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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“distance measurement information acquisition unit” first recited in claims 1 and 13;
“pressure information acquisition unit” first recited in claims 1 and 13;
“calculation unit” first recited in claims 1 and 13;
“output unit” first recited in claims 1 and 13;
“imaging unit” first recited in claim 6;
“correction unit” first recited in claim 10;
“a diagnostic information acquisition unit” first recited in claim 11;
“treatment device” first recited in claim 11.
The following terms are not provided with corresponding structure:
distance measurement information acquisition unit;”
“pressure information acquisition unit;”
“calculation unit;”
“correction unit;”
“a diagnostic information acquisition unit;”
The corresponding structure of the five terms above is not explicitly provided in Applicant’s disclosure. Each of the five terms appear to be a part of a calculation device 10 which is not given particular structure aside from location in a hardness measurement device 1 (Fig. 2).
The corresponding structure for the term “output unit” is “For example, the output unit 140 may include a communication unit (not illustrated) and may output the hardness information IR through a predetermined network such as the Internet or a Wi-Fi network. Note that the hardness measurement device 1 may include a display unit (not illustrated), and the output unit 140 may output the hardness information IR to the display unit. The display unit may be, for example, a liquid crystal display, an organic electroluminescence (EL) display, or the like” (Paragraph 0038).
The corresponding structure for “imaging unit” is “a small camera as the imaging unit 123” (Paragraph 0074).
The corresponding structure for “treatment device” appears to be any device capable of being pressed against a user (.g., to perform massage) as suggested in Paragraph 0102.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites a computer implemented process which is not provided with sufficient description of how Applicant carried out the invention. Claim 10 requires a correction unit to "correct the hardness.” When looking to Applicant’s Specification to understand how such a correction process is performed, the most detail provided is that hardness information may be acquired for each posture, and that correction may be performed (Paragraph 0092). Note that no detail is provided regarding the correction process.
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 1, 9-11, 13, and dependent claims thereof 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.
Re. Claims 1, 10, 11, and 13: Claims 1, 10, 11, and 13 recite “distance measurement information acquisition unit,” “pressure information acquisition unit,” “calculation unit,” “correction unit,” and “diagnostic information acquisition unit,” each of which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (see Claim Interpretation section prior). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The terms are described as being part of a calculation device 10 located in a hardness calculation device 1 (Fig. 1), but Applicant’s disclosure is absent a description or further detail regarding the structure of the calculation device 10 itself. For purpose of examination, the claimed terms are interpreted as being implemented via a computer processor.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Re. Claim 9: Claim 9 recites “a posture sensor configured to detect at least an inclination.” When looking to Applicant’s disclosure to understand the usage of the term “inclination,” the following is observed:
Paragraph 0093 uses detects inclination of measurement device;
Paragraph 0094 appears to describe that the posture is the posture of the patient being measured (“Note that the difference in posture may be, for example, a difference in a lying state, a sitting state, or the like”).
The above two paragraphs indicate different contexts regarding how “inclination” should be interpreted. Thus, it is unclear whether the inclination detected is that of the sensor or that of the patient.
Re. Claim 13: Claim 13 recites the limitation "the animal." 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.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Hirata et al. (JPH1176169A) (disclosed by Applicant, citing Google Patents translation) (hereinafter – Hirata) in view of
Sano et al. (US 20190313962 A1) (hereinafter – Sano).
Re. Claims 1, 12, and 13: Hirata teaches a hardness calculation device (Page 1/15, Abstract: “In a tactile sensor probe 1 to measure hardness of an object by contacting it with the object such as an organic tissue…;” see related processing components shown in Figs. 4, 5)
comprising:
a distance measurement information acquisition unit configured to acquire distance measurement information indicating a distance to a reference position that is a part of a body of an animal (Figs. 4, 5: distance measuring unit 29; Page 1/15, Abstract: “The sensor part 3 has a hardness measuring sensor 6, but in this case, for example, four distance sensors 7 to measure a distance up to a measuring part are arranged around the sensor 6;” Examiner notes that “distance up to a measuring part around the sensor” constitutes a reference position – see position of distance sensors 7 in Figs. 1, 2, 6, 7 relative to hardness measuring sensor 6);
a pressure information acquisition unit configured to acquire pressure information indicating a pressure when a contact section is pressed against a target position that is a part of the body of the animal, the target position being a position different from the reference position (Figs. 4, 5: hardness detecting section 28; Figs. 6, 7; Page 2/15: “The hardness measuring sensor 6 includes, for example, a pressure sensor for measuring a repulsive force when it comes into contact with a living tissue”);
a calculation unit configured to calculate hardness information that is information about a hardness of a tissue existing in the body of the animal at the target position based on the distance measurement information acquired by the distance measurement information acquisition unit and the pressure information acquired by the pressure information acquisition unit (Figs. 4, 5: hardness detecting section (analyzing means) 28; Page 3/15: “Here, the distance measuring unit 29 measures a position when the tactile sensor probe 1 comes into contact with a living tissue based on output signals from the four distance sensors 7 when the tactile sensor probe 1 is used. Further, the bending drive control unit 30 drives the bending mechanism 14 of the bending unit 4 based on the output signal from the distance measurement unit 29, changes the direction of the hardness measurement sensor 6 of the tactile sensor probe 1, and changes the direction of the measured object and are arranged substantially vertically facing each other. Then, the signal of the hardness measurement sensor 6 of the tactile sensor probe 1 is analyzed by the hardness detection unit 28 to detect the hardness of the measured object;” Page 5/15: “… the bending unit 41 is driven to bend in accordance with the outputs from the four distance sensors 7, so that the orientation of the sensor unit 3 is Can be changed to a state in which the sensor unit 3 is arranged to be substantially vertically opposed to the direction of the object H, so that the hardness of the object H can be measured similarly to the first embodiment. As a result, the measurement accuracy can be improved, and the hardness of the living tissue can be accurately measured.”).
Hirata does not teach an output unit configured to output the hardness information calculated by the calculation unit.
Sano teaches analogous art in the technology of hardness testing devices (Abstract). Sano further teaches the invention comprising an output unit configured to output the hardness information calculated by the calculation unit (Paragraph 0066: “The display unit 26 displays the estimated hardness obtained by the hardness estimating portion 234”).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Hirata to have included an output device such as the display of Hirata, the motivation being that doing so enables a practitioner to view a hardness reading as the device of Hirata navigates patient tissue.
Claim 12 recites limitations of claim 1 mutatis mutandis as a method claim; thus, claim 12 is rejected analogously to that of claim 1.
Claim 13, as best understood, recites a hardness calculation device akin to that of claim 1, but instead acquiring data from “an inspection target object.” This is broader than the recitation of “a part of a body of an animal” as recited in claim 1. An animal may be considered an object. Thus, claim 13 is rejected analogously by citations of the narrower claim 1.
Re. Claim 5: Hirata as modified by Sano teaches a hardness measurement device comprising:
the hardness calculation device according to claim 1 (Figs. 4, 5: system includes processing components which receive signals from distance and pressure sensors);
a distance measurement sensor configured to measure a distance to the reference position (Figs. 1, 2, 6, 7: distance sensor 7),
the distance measurement sensor being configured to output the measured distance to the distance measurement information acquisition unit as the distance measurement information (Figs. 4, 5; Page 3/15: “Here, the distance measuring unit 29 measures a position when the tactile sensor probe 1 comes into contact with a living tissue based on output signals from the four distance sensors 7 when the tactile sensor probe 1 is used. Further, the bending drive control unit 30 drives the bending mechanism 14 of the bending unit 4 based on the output signal from the distance measurement unit 29, changes the direction of the hardness measurement sensor 6 of the tactile sensor probe 1, and changes the direction of the measured object.); and
a pressure sensor configured to measure a pressure when the contact section is pressed against the target position (Figs. 1, 2, 6, 7: hardness detector 6; Page 2/15: “The hardness measuring sensor 6 includes, for example, a pressure sensor for measuring a repulsive force when it comes into contact with a living tissue…”),
the pressure sensor being configured to output the measured pressure to the pressure information acquisition unit as the pressure information (Figs. 4, 5: hardness detecting section 28).
Re. Claim 8: Hirata as modified by Sano teaches the invention according to claim 5. Hirata further teaches the invention wherein the distance measurement sensor measures the distance to the reference position without contact (Page 2/15: “The distance sensor 7 comprises a semiconductor laser 9 for emitting laser light and a photodiode 10 for detecting the intensity of the reflected light. The distance measurement is performed by changing the intensity of the detected light according to the distance. Is what you do. The four distance sensors 7 are arranged at equal intervals at four locations around the hardness measurement sensor 6. These distance sensors 7 are also covered on the front so as not to come into direct contact with the living body”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Hirata et al. (JPH1176169A) (disclosed by Applicant, citing Google Patents translation) (hereinafter – Hirata) in view of
Sano et al. (US 20190313962 A1) (hereinafter – Sano) in further view of
Imoto (US 5879312 A) (hereinafter – Imoto).
Re. Claim 2: Hirata as modified by Sano teaches the invention according to claim 1. Hirata as modified by Sano does not teach that the pressure information acquisition unit acquires a plurality of pieces of the pressure information acquired at moments corresponding to the moments at which the plurality of pieces of the distance measurement information are acquired, and
the calculation unit calculates the hardness information based on the acquired plurality of pieces of distance measurement information and the acquired plurality of pieces of pressure information.
Hirata teaches the pressure information acquisition unit acquires a single piece pressure information acquired at moments corresponding to the moments at which the plurality of pieces of the distance measurement information are acquired (see previous citation regarding a single hardness sensor 6).
Imoto teaches analogous art in the technology of hardness testing devices (Abstract). Imoto teaches acquiring hardness information about a plurality of points in proximity to an object point and calculating a final hardness based on an average of those points (Col. 7, lines 23-34).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Hirata as modified by Sano to include the hardness testing method and necessary components thereof as taught by Imoto, the motivation being that a measurement result of hardness can change by even a small displacement or tilt of the detection mechanism; thus, identifying a plurality of points and obtaining an average is suitable for obtaining a reliable measurement result (Col. 2, lines 54-63).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Hirata et al. (JPH1176169A) (disclosed by Applicant, citing Google Patents translation) (hereinafter – Hirata) in view of
Sano et al. (US 20190313962 A1) (hereinafter – Sano) in further view of
Imoto (US 5879312 A) (hereinafter – Imoto) in further view of
Kurdy et al. (US 20190117066 A1) (hereinafter – Kurdy).
Re. Claim 3: Hirata as modified by Sano and Imoto teaches the invention according to claim 2, but does not teach the invention wherein the calculation unit calculates
a first hardness when a distance to the reference position is a first distance and
a second hardness when a distance to the reference position is a second distance,
the second hardness being different from the first hardness.
Kurdy teaches analogous art in the technology of measuring ocular hardness (Abstract: “durometer”). Kurdy further teaches the invention wherein the calculation unit calculates
a first hardness when a distance to the reference position is a first distance and
a second hardness when a distance to the reference position is a second distance,
the second hardness being different from the first hardness
(Paragraph 0050: “… contact tip against an eyelid of the same eye of the subject, moving the contact tip towards the eye until a predetermined force threshold is obtained by the force sensor; recording the correlated position of the contact tip as the “Zero Point” in the memory; causing the contact tip to move further a preset distance into the eyelid of the subject towards the eye and obtaining a second measurement force; recording the second measurement force in the memory; causing the microprocessor to calculate an intraocular pressure and or ocular durometer based on the second measurement force obtained from the force sensor…”).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Hirata as modified by Sano and Imoto to include the measurement method of Kurdy involving first and second hardnesses, the motivation being that doing so enables the system to identify the hardness of the eyelid (see Kurdy, Fig. 2) and also the eye behind the eyelid in scenarios where the eyelid is covering the eye (Paragraph 0050).
Re. Claim 4: Hirata as modified by Sano, Imoto, and Kurdy teaches the invention according to claim 3. Kurdy further teaches the invention wherein the part of the body of the animal is an eyelid of a human, the first hardness is a hardness of the eyelid, and the second hardness is a hardness of an eyeball (see rejection of claim 3).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Hirata et al. (JPH1176169A) (disclosed by Applicant, citing Google Patents translation) (hereinafter – Hirata) in view of
Sano et al. (US 20190313962 A1) (hereinafter – Sano) in further view of
Livne et al. (US 8317701 B2) (hereinafter – Livne).
Re. Claim 6: Hirata as modified by Sano teaches the invention according to claim 5. Hirata as modified by Sano does not teach the invention wherein
the pressure sensor includes a deformation section including a contact surface including the contact section,
the deformation section being configured to deform in response to pressure when the contact surface comes into contact with the target position,
a marker provided on a back side of the contact surface, and
an imaging unit configured to capture an image of the marker from the back side of the contact surface.
Livne teaches analogous art in the technology of measuring ocular pressure (Abstract). Livne teaches a method of measuring a force applied to a biological tissue using a pressure sensor, wherein the pressure sensor includes
a deformation section including a contact surface including the contact section (Fig. 2: probe unit 12 having flexible membrane 18),
the deformation section being configured to deform in response to pressure when the contact surface comes into contact with the target position (Fig. 2B),
a marker provided on a back side of the contact surface (Fig. 2C: illuminator unit illuminates an inner surface 18B of contacting membrane to form a pattern of concentric rings), and
an imaging unit configured to capture an image of the marker from the back side of the contact surface (Col. 3, lines 37-56: “…the imaging unit captures an image of both the marker and an object existing on a contact surface side of the deformation section… The device includes an optical system configured for directing light of the certain light spectrum towards the membrane and detecting light returned from the membrane (detecting reflection or obtaining an optical image). The optical system includes an illuminator unit and a light detection unit (e.g. sensor array)”).
Hirata is not specific regarding the type of pressure sensor 6 used. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the pressure sensing system of Livne for the non-descript pressure sensor of Hirata as modified by Sano. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Hirata et al. (JPH1176169A) (disclosed by Applicant, citing Google Patents translation) (hereinafter – Hirata) in view of
Sano et al. (US 20190313962 A1) (hereinafter – Sano) in further view of
Livne et al. (US 8317701 B2) (hereinafter – Livne) in further view of
Srinivasan et al. (US 20210153755 A1) (hereinafter – Srinivasan).
Re. Claim 7: Hirata as modified by Sano and Livne teaches the invention according to claim 6. Livne, in the combination, does not teach the invention wherein the deformation section is made of a transparent material. Thus, the imaging taught in the combination does not capture an image of both the marker and an object existing on a contact surface side of the deformation section.
Srinivasan teaches analogous art in the technology of measuring forces on a compressed surface to detect physiological characteristics (e.g., blood pressure) therefrom (Abstract). Srinivasan teaches a device for ascertaining variation in pressure on a surface, wherein the deformation section is made of a transparent material (Fig. 4A; Paragraph 0050: silicone elastomer 309 is transparent),
the imaging unit captures an image of both the marker and an object existing on a contact surface side of the deformation section (Fig. 4A: camera 303).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the membrane of Hirata as modified by Sano and Livne to be transparent as taught by Srinivasan and to further output such captured images, the motivation being that doing so would allow the device of Livne to accurately place the device against an intended measurement location by utilizing captured images thereof obtained from the optical system.
Sano, in the combination or references, already teaches an output unit which outputs the hardness information (see rejection of claim 1).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Hirata et al. (JPH1176169A) (disclosed by Applicant, citing Google Patents translation) (hereinafter – Hirata) in view of
Sano et al. (US 20190313962 A1) (hereinafter – Sano) in further view of
Cunningham et al. (US 20150208979 A1) (hereinafter – Cunningham).
Re. Claim 9: Hirata as modified by Sano teaches the invention according to claim 5. Hirata teaches the invention further comprising:
a posture sensor configured to detect at least an inclination (Figs. 1, 2, 4-7: distance sensors 7 measuring different distances to output a state of contact angle).
Sano, in the combination or references, already teaches an output unit which displays the hardness information (see rejection of claim 1). Hirata as modified by Sano does not teach further display of a detected inclination.
Cunningham teaches analogous art in the technology of assessment of biological tissues (Abstract). Cunningham further teaches a device which measures a tilt angle and display thereof (Paragraph 0103).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Hirata as modified by Sano to also output inclination as taught by Cunningham, the motivation being that doing so provides feedback for a user to adjust a direction of the device (Paragraph 0103), which reduces the need for the system of Hirata to perform large contact angle adjustments.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Hirata et al. (JPH1176169A) (disclosed by Applicant, citing Google Patents translation) (hereinafter – Hirata) in view of
Sano et al. (US 20190313962 A1) (hereinafter – Sano) in further view of
Cunningham et al. (US 20150208979 A1) (hereinafter – Cunningham) in further view of
Martin (US 20200196864 A1) (hereinafter – Martin).
Re. Claim 10: Hirata as modified by Sano and Cunningham teaches the invention according to claim 9, but does not teach the invention wherein the calculation unit further includes a correction unit configured to correct the hardness indicated by the calculated hardness information according to the information indicating the inclination.
Martin teaches analogous art in the technology of intraocular pressure measurements (Abstract), particularly using a device which contacts the eye (i.e., a tonometer). Martin further teaches the invention wherein the calculation unit further includes a correction unit configured to correct the hardness indicated by the calculated hardness information according to the information indicating the inclination (Paragraph 0045: compensation of detected forces based on inclination of measurement direction).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Hirata as modified by Sano and Cunningham to further include correcting a measurement force (akin to sensed pressure) based on an inclination angle of the device relative to a measurement surface as taught by Martin, the motivation being that doing so allows for correction of measuring force at varying tilt angles relative to gravity.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Hirata et al. (JPH1176169A) (disclosed by Applicant, citing Google Patents translation) (hereinafter – Hirata) in view of
Sano et al. (US 20190313962 A1) (hereinafter – Sano) in further view of
Gurses (US 20060052729 A1) (hereinafter – Gurses).
Re. Claim 9: Hirata as modified by Sano teaches the invention according to claim 5. Hirata as modified by Sano does not teach the invention further comprising:
a diagnostic information acquisition unit configured to acquire diagnostic information that is information to be acquired according to a result of the hardness information output by the output unit; and
a treatment device configured to perform a treatment included in the diagnostic information.
Gurses teaches analogous art in the technology of systems which apply mechanical pressure to soft tissues after diagnosis (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Hirata as modified by Sano to include integrating a treatment device with the invention, performing a diagnosis, and applying appropriate treatment based thereon as taught by Gurses, the motivation being that doing so allows for simultaneous diagnosis and treatment, reducing the time needed to ameliorate possible adverse conditions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN XU whose telephone number is (571)272-6617. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/JUSTIN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791