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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in regards to application # 18/198,817 that was filed on 05/17/2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are under examination.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The title “ARTICLES AND METHODS FOR OSTEOMETRIC MEASUREMENT” seem to be claiming a ‘method’ but none of the claims are method claims.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the submitted photographic drawings are not clearly visible. A new ‘wire frame’ drawings are required for proper understanding of the claimed subject matter.. 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.
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 4, 9-11, 13, 15-16, and 18-19 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 4 recites the limitation "the laser" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claims 9 and 10, it is not clear what “a reflection target’ with at least 73% and 88% reflectivity mean? Is the applicant claiming a reflectivity value that is not necessarily achieved since it is claimed as a’ reflection target? The claimed reflectivity range values do not seem to be positively claimed. The claims are considered vague and indefinite. Appropriate correction/clarification required.
The term “about” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It’s not clear how close the measurements have to be the upper and lower limits of the claimed distance measurements.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the flat surface" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. (for the purpose of examination, the examiner assumes claim 13 depends from claim 12 where a flat surface is first introduced).
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the clamp mechanism" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. (for the purpose of examination, the examiner assumes claim 15 depends from claim 13 where a clamp mechanism is first introduced).
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the clamp device" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 16, it is not clear if the “at least one panel” being claimed is referring to the first or the second panels recited in claim 1 or it is referring to a different new panel being claimed. Therefore, the claim is considered indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the examiner assumes the at least one panel in claim 16 is referring to the panels recited in claim 1. Appropriate correction/clarification required.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the sensor" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. (for the purpose of examination, the examiner assumes claim 18 depends from claim 17 where a sensor is first introduced).
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the dice" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-12, 14, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paleo Tech Concepts Spring Catalog (referred herein after as Paleo) in view of Jones (US 9,658,333).
Regarding Claim 1, Paleo discloses an osteometric measuring device (page 16) comprising:
a first panel (see Fig. below, page 16);
a second panel movably positioned with respect to the first panel (see Fig. below, page 16); and a distance measurement device to calculate the distance from the first panel to the second(see Fig. below, page 16).
Paleo is silent, but Jones teaches a light emitting device (37, Fig. 3) arranged and disposed in the first panel (42, Fig. 3) to measure distance by time-of-flight (col. 2, line 62-67); wherein the light is emitted from the first panel, reflected off of the second panel (a panel holding 24, Fig. 3; col. 2, lines 62-67), and received by the first and measured to calculate the distance from the first panel to the second (i.e. height/distance, col. 2, lines 62-67; Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
910
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distance measurement device of the osteometric measuring device disclosed in Paleo with the light emitting device to measure distance by time-of-flight taught in Jones with a reasonable expectation of success because it minimizes data collection errors, increases reliability, as well as simplify and maintain calibration.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Paleo discloses an osteometric measuring device (page 16) wherein the light emitting device includes a laser transmitter and laser sensor (37 with ‘sensor’ bracket 42 clearly have a sensor).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Paleo discloses an osteometric measuring device (page 16) wherein the laser transmitter and the laser sensor are positioned in the first panel (42, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 5 , broadly interpreted, modified Paleo discloses an osteometric measuring device (page 16) wherein the first panel includes a sliding feature (15 is retractable, Fig. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 6 , broadly interpreted, modified Paleo discloses an osteometric measuring device (page 16) wherein the second panel (a panel 24, Fig. 1-3) is coupled to the sliding feature.
Regarding Claim 7 , broadly interpreted, modified Paleo discloses an osteometric measuring device (page 16) wherein there is an object snugly placed between the first and second panel (object, Paleo; see Fig. above, page 16).
Regarding Claim 8 , broadly interpreted, modified Paleo discloses an osteometric measuring device (page 16) wherein the object is a bone (object, Paleo; see Fig. above, page 16).
Regarding Claim 9-10, modified Paleo discloses an osteometric measuring device (page 16) with the second panel (a panel 24, Fig. 1-3) has a reflection target (claim 2, “…sensor outputs a plurality of distance measurements by interpreting a corresponding plurality of reflection signals reflected off of said slider tab on said foot platform”).
Modified Paleo discloses the claimed invention except the second panel has a reflection target with at least 73% and 88% reflectivity. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the second panel have a reflection target with at least 73% and 88% reflectivity, since applicant has not disclosed that having the second panel a reflection target with at least 73% and 88% reflectivity solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the second panel reflectivity disclosed in modified Paleo.
Regarding Claim 11 , modified Paleo discloses an osteometric measuring device (page 16) wherein the measured distance between the first panel and the second panel(see Fig. below, page 16) is from about 0.03 m to about 2 m (clearly the distance measurement device of Paleo as well as the time-of-flight optical measurement device of modified Paleo are clearly capable of measuring a distance of about 0.03 m to about 2 m; see measurement in Fig. 5, Fig. 6 in Jones).
Regarding Claim 12 , broadly interpreted, modified Paleo discloses an osteometric measuring device (page 16) wherein the first and second panel are secured to a flat surface (Paleo; see Fig. above, page 16).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Paleo is silent, but Jones further teaches a display (30, Fig. 2) to inform the user of the distance between the first and second panel (claim 1, ‘….screen display displays the measured height of said one or more objects.’).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first panel of the osteometric measuring device disclosed in the modified Paleo with the display taught in Jones with a reasonable expectation of success because it displays the measured length of said objects to the user.
Regarding Claim 17 , broadly interpreted, modified Paleo discloses an osteometric measuring device (page 16) wherein the first panel (see Fig. above, page 16) receives the reflected light with a sensor (37 with ‘sensor’ bracket 42 clearly have a sensor).
Regarding Claim 19 , broadly interpreted, modified Paleo discloses an osteometric measuring device (page 16) wherein the first and second panels(see Fig. above, page 16) attached to one another for storage and transportation (page 16).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Paleo Tech Concepts Spring Catalog (referred herein after as Paleo) in further view of Zojceski et al. (US 2021/0253019).
Regarding Claim 4 , modified Paleo discloses an osteometric measuring device (page 16) wherein the laser is a laser (25, Fig. 3). Zojceski in the field of time-of-flight measurement teaches a use of red laser for time-of flight measurement (para. [0005])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the laser of the osteometric measuring device disclosed in the modified Paleo with the red laser as taught Zojceski with a reasonable expectation of success because it allows for stable and reliable measurements as well as versatile surface compatibility.
Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Paleo Tech Concepts Spring Catalog (referred herein after as Paleo).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Paleo discloses an osteometric measuring device (page 16), but lacks to disclose the first and second panels are secured to the flat surface with a clamp mechanism. Modified Paleo on another embodiment teaches an osteometric measuring device (page 10) wherein the first and second panels are secured to the flat surface with a clamp mechanism (clamp mechanism for holding the first and second panels in place, see Fig. below, page 10).
PNG
media_image2.png
274
455
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the osteometric measuring device disclosed in the modified Paleo with the clamping mechanism device taught in another embodiment of Paleo with a reasonable expectation of success because it allows to prevent wabbling and accidental movement of the first and second panels during measurement to improve accuracy and precision of the measurements.
Regarding Claim 15 , broadly interpreted, modified Paleo discloses an osteometric measuring device (page 16) wherein the clamp mechanism includes a clamp screw, a sliding bar screw, and a sliding bar (see Fig. above under claim 13, page 10).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Paleo Tech Concepts Spring Catalog (referred herein after as Paleo) in further view of Chao (US 2002/0179473).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Paleo discloses an osteometric measuring device (page 16), but lacks to disclose a housing to store the clamp device. Chao in the field of tool storage teaches a panel (12 or 12, Fig. 4) having a housing (the space inside the 11 and 12 holding the bits and sockets, Fig. 4) to store the tools/bits.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the first/second panel of the osteometric measuring device disclosed in the modified Paleo with the housing as taught Chao with a reasonable expectation of success because it allows to securely hold/store the clamp mechanism in the modified Paleo.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Paleo Tech Concepts Spring Catalog (referred herein after as Paleo) in further view of Sawada et al. (doc. “Integrated micro-displacement sensor that can measure tilting or linear motion for an external mirror”).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Paleo is silent, but Sawada in the same area of optical distance measurement teaches a displacement sensor where the sensor (‘monitoring photodiode’, Fig. 1) includes a mirror(col. 1, page 52, “…A convex-shaped polyimide surface coated with a reflective Au film is formed on the top surface of the cover glass…”). and a light sensor below the mirror (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the sensor of the osteometric measuring device disclosed in the modified Paleo with the sensor including a mirror and a light source below the mirror as taught Sawada with a reasonable expectation of success because it allows ensures sensor receives a clean reflection improving signal and measurement quality as well as protect the sensor from the undesirable external elements like dust, moisture etc.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Paleo Tech Concepts Spring Catalog (referred herein after as Paleo) in further view of Renninger et al. (doc. “Understanding Damping Techniques for Noise and Vibration Control”).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Paleo is silent, but Renninger in the same area of stabilization and vibration control teaches engaging a flexible mat for vibration isolation and structural damping (col. 1, page 3, “…Of the common damping materials in use, many are viscoelastic;…. Several types are available in sheet form. Some are adhesive in nature and others are enamel-like for use at high temperatures…”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the first and second panels of the osteometric measuring device disclosed in the modified Paleo with the flexible mat (viscoelastic sheets) taught Renninger with a reasonable expectation of success because it allows to vibration and disturbance and in turn help stabilization of measurement and alignment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (see attached PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
Assres H. Woldemaryam
Primary Examiner (Aeronautics and Astronautics)
Art Unit 3642
/ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642