in communication with sensor data control unit 1039, para. [0237] describes sensor data control unit in wireless communication with wrist-worn component 1051, and para. [0236] describes the wrist-worn component 1051 as having data control units for processing data}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized Bronner’s waveguide measuring device for Connor’s limb measuring device that communicates measurement data from a sensor data control unit to a data control unit for determining length in order to more accurately measure human anatomy using non-intrusive methods, as taught by Connor {para. [0078]-[0079]}.
In regard to claim 25, Bronner further teaches wherein at least one strap comprises an extendable portion and an inextensible portion, and wherein the associated waveguide is arranged to extend at least partway along the extendable portion {para. [0025] describes the first stretchable section and a non-stretchable section}.
In regard to claim 26, Bronner in view of Connor teaches the device of claim 24.
Bronner does not teach a spine, and wherein the straps are arranged to be spaced along the spine, and each strap extend away from the spine.
However, Connor teaches a spine [proximal attachment band 8006], and wherein the straps [first energy pathway 8001, others shown in Fig. 8] are arranged to be spaced along the spine, and each strap extend away from the spine [shown in Fig. 8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized Bronner’s waveguide measuring device for Connor’s limb measuring device that comprises a spine and straps that extend away from the spine in order to more accurately measure a range of motion of a joint of a limb, as taught by Connor {para. [0305]}.
In regard to claim 27, Bronner in view of Connor teaches the device of claim 26.
Bronner does not teach wherein the spine defines a longitudinal axis, and at least one of the straps is arranged to extend transversely to the axis, and at least one of the straps is arranged to extend parallel to the axis.
Connor teaches wherein the spine defines a longitudinal axis [shown in Fig. 8], and at least one of the straps is arranged to extend transversely to the axis [first energy pathway 8001], and at least one of the straps is arranged to extend parallel to the axis [second energy pathway 8002].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized Bronner’s waveguide measuring device for Connor’s limb measuring device that comprises a spine and straps that extend transversely away from and parallel to the spine in order to more accurately measure a range of motion of a joint of a limb in two directions, as taught by Connor {para. [0305]}.
In regard to claim 28, Bronner in view of Connor teaches the device of claim 24.
Bronner does not teach a device configured to receive a foot of a user, and the straps are dimensioned such that fitting the device to the foot causes each strap to be deformed by the foot to stretch each waveguide.
However, Connor teaches a device configured to receive a foot of a user, and the straps are dimensioned such that fitting the device to the foot causes each strap to be deformed by the foot to stretch each waveguide {para. [0188]-[0190] describes that the device can span the surface of a body member containing the ankle, mid-tarsal, and toe to measure several different configurations of the foot}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized Bronner’s waveguide measuring device for Connor’s limb measuring device for use on a foot in order to accurately capture body configuration such as orthotic fitting using non-intrusive means, as taught by Connor {para. [0005]}.
In regard to claim 30, Bronner further teaches a waveguide that is manipulable to allow defining a non-linear path for the at least one light pulse {Fig. 2 shows the device reading a circumference}.
In regard to claim 31, Bronner further teaches a system for determining a plurality of length dimensions, the system comprising: wherein the processor configured to determine the plurality of length dimensions based on the measured time period data, and wherein the processor is configured such that, responsive to receiving measured time period data from the communication module, the processor determines a length of each waveguide, and, responsive to determining the length of each waveguide, the processor determines the plurality of length dimensions {para. [0011] describes data being transmitted to another device to evaluate data, para. [0005] describes calculating the length dimensions}.
Bronner is not specific as to a system for measuring a region of a user’s body – however, as previously discussed, Bronner’s device could be used to measure a multitude of length dimensions of a region of a user’s body, limb, or foot, and doing so would have been an obvious application of the system.
In regard to claim 33, Bronner further teaches wherein the processor is hosted remotely from the device, and wherein the communication module is configured to wirelessly communicate with the processor {para. [0006] describes wireless communications}.
In regard to claim 36, Bronner teaches a method for measuring at least one length dimension of an object [method for measuring trees], the method comprising: arranging an elongate elastically stretchable waveguide along, or around, the object such that the waveguide is substantially stretched along its length {para. [0006] describes the waveguide stretching along the band and by extension the length of the tree}, the waveguide associated with a sensor including a light emitter arranged and operable to emit at least one light pulse through each waveguide, and a light detector arranged to receive the at least one light pulse conveyed through the waveguide, the sensor operable to measure a time period between emitting and receiving a light pulse {para. [0005]-[0008] describe an optical measuring device comprised of a light source, a light detector, and the measurement of time between light waves}; operating the sensor to cause a light pulse to be emitted by the emitter, travel through the waveguide, and be received by the detector, to generate time period measurement data {para. [0005] describes calculating the change in time interval into length}; and communicating the time period measurement data to a processor, causing the processor to determine the at least one length dimension based on the time period measurement data {para. [0011] describes a communication unit for transmitting data to be evaluated at a remote location}.
Bronner does not teach the use of a plurality of elongate elastically stretchable waveguides, nor does Bronner teach a method for measuring a plurality of length dimensions of region of a user's body.
However, Connor teaches a method of measuring a plurality of length dimensions of a user’s body by using a plurality of waveguides and sensors {para. [0320]-[0324] describes measuring a plurality of lengths of a limb of a human body}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Connor’s use of multiple waveguides and associated with Bronner’s measuring device in order to better capture ambulatory motion of a body joint, as described by Connor {para. [0323]-[0324]}.
6. Claims 29, 32, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bronner in view of Connor as applied to claims 20-28, 30-31, 33, and 36 above, and further in view of Maezawa.
In regard to claim 29, Bronner in view of Connor teaches the device of claim 28.
Bronner in view of Connor does not teach wherein the straps are arranged to allow operating the sensors to cause the processor to determine at least two of the following dimensions defined by the foot: foot length; ball girth; instep girth; and heel girth.
However, Maezawa teaches a device wherein the straps {expansion-type measuring sensors 1521-1524} are arranged to allow operating the sensors to cause the processor to determine at least two of the following dimensions defined by the foot {para. [0030] - measurement processing part 4}: foot length [fd1]; ball girth {ball circumference - para. [0058]}; instep girth {instep circumference - para. [0058]}; and heel girth {heel circumference - para. [0058]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Bronner in view of Connor’s waveform limb measuring device configured to receive a foot of a user with Maezawa’s device utilizing expansion-type measuring sensors and a measurement processing part to determine foot length – as well as ball, instep, and heel girth – in order to provide a user with their foot size measurements with high precision, as described by Maezawa {para. [0002]-[0007]}.
In regard to claim 32, Bronner in view of Connor teaches the device of claim 31.
Bronner further teaches wherein each sensor is operable to emit a plurality of light pulses and measure a complementary plurality of time periods to cause the measured time periods to be communicated to the processor {para. [0011] describes a communication unit for transmitting data to be evaluated at a remote location, para. [0005] describes calculating the change in time interval into length}.
Bronner in view of Connor does not teach wherein the processor is configured to average a defined plurality of the received measured time periods, and determine the length of each waveguide based on the averaged measured time period.
However, Maezawa teaches a processor that is configured to average a defined plurality of the received measured time periods, and determine the length of each waveguide based on the averaged measured time period {para. [0067] describes averaging the value of one or more measuring sensors for a compensating process}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken Bronner’s system of measuring time periods and incorporate Maezawa’s practice of averaging multiple values of the same measurement taken over a set period of time for the purpose of reducing the likelihood of error in a sensor reading – a known engineering practice described by Maezawa as a compensating process.
In regard to claim 34, Bronner in view of Connor teaches the device according to claim 31.
Bronner further teaches a processor configured to receive a plurality of length dimensions {para. [0011] describes a communication unit for transmitting data to be evaluated at a remote location, para. [0005] describes calculating the change in time interval into length}.
Bronner in view of Conner does not teach wherein the processor is further configured such that, responsive to determining the plurality of length dimensions, the processor determines a garment or size corresponding with the plurality of length dimension.
However, Maezawa teaches a processor that determines a garment or size {para. [0030] describes the measurement processing part 4} corresponding with the plurality of length dimensions {para. [0030] describes the managing server 30 designed to provide information of suitable footwear garments suitable for the user based on the dimensions the body measuring device 10 measures}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Bronner in view of Connor’s waveform limb measuring device and time period measuring processor with Maezawa’s measuring system device utilizing a processor configured to provide a user with a garment size related to at least one length dimension in order to provide a user with their accurate garment size with a high degree of precision, for the purpose of decreasing the likelihood a user orders in the incorrect garment size as described by Maezawa {para. [0002]-[0007]}.
In regard to claim 35, Bronner in view of Connor teaches the device of claim 28.
Bronner further teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine the plurality of length dimensions based on the measured time period data, the processor further configured such that, responsive to receiving the measured data from the communication module, the processor determines a length of each waveguide {para. [0011] describes a communication unit for transmitting data to be evaluated at a remote location, para. [0005] describes calculating the change in time interval into length}.
Bronner in view of Conner does not teach that responsive to determining the length of each waveguide, the processor is configured to determine a plurality of dimensions of the foot of the user, and, responsive to determining the plurality of dimensions, determine a shoe size corresponding with the plurality of dimensions.
However, Maezawa teaches that responsive to determining the length of each waveguide, the processor is configured to determine a plurality of dimensions of the foot of the user {para. [0030] describes the measurement processing part 4, para. [0058] describes using expansion-type measuring sensors 1521-1524 to measure a plurality of dimension of a foot}, and, responsive to determining the plurality of dimensions, determine a shoe size corresponding with the plurality of dimensions {para. [0030] describes a managing server 30 designed to provide information of suitable footwear garments suitable for a user based on the dimensions the body measuring device 10 measures}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Bronner in view of Connor’s waveform limb measuring device configured to receive a foot of a user and time period measuring processor with Maezawa’s measuring system device utilizing a processor configured to provide a user with a garment size related to at least one length dimension in order to provide a user with their accurate garment size with a high degree of precision, for the purpose of decreasing the likelihood a user orders in the incorrect garment size as described by Maezawa {para. [0002]-[0007]}.
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 DANIEL QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-2690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30 PST.
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, JOHN BREENE can be reached at (571)272-4107. 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.
/DANIEL M QUINN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN FITZGERALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855