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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 (Claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 17 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 17 June 2026.
Upon further review, the applicant did not further elect from the Species shown in Fig. 3 and the Species shown in Fig. 5 (as stated in page 4 of the Office Action mailed on 16 April 2026). In order to expedite the prosecution, the Species shown in Fig. 3 and the Species shown in Fig. 5 will both be further examined in this action.
Claim(s) 16-31 is/are considered to be withdrawn, thus Claims 1-15 filed on 20 December 2023 will be further examined in this action.
Drawings
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
Claim 6 (line 3), “a spring”;
Claim 9 (line 1), “a first magnet” and (line 2), “a second magnet”;
Claim 15 (line 2), “a temperature sensor or a humidity sensor”.
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 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) 1, 5, 11-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gustafson et al. (US 5216922, see reference in its entirety).
With respect to independent Claim 1, Gustafson disclose(s): A distance measurement device (Fig. 2) comprising:
an upper housing (Fig. 3: 66) rigidly affixed to a first surface (Fig. 3: 51); a lower housing (Fig. 3: 78) rigidly affixed to a second surface (Fig. 3: 68), the second surface being spaced apart from the first surface by a distance to be measured along an axis of interest (Fig. 3); a flexible membrane (Fig. 3: 32) movably connecting the upper housing to the lower housing (Fig. 3); a pulley system (Fig. 3: 62 & 74) disposed within the upper and lower housings and having a tensile element passing therethrough (Fig. 3), the pulley system being configured to adjust an active length of the tensile element corresponding to the distance to be measured while minimizing the impact of any movement of the first and second surfaces along a direction other than the axis of interest (Fig. 3 and col. 5, lines 13-33); and one or more sensors that detect rotation of one or more pulleys within the pulley system (col. 5, lines 13-33; optical encoder is considered a sensor), wherein the rotation corresponds to a change in the active length of the tensile element (col. 5, lines 13-33).
Regarding Claim 5, Gustafson disclose(s) the device of Claim 1.
Gustafson further disclose(s): wherein the pulley system is configured to maintain the tensile element taut (Fig. 3), such that the tensile element is effective to resist movement of the first and second surfaces along a direction other than the axis of interest (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 11, Gustafson disclose(s) the device of Claim 1.
Gustafson further disclose(s): wherein the pulley system mechanically amplifies (Fig. 7: 130) the active length of the tensile element to increase an accuracy of the distance measurement (Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 12, Gustafson disclose(s) the device of Claim 11.
Gustafson further disclose(s): wherein the mechanical amplification of the active length of the tensile element is equivalent to twice the distance to be measured (Fig. 7 and col. 7, lines 11-19).
Regarding Claim 13, Gustafson disclose(s) the device of Claim 1.
Gustafson further disclose(s): further comprising a computing unit (Fig. 7: 104) that converts one or more rotation measurements of the one or more sensors into a linear distance measurement corresponding to the distance to be measured (Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 15, Gustafson disclose(s) the device of Claim 1.
Gustafson further disclose(s): further comprising at least one of a temperature sensor or a humidity sensor (Fig. 7: 124).
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) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustafson in view of Potter (US 3156046, see reference in its entirety).
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Gustafson disclose(s) the device of Claim 1.
Gustafson further discloses: wherein the pulley system comprises first pulley disposed within the upper housing (Fig. 3: 62) and a pulley disposed within the lower housing (Fig. 3: 74).
Gustafson does not specifically disclose: first, second and third idler pulleys.
However, Potter teach(es) a device (Fig. 3) including: first, second and third idler pulleys (Fig. 3: 47, 48, 50 & 51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Gustafson, with the teachings of Potter , for the purpose of ensuring accurate movement (col. 3, lines 59-62).
Regarding Claim(s) 3, Gustafson disclose(s) the device of Claim 1.
Gustafson does not specifically disclose: wherein the pulley system comprises at least four idler pulleys.
However, Potter teach(es) a device (Fig. 3) including: : wherein the pulley system comprises at least four idler pulleys (Fig. 3: 47, 48, 50 & 51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Gustafson, with the teachings of Potter , for the purpose of ensuring accurate movement (col. 3, lines 59-62).
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Gustafson and Potter disclose(s) the device of Claim 3.
Gustafson further disclose: wherein the device is configured to measure an additional distance (Fig. 2: 34) along an axis that is different from the axis of interest (Fig. 2: axis at 32).
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustafson and Potter further in view of Pepin (US 5060395, see reference in its entirety).
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Gustafson and Potter disclose(s) the device of Claim 2.
Gustafson further discloses: wherein the pulley system further comprises a driver pulley (Fig. 3: 62) around which a first end of the tensile element is wound (Fig. 3) and an idler pulley (Fig. 2: 38) that acts on the driver pulley to ensure that the tensile element remains taut throughout the pulley system (Fig. 2).
The combination does not specifically disclose(s): a spring idler pulley having a spring.
However, Pepin disclose(s) a device (Fig. 3) including: ): a spring idler pulley having a spring (col. 7, lines 31-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the combined device of Gustafson and Potter, with the teachings of Pepin, for the purpose of providing moveable adjustment (col. 7, line 34).
Regarding Claim(s) 7, Gustafson, Potter and Pepin disclose(s) the device of Claim 6.
The combination does not specifically disclose(s): wherein the spring is a constant force spring.
However, Pepin further disclose(s): wherein the spring is a constant force spring (col. 7, lines 31-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the combined device of Gustafson and Potter, with the teachings of Pepin, for the purpose of providing moveable adjustment (col. 7, line 34).
Motivation to combine is the same as Claim 6.
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Gustafson, Potter and Pepin disclose(s) the device of Claim 6.
Gustafson further discloses: wherein rotation of the driver pulley and the idler pulley corresponds to a change in the active length of the tensile element (Fig. 2).
The combination does not specifically disclose(s): the spring idler pulley.
However, Pepin further disclose(s): the spring idler pulley (col. 7, lines 31-37).
Motivation to combine is the same as Claim 6.
Regarding Claim(s) 9, Gustafson, Potter and Pepin disclose(s) the device of Claim 6.
Gustafson further discloses: wherein a first magnet is attached to the driver pulley (Fig. 7: 128) and a second magnet is attached to the idler pulley (Fig. 7: 128) and the one or more sensors are configured to detect rotation of the driver pulley and the idler pulley, respectively, based on movement of the first and second magnets. (Fig. 7 and col. 5, lines 13-33; optical encoder is considered the sensor).
The combination does not specifically disclose(s): the spring idler pulley.
However, Pepin further disclose(s): the spring idler pulley (col. 7, lines 31-37).
Motivation to combine is the same as Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 10, Gustafson, Potter and Pepin disclose(s) the device of Claim 9.
The combination does not specifically disclose: the driver pulley has a different diameter than the spring idler pulley.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a different diameter size, since it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPRQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Here the diameter size of the driver pulley (62 as seen in Fig. 3 of Gustafson) does not appear to be significant to the function of the device, thus noting the size is absent any criticality, nor would it adversely affect the function of the combination of the device of Gustafson, Potter and Pepin.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the size of the diameter of the driver pulley in order to improve stability of the device.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustafson in view of Spencer et al. (US 12480801 B2, see reference in its entirety).
Regarding Claim(s) 14, Gustafson disclose(s) the device of Claim 13.
Gustafson does not specifically disclose: wherein the computing unit converts the linear distance measurement into a weight measurement.
However, Spencer teach(es) a device (Fig. 3) including: wherein the computing unit converts the linear distance measurement into a weight measurement (col. 20, lines 57-59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Gustafson, with the teachings of Spencer, for the purpose of providing a variety of information (col. 21, lines 25-28).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The following reference(s) relate to measurement devices: Bolen (US 2200572); Richards (US 0616858); Hey (US 2013/0168345 A1); King (US 3653258); Gruhler (US 4924598); Schneider et al. (US 8949059 B2); Stewart et al. (US 12091965 B2).
The following reference(s) relate to devices with idler pulleys: Bateman (US 5951016).
The following reference(s) relate to measurement devices (same assignee SCALABLE SYSTEMS GRIOUP, INC/ WASTEWIZER INC.) : Spencer et al. (US 2025/0341416 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANIA COURSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7am-3:30pm).
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at (303)297-4237. 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.
/TC/
08 July 2026
/BRANDI N HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights