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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT Group I (claims 1-3, 5-9, 12 , 14 -15, 22-24,27,32-34, 38, 40-43, 45-46, 51, 57-58, 60-64 in the telephonic interview filed on FILLIN "Enter mail date of the reply." \* MERGEFORMAT 12/27/2024 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 72-76 are withdrawn. Drawing Objections The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the FILLIN "Enter features that must be shown" \* MERGEFORMAT first positioning system and second positioning system (relative to the frame , in claims 24 and 27, see 112b rejection below ) , hinged member (claim 32) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 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 Objections Claim s 2-3, 5-9, 12, 14-15, 22-24,27,32-34, 38, 40-43, 45-46, 51, 57-58, 60, 62-64 objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 of claims 2-3, 5-9, 12, 14-15, 22-24,27,32-34, 38, 40-43, 45-46, 51, 57-58, 60, 62-64 . "A carrying case system as defined in claim" is an error for - - "The carrying case as defined in claim" - - . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1 -3, 5-9, 12-15, 22-24,27,32-34, 38, 40-43, 45-46, 51, 57-58, 60 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. The term “ respective inclination angles between the calibration plate and the main body ” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ respective inclination angles between the calibration plate and the main body ” 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. What are the angles in reference to on the main body? The main body is a composed of many surfaces that have different orientations. It is unclear what specific feature of the main body an inclination angle is relative to. To further complicate things, a moveable upper body is later introduced as part of the main body. This introduces more surfaces and angular possibilities depending on the orientation of the upper body relative to the lower body. For the purposes of examination, this claim shall be broadly read such that different surfaces of the main body can be used to acquire different inclination angles. Claims 2-3, 5-9, 12 , 14 -15, 22-24, 27, 32-34, 38, 40-43, 45-46, 51, 57-58 directly or indirectly depend from claim 1 and are also rejected. Claim 32 recites the limitation " the calibration plate " in line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this is a positive recitation of the calibration plate or a recitation with respect to intended function. If not positively recited, there is an issue with statement of calibration plate in later claims such as claim 41. As stated in claim 1, it appears the calibration plate is only discussed with intended function and not positively recited as part of the invention. However, claim 32 positively recites the calibration plate. The term “ FILLIN "Enter the relative term that renders the claim indefinite." \* MERGEFORMAT wherein the positioning system is configured for mounting the protective frame member to the upper body member in the selected one of the plurality of different calibration positions ” in claim FILLIN "Identify the claim." \* MERGEFORMAT 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ FILLIN "Re-enter the relative term that renders the claim indefinite." \* MERGEFORMAT wherein the positioning system is configured for mounting the protective frame member to the upper body member in the selected one of the plurality of different calibration positions ” 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. FILLIN "Explain which parameter or quantity or other limitation in the claim has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term appearing in bracket 1." \* MERGEFORMAT The drawings fail to show an orientation with the protective frame mounted to the upper body. The drawings fail to further show a feature that would enable mounting of the protective frame member to the upper body for a calibration position. The figures show the protective frame in lieu of the upper member for use in calibration but the figures do not show the protective frame being secured to the upper body . Overall, it is unclear the positioning being discussed and the mounting structure that enables this configuration . For the purposes of interpretation, the claim shall be broadly read, such that any device in which the protective frame can rest atop of the container meets the claimed limitation. The term “ wherein each of the first positioning surface and the second positioning surface is oriented along a respective axis determining respective ones of the plurality of different calibration positions ” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ wherein each of the first positioning surface and the second positioning surface is oriented along a respective axis determining respective ones of the plurality of different calibration positions ” 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. How are the positioning surfaces “oriented along a respective axis”? In the present invention, it would appear these positioning surfaces are in fixed positions within the lower body member. Orient means “ align or position (something) relative to the points of a compass or other specified positions. ” (Oxford Languages) This would mean the entire lower body is being positioned with respect to a respective axis. How is the whole body (which includes the mounted frame) being oriented? Further, what is considered the respective axis? Perhaps the term plane is better used in this context . However, either way, it is unclear what axis or plane is being referred to. In general, it is unclear what limitation is being conveyed by the claim language. The sole action of moving the lower body to be oriented to different axis wouldn’t cause a different calibration position. As the different c alibration position s was defined in claim 1 as being defined by inclination angles between the calibration plate and main body. This action would not inherently cause an angular change between the calibration plate and main body. Claim 2 3, 24, 27 recites the limitation " the frame " in multiple instances . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A plain “frame” is never introduced. All prior references to a frame mention a “protective frame”. The same nomenclature should be used throughout the claims. The term “ wherein the first positioning surface is positioned on at least one of: the lower body of the frame, FILLIN "Enter the relative term that renders the claim indefinite." \* MERGEFORMAT an inner periphery of the lower body of the frame; and an outer periphery of the lower body of the frame ” in claim FILLIN "Identify the claim." \* MERGEFORMAT 2 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ wherein the first positioning surface is positioned on at least one of: the lower body of the fram e, FILLIN "Re-enter the relative term that renders the claim indefinite." \* MERGEFORMAT an inner periphery of the lower body of the frame; and an outer periphery of the lower body of the frame ” 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. FILLIN "Explain which parameter or quantity or other limitation in the claim has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term appearing in bracket 1." \* MERGEFORMAT What are the bounds and metes of the inner periphery and the outer periphery of the lower body of the frame? It is unclear what is being stated and what feature is being referred to . Does the present application meet every possibility? Is this not just the bottom surface of the frame? If so, there wouldn't be two positioning surfaces as these surfaces also achieve the second calibration position . The specification fails to specifically discuss the first positioning surface and drawings fail to locate this surface . Further, the positioning surfaces are said to be on the main body in claim 23 , this claim however states that positioning surface is positioned on the lower body of the frame . Does this claim contradict claim 23 by instead stat ing that positioning surfaces are part of the frame and not the main body ? Or i s this talking about placement of the frame on the first positioning system? However the first positioning surface is not positioned “on” the frame, it is a feature of the lower body located below the frame. For the purposes of examination, it shall be interpreted that the first positioning surface contacts a portion of the frame. Claims 27 directly or indirectly depend from claim 24 and are also rejected. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 24 recites the limitation " FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT the lower body of the frame " in FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This part is never introduced prior. The term “ wherein the second positioning surface is positioned on at least one of: the lower body of the frame ; an inner periphery of the lower body of the frame; on the upper body of the frame; an inner periphery of the upper body of the frame and an outer periphery of the upper body of the frame ” in claim 2 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ wherein the second positioning surface is positioned on at least one of: the lower body of the frame; an inner periphery of the lower body of the frame; on the upper body of the frame; an inner periphery of the upper body of the frame and an outer periphery of the upper body of the frame ” 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. What are the bounds and metes of the inner periphery and the outer periphery of the lower body or upper body of the frame? It is unclear what is being stated. Does the present application meet every possibility? Is this not just the bottom surface of the frame? This appears to be the same surface (or part of the same surface) that is defined in claim 24 as the first positioning system . The specification fails to specifically discuss the first positioning surface and drawings fail to locate this surface . Further, the positioning surfaces are said to be on the main body in claim 23. Does this claim contradict claim 23 by instead stating that positioning surfaces are part of the frame? Or is this talking about placement of the frame on the first positioning system? However the first positioning surface is not positioned “on” the frame, it is a feature of the lower body located below the frame. For the purposes of examination, it shall be interpreted that the second positioning surface contacts a portion of the frame. Claim 2 7 recites the limitation " the upper body of the frame " in line s 3-4 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This part is never introduced prior. The term “ hinged member being extendible ” in claim 32 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ hinged member being extendible ” 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. What is the hinged member? It fails to be shown in the drawings and elaborated upon in the specification . I t is unclear the incorporation of this feature on the claimed device, especially in regards to a positioning system. Further, extendible means “able to be made longer or larger” (Oxford Languages). How can a hinge be made larger? This feature is never shown or described in enough detail in the original disclosure. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-3, 5-9, 12, 14-15, 22-24, 27, 32-34, 38, 40-43, 45, 57, 60-63, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" a(1) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" Mayo (US 5975334 A) . With respect to claim 1, Mayo discloses a carrying case system for a 3D scanner and a calibration plate, said carrying case system comprising: a) a main body comprising a lower body member (perimeter wall with 12, 13, 14, 15 and base) defining a space for holding the 3D scanner; b) a protective frame member (18) distinct from the lower body member of the main body for holding the calibration plate; c) a positioning system (hinge 33 and latch 25) configured for mounting the protective frame member to the main body of the carrying case system in a selected one of a plurality of different calibration positions, wherein the plurality of different calibration positions define respective inclination angles between the calibration plate and the main body, the plurality of different calibration positions including at least two distinct calibration positions (inherent of the opening motion) for using the calibration plate during calibration of the 3D scanner. Examiner Note: The 3D scanner and calibration plate are not positively recited as part of the invention. These features are discussed with respect to intended function. Circular plates can be stored in compartment 26, as taught in column 4 lines 40-47. These plates can be in a form that is considered analogous to calibration plate. Further the other compartments can store similar features. With respect to claim 2, Mayo discloses a carrying case system as defined in claim 1, wherein the main body further comprises an upper body member (20) distinct from the lower body member (perimeter wall with 12, 13, 14, 15 and base), wherein the upper body member and the lower body member are configured to releasably engage (23/24) one another to define an internal storage space for holding the 3D scanner and the calibration plate. With respect to claim 3, Mayo discloses a carrying case system as defined in claim 2, wherein the protective frame member (18) is configured to be positioned within the internal storage space defined by the upper body member and the lower body member of the main body. With respect to claim 5, Mayo discloses a c arrying case system as defined in claim 2, wherein the internal storage space defined by the upper body member (20) and the lower body member (perimeter wall with 12, 13, 14, 15 and base) is a fully enclosed internal storage space. With respect to claim 6, Mayo discloses a carrying case system as defined in claim 1, wherein the positioning system (hinge 33 and latch 25) is configured for (intended capability describing unlatched orientation of figure 3) mounting the protective frame member to the lower body member of the main body in the selected one of the plurality of different calibration positions, wherein the respective inclination angles between the calibration plate and the main body corresponds to inclination angles between the calibration plate and the lower body member of the main body. (Orientation of frame 18 attached to lid member, 20, the inclination angle is between the calibration plate and the main body. Or the orientation of figure 2 with item 18 not latched to the upper body, 20, but capable of freely rotating) With respect to claim 7, Mayo discloses a carrying case system as defined in claim 2, wherein the positioning system is configured for mounting the protective frame member to the upper body member (the latch 25 is capable of engaging with cover 20) of the main body in the selected one of the plurality of different calibration positions, wherein the respective inclination angles between the calibration plate and the main body correspond to inclination angles between the calibration plate and the upper body member of the main body. (this is true of the orientation of figure 3, when 18 is unlatched, item 25, the upper body member, 20, moves freely) Examiner Note: The first portion of the statement discusses a capability; it does not positively claim the protective frame member and upper body are attached. With respect to claim 8, Mayo discloses a carrying case system as defined in claim 6, wherein the positioning system includes: a) a first positioning surface (surface 16) on the main body; and b) a second positioning surface (see figure 4 above) on the main body; wherein the first positioning surface and the second positioning surface are nonparallel to one another. With respect to claim 9, Mayo discloses a carrying case system as defined in claim 8, wherein the positioning system includes at least one frame mounting surface (bottom rim of 18) on the protective frame configured to engage a selected one of the first positioning surface (surface 16) and the second positioning surface. Examiner Note : The phrasing of the statement (“a selected one of the”) is read as an “or” option. With respect to claim 12, Mayo discloses a carrying case as defined in claim 9, wherein only one of the first positioning surface (surface 16) and the second positioning surface of the positioning system can be engaged at a given time by the at least one surface of the protective frame (bottom rim of 18). With respect to claim 14, Mayo discloses a carrying case system as defined in claim 8, wherein the first positioning surface (surface 16) corresponds to a first one the plurality of different calibration positions (figure 3) and the second positioning surface (18) corresponds to a second one the plurality of different calibration positions (20 opened with 18 attached). With respect to claim 15, Mayo discloses a carrying case system as defined in claim 14, wherein each of the first positioning surface and the second positioning surface is oriented along a respective axis (both of these features have different longitudinal axis) determining respective ones of the plurality of different calibration positions. Examiner Note : See 112b above. With respect to claim 22, Mayo discloses a carrying case system as defined in claim 2, wherein the positioning system includes: a) a first set of positioning elements (bottom rim of 18 and latch 25) on the protective frame; b) a second set of positioning elements (rim 16 and surface of 20 that mates with latch 25) on the main body, the second set of positioning elements being complementary to the first set of positioning elements. With respect to claim 23, Mayo discloses a carrying case system as defined in claim 22, wherein: a) the first set of positioning elements (bottom rim of 18 and latch 25) on the protective frame form a frame mounting surface disposed about a periphery of the protective frame; and b) the second set of positioning elements (rim 16 and surface of 20 that mates with latch 25) form at least two positioning surfaces on the main body, the at least two at least two positioning surfaces being complementary to the frame mounting surface on the protective frame, the at least two positioning surfaces including: i) a first positioning surface (rim 16) corresponding to a first calibration position in the plurality of calibration positions, the first positioning surface being configured for releasably engaging the frame mounting surface (bottom rim of 18) disposed about the periphery of the protective frame so as to orient the calibration plate according to a first calibration position; ii) a second positioning surface (surface of 20 that mates with latch 25) corresponding to a second calibration position in the plurality of calibration positions, the second positioning surface being configured for releasably engaging the frame mounting surface (latch 25) disposed about the periphery of the protective frame so as to orient the calibration plate according to the second calibration position. With respect to claim 24, Mayo discloses a carrying case system as defined in claim 23, wherein the first positioning surface (rim 16) is positioned on at least one of : (i) the lower body of the frame (bottom rim of 18); an inner periphery of the lower body of the frame; and an outer periphery of the lower body of the frame. Examiner Note : See 112 above for interpretation. With respect to claim 27, Mayo discloses a carrying case system as defined in claim 24, wherein the second positioning surface (surface of 20 that mates with latch 25) is positioned on at least one of: the lower body of the frame; an inner periphery of the lower body of the frame; on the upper body of the frame; an inner periphery of the upper body of the frame and an outer periphery of the upper body of the frame (latch 25). Examiner Note : See 112 above for interpretation. With respect to claim 32, Mayo discloses a carrying case system as defined in claim 6, wherein the positioning system includes a hinged member disposed opposite a calibration surface of the calibration plate (plate within recess of 26), said hinged member (33) being extendible so as to position the calibration plate in a selected one of the plurality of different calibration positions, the hinged member being configured to be mounted on at least one of the lower body member and the upper body member (it’s on both). Examiner Note : Circular plates can be stored in compartment 26, as taught in column 4 lines 40-47. These plates can be in a form that is considered analogous to calibration plate. With respect to claim 33, Mayo discloses a carrying case system as defined in claim 1, wherein the plurality of different calibration positions includes a first specific calibration position defining a first specific inclination angle between 10° and 70°. (positioning and angle is inherently achieved within that range by the presence of a hinge) Examiner Note: Mayo can achieve a variety of positions, including said range, due to the presence of a hinge. As written in claim 1, “configured for mounting the protective frame member to the main body of the carrying case system in a selected one of a plurality of different calibration positions, wherein the plurality of different calibration positions define respective inclination angles between the calibration plate and the main body, the plurality of different calibration positions including at least two distinct calibration positions for using the calibration plate during calibration of the 3D scanner.” These positions are described as intended function. With respect to claim 34, Mayo discloses a carrying case system as defined in claim 33, wherein the first specific inclination angle is between 15° and 60°. (positioning and angle is inherently achieved within that range by the presence of a hinge) With respect to claim 38, Mayo discloses a carrying case system as defined in claim 33, wherein the plurality of different calibration positions includes a second specific calibration position defining a second specific inclination angle between 0° and 45°. (position of figure 3) With respect to claim 40, Mayo discloses a carrying case system as defined in claim 38, wherein the second specific inclination angle is between 0° and 10°. (position of figure 3) With respect to claim 41, Mayo discloses a carrying case system as defined in claim 40, wherein the second specific inclination angle is about 0° so that the calibration plate is substantially co-planar with lower body member of the main body. (position of figure 3) With respect to claim 42, Mayo discloses a carrying case system as defined in claim 1, wherein the plurality of different calibration positions includes three or more different calibration positions. (can consider all positions from 18 being erect with upper body (20) to 18 being horizontal in figure 3) With respect to claim 43, Mayo discloses a carrying case system as defined in claim 1, wherein the positioning system is further configured for mounting the protective frame member to the lower body member of the main body in a storage position distinct from the calibration positions in the plurality of different calibration positions. (can consider item 18 resting on surface 16 as the storage position. Consider the plurality of different calibration positions to be different angular opening positions when 18 does not rest upon 16) With respect to claim 45, Mayo discloses a carrying case system as defined in claim 43, wherein in the storage position, the protective frame is configured for holding the calibration plate in an orientation that is substantially co-planar with the lower body member. (a plate within 26 would be coplanar with a surface of the lower body member . ) With respect to claim 57, Mayo discloses a carrying case system as defined in claim 1, wherein the space (interior of 14, 15, 16, 17) for holding the 3D scanner defined by the lower body member includes a cavity for holding the 3D scanner, the cavity being shaped to substantially match a shape of the 3D scanner. Examiner Note: This does not positively recite a 3D scanner and only discusses intended function. 3D scanners come in many shapes and sizes; a rectangular 3D scanner would fit in said cavity. With respect to claim 60, Mayo discloses a carrying case system as defined in claim 1, wherein the 3D scanner is a handheld 3D scanner. Examiner Note : 3D scanner is only used in terms of intended function. This claim shall be viewed as intended function to store a handheld 3D scanner. With respect to claim 61, Mayo discloses a c arrying case system for a 3D scanner and a calibration plate, said carrying case system comprising: a) a protective frame member (18) for holding the calibration plate; b) a main body comprising: i) a lower body member (perimeter wall with 12, 13, 14, 15 and base) defining a first cavity for holding the 3D scanner; ii) an upper body member (20) distinct from the lower body member, wherein the upper body member and the lower body member are configured to releasably engage (via latches 23/24) one another to define an internal storage space; wherein the protective frame member (18) is configured to be positioned within the internal storage space defined by the upper body member and the lower body member of the main body. With respect to claim 62, Mayo discloses a carrying case system as defined in claim 61, wherein the protective frame member (18) is configured for lying above the first cavity (storage space within 12, 13, 14, 15 and base) defined by the lower body member. With respect to claim 63, Mayo discloses a carrying case system as defined in claim 61, comprising a positioning system (rim 16 and back surface of 18) configured for mounting the protective frame member to the lower body member so that the calibration plate lies over the cavity defined by the lower body member. Claim(s) 1, 58, 61-64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" a(1) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by James (US 1999361 A) . With respect to claim 1, James discloses a carrying case system for a 3D scanner and a calibration plate, said carrying case system comprising: a) a main body comprising a lower body member (figure 3 below) defining a space for holding the 3D scanner; b) a protective frame member (insert with 25, figure 4) distinct from the lower body member of the main body for holding the calibration plate; c) a positioning system (upper edge of the lower body) configured for mounting the protective frame member to the main body of the carrying case system in a selected one of a plurality of different calibration positions, wherein the plurality of different calibration positions define respective inclination angles between the calibration plate and the main body, the plurality of different calibration positions including at least two distinct calibration positions for using the calibration plate during calibration of the 3D scanner. Examiner Note: Capable of achieving a variety of calibration positions by placing the insert (25) on the upper edge of the lower body at different proximities. With respect to claim 58, James discloses a carrying case system as defined in claim 1, wherein the space for holding the 3D scanner defined by the lower body member includes a first cavity (figure 4 above) for holding the 3D scanner and a second cavity (figure 4) for holding cable components associated with the 3D scanner, wherein the cable components include at least one of a power cable and a data cable wherein: a) the first cavity is shaped to substantially match a shape of the 3D scanner; and b) the second cavity has an elongated shape for receiving the wiring components, the second cavity being distinct from the first cavity. Examiner Note: This does not positively recite a 3D scanner or its components and only discusses intended function. 3D scanners come in many shapes and sizes; a rectangular 3D scanner would fit in said cavity. With respect to claim 6 1, James discloses a carrying case system for a 3D scanner and a calibration plate, said carrying case system comprising: a) a protective frame member (figure 4) for holding the calibration plate; b) a main body comprising: i) a lower body member (figure 3) defining a first cavity for holding the 3D scanner; ii) an upper body member (figure 3) distinct from the lower body member, wherein the upper body member and the lower body member are configured to releasably engage one another to define an internal storage space; wherein the protective frame member (figure 4) is configured to be positioned within the internal storage space defined by the upper body member and the lower body member of the main body. With respect to claim 62 , James discloses a carrying case system as defined in claim 61, wherein the protective frame member (figure 4) is configured for lying above the first cavity (figure 4) defined by the lower body member. With respect to claim 63 , James discloses a carrying case system as defined in claim 61, comprising a positioning system (top of first and second cavity divider structures) configured for mounting the protective frame member to the lower body member so that the calibration plate lies over the cavity defined by the lower body member. With respect to claim 64 , James discloses a carrying case system as defined in claim 63, wherein the lower body member defines a second cavity (figure 4) for holding cable components associated with the 3D scanner, wherein the cable components include at least one of a power cable and a data cable. 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. Claim FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Mayo (US 5975334 A) in view of Dusel (US 3163686 A) . With respect to claim 46 , the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the main body is comprised of a lightweight material including a foam, the foam being selected from the set consisting of expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam and Expanded Polypropylene (EPP) foam. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely insulative containers, Dus e l taught that expanded polystyrene is a material that is commonly used in the application of coolers (col 2 lines 62-70). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of insulative containers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include expanded polystyrene as taught by Dus e l in the container of Mayo since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Mayo teaches the use of an insulative material and adding a specific material such as expanded polystyrene as taught by Dus e l would maintain the same functionality of the Mayo, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143). Examiner Note: McCurry (US 10473390 B2) also teaches of the commonality of expanded polystyrene in the field of coolers. Claim 51 FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Mayo (US 5975334 A) in view of Lynch (US 20050194414 A1) . With respect to claim 51, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for a carrying case system as defined in claim 1, said carrying case system comprising an outer protective shell made of a rigid material, the outer protective shell including an upper outer shell and a lower outer shell, wherein the upper shell is configured to be at least partially releasably connected to the lower shell, the upper shell and a lower shell defining an internal space configured for holding therein the main body of the carrying case system. However, in a similar field, namely containers, Lynch taught of a large container that is used to contain coolers ( page 1 [0010]) within a releasably attached rigid upper and lower shell (items 16 and 19 of Lynch). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooler of Mayo to be transported in a container as taught by Lynch in order to allow for transportability of the cooler. Pertinent Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-5975334-A OR US-10473390-B2 OR US-7614521-B2 OR US-9474176-B2 OR US-5447318-A OR US-3966408-A OR US-8590545-B2 OR US-D1033158-S OR US-11976498-B2 OR US-11958667-B2 OR US-1999361-A OR US-3163686-A OR US-1417814-A OR US-3003997-A OR US-2698083-A OR US- 20050194414-A1 OR US-20080060975-A1 OR US-20130228485-A1 OR US-20200107912-A1 OR US-20210387325-A1 OR US-20210245358-A1 OR US-20190351540-A1 Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5305 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon - Fri . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Anthony Stashick can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4561 . 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. /SYMREN K SANGHERA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3735