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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-7 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues that none of the references teach “the position of the center of gravity is within a range, in a vertical direction, of which a center is identical to a center of a height of the apparatus body, the range having an upper half and a lower half each identical to 10% of the height of the apparatus body”.
Examiner would like to point out that U. S. Publication No. 2010/0269603 to Shim para 0023 teaches the probe holder may be attached to any part of the apparatus 10, as such can be below the center of gravity of the device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Publication No. 2020/0060647 to Ruff et al. in view of U. S. Publication No. 2010/0269603 to Shim; further in view of U. S. Publication No. 2021/0045712 to De Jonge et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Ruff teaches a medical measurement apparatus comprising: a cable connected to a probe; an apparatus body from which the cable is led out, the apparatus body having a bottom face and a side face larger than the bottom face, and being vertically long in shape in use (figs. 1-3 and 6-9 para 016, 029-031).
Ruff teaches all of the above claimed limitations but does not expressly teach a hook disposed on the apparatus body, the hook being lower than a position of a center of gravity of the apparatus body; the position of the center of gravity is within a range, in a vertical direction, of which a center is identical to a center of a height of the apparatus body, the range having an upper half and a lower half each identical to 10% of the height of the apparatus body.
Shim teaches a hook disposed on the apparatus body, the hook being lower than a position of a center of gravity of the apparatus body (para 0023 teaches the probe holder may be attached to any part of the apparatus 10, as such can be below the center of gravity of the device).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Ruff with a setup such that a hook disposed on the apparatus body, the hook being lower than a position of a center of gravity of the apparatus body as taught by Shim, since such a setup would result in a more user friendly setup, where in the probe can be placed in a comfortable location for the user, furthermore the location of the probe holder is merely a design choice.
Ruff and Shim teaches all of the above claimed limitations does not expressly teach the hook holding the cable by hooking.
De Jonge teaches the hook holding the cable by hooking (figs. 1, 2, and 5-9).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Ruff and Shim with a hooking mechanism for the transducer probe as taught by De Jonge, since Ruff already teaches a holster mechanism and different means for securing the probe are obvious variants.
Regarding Claim 2 Ruff teaches that the position of the center of gravity is within a range, in a vertical direction, of which a center is identical to a center of a height of the apparatus body, the range having an upper half and a lower half each identical to 10% of the height of the apparatus body (figs. 1-3 and 6-9).
Regarding Claim 3, De Jonge teaches that the hook includes a pair of arms being each L-shaped, the pair of arms being spaced apart from each other in a direction orthogonal to a vertical direction on a side face of the apparatus body, the pair of arms protruding from positions different in the vertical direction and extending closer to each other from position of the protruding, and the pair of arms are disposed with a gap, in the vertical direction, larger than a diameter of the cable (figs. 1, 2, and 5-9).
Regarding Claim 4, De Jonge teaches that the pair of arms are disposed such that the gap extends at a slant with respect to the vertical direction (fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 5, Ruff teaches that the hook is disposed on any of four side faces of the apparatus body (figs. 1-3 and 6-9).
Regarding Claim 6, De Jonge teaches that the hook includes: a hook body being U-shaped, an end of the hook body being turnably attached to the side face of the apparatus body; and an engagement part with which the apparatus body is provided, the engagement part being detachably engageable with another end of the hook body, and the hook body is engaged with the engagement part, and the hook body forms, together with the side face, a region through which the cable is inserted (figs. 1, 2, and 5-9).
Regarding Claim 7, De Jonge teaches that the hook includes: a hook body being U-shaped, the hook body forming, together with the side face of the apparatus body, an insertion region through which the cable is inserted; and a flap openably and closably provided at part of the hook body, from a state where the flap is open, the flap moves from a side of location of the insertion region to enclose the insertion region, and from a state where the flap is closed, the flap moves from outside to release the insertion region (figs. 1, 2, and 5-9).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANJAY CATTUNGAL whose telephone number is (571)272-1306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at 571-270-1790. 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.
/SANJAY CATTUNGAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights