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 Invention I (claims 1-6) in the reply filed on 30 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 2, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kennington et al. (US 2015/0103335 A1, cited by Applicant).
With respect to claim 1, Kennington discloses: a system comprising: a first surface (distance sensor, 104a-104c, par. [0045]); a second surface (platform, 102) disposed opposite the first surface by a predetermined distance (known distance between the surface of platform 102 and the corresponding distance sensor, par. [0045]); a depth-measuring system having at least one optical sensor disposed facing the first (distance sensor, par. [0045]) and second surfaces (platform, 102), the at least one optical sensor having a field of view covering at least a portion of the second surface, the at least one optical sensor being configured to measure distance to the first surface through the second surface (platform comprises a transparent material, par. [0041]) and to measure distance to an object placed on the second surface (object being measured, “cuboidal object”, par. [0044]), the depth-measuring system further including a processor in communication with the at least one optical sensor to receive the measured distances (system controller, par. [0058]), the processor being configured to determine dimensions of the object placed on the second surface based on, in part, a difference in the measured distance to the first surface, a known distance of the second surface from the at least one optical sensor (measurements determined by the distance sensors may be subtracted from a known distance between the surface of platform 102 and the corresponding distance sensor, par. [0045]), and the measured distance to the object on the second surface (calculation described in par. [0045]).
With respect to claim 2, Kennington further discloses a weighing scale, and wherein the second surface sits atop the weighing scale to measure weight of the object placed on the second surface (weight measurement means described in par. [0059]).
With respect to claims 5 and 6, Kennington discloses a platform (102) made from a glass material (par. [0041]). Unless otherwise specified, glass is known to be IR transparent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennington.
With respect to claim 4, Kennington discloses light emitters and receivers (par. [0039]), but does not specify the wavelength of the light being emitted. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to select light having a wavelength effective for the desired application (e.g. visible light which may provide a visual indication of where light is incident on the object), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennington, in view of Cool.
With respect to claim 3, Kennington discloses a transparent material for allowing light signals to pass through the platform (102) and be detected by light receivers (par. [0041]). Kennington does not specify an infrared transparent coating. Cool discloses a portable device with a visible light reflective coating that is also infrared-transparent (par. [0040]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include an infrared transmissive coating such as that of Cool, in order to prevent extraneous light from reaching the light receivers, while maintaining transparency for the light being used for measurement (such as infrared).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R GAWORECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-8540. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-6 PM.
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, DAVID MAKIYA can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/MARK R GAWORECKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 21 July 2026
Prosecution Insights