DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Group I. Claims 1-7, drawn to an anthropometer for measuring height as shown in Figs. 1-5, classified in A61B5/1072.
Group II. Claims 8 and 16, drawn to an anthropometer for measuring skinfolds/body fat, i.e. caliper, as shown in Fig. 8, classified in A61B5/1075.
Inventions group I. and group II are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed both comprise a rotary encoder but comprise different structures for measuring different parameters with group I. configured for measuring height and group II. configured for measuring a skinfold/body fat, therefore, they have materially different designs, mode of operation, and function, the inventions do not overlap in scope, and the inventions are not obvious variants. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
--the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
--the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
--the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with John Behles on 7/14/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I., claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 8 and 16 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 claimed “a sensor configured to indicate a horizontal plane orientation of the digital anthropometer” of claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Element “508” in Fig. 8 should be corrected to “808”.
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 § 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 10-15 and 17 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.
Claims 3 and 10 contain the trademark/trade name Bluetooth. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a short-range wireless communications module and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claims 11-15 and 17 are rejected through a dependence on claim 10.
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 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9,658,058 (Jones).
Regarding claim 1, Jones teaches a digital anthropometer (height-measuring device 1 of Figs. 1-2 and 4-5), comprising:
a rotary encoder (rotary encoder 78; see Fig. 4; see col. 4, lines 40-60);
an enclosure housing the rotary encoder (a front shell assembly 9 and rear-facing shell 50; see Figs. 1-2 and 4; see col. 2, lines 45-61);
a wheel associated with the enclosure and rotatably coupled to the rotary encoder for measuring a displacement as the wheel rolls along a surface (drive sprocket 82 arranged in the enclosure and spins with the encoder wheel 75; see col. 4 line, 40 – col. 5, line 31; see Fig. 4);
a digital display configured to show the displacement as a measurement value (a display 30 would reasonably be understood to be a digital display as it is connected to ASIC board 35 and includes an LED or LCD display, a touch screen, GUI buttons, etc; see Figs. 1, 2, and 4; see col. 3, lines 41-61); and
at least one control button positioned on the enclosure and configured to operate the rotary encoder (manual pushbuttons 32 control the encoder including calibrating see col. 3, lines 41-61; see col. 5, line 32 – col. 6, line 64).
Regarding claim 9, Jones teaches further comprising a sensor configured to indicate a horizontal plane orientation of the digital anthropometer (a bubble type or electronic level indicator 45 is affected to the housing to ensure the height measuring device has the truest perpendicular wall mount with respect to the floor; see Fig. 4; see col. 3, lines 29-33).
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 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,658,058 (Jones).
Regarding claim 2, Jones teaches further comprising a rail engagement interface (sensor bracket 42), a measurement rail (tape 74); and wherein the wheel is further configured to roll along the measurement rail, the measurement rail being placed in proximity to a body or body part of a user (the drive sprocket rolls along the tape 74 placed in proximity to a body of a user; see Figs. 4-6).
Jones fails to teach the rail engagement interface including: rollers rotatably supported on the enclosure, wherein the rollers are configured to engage with a measurement rail and support the digital anthropometer as it travels along the measurement rail.
Chul teaches the rail engagement interface including: rollers rotatably supported on the enclosure, wherein the rollers are configured to engage with a measurement rail and support the digital anthropometer as it travels along the measurement rail (an interface comprises a sliding bracket 132 having guide wheels 131 for rolling along a guide rail and sliding post 130; see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Chul into Jones in order to gain the advantage of guide wheels to roll the encoder along a measurement rail if using a fixed measurement rail instead of a retractable tape.
Regarding claim 5, Jones fails to teach wherein the at least one control button includes: a unit toggle button configured to switch between different units of the measurement value; a hold button configured to freeze the measurement value displayed on the digital display; and a zero button configured to reset the measurement value to zero, however, such buttons are conventional on anthropometer sensors and including such buttons would not provide any new or unexpected results or require any undue experimentation.
Claim(s) 3, 10-14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,658,058 (Jones) in view of US 8,554,316 (Shimizu).
Regarding claim 3, Jones teaches further comprising a wireless communications module (wire or wireless communication module 101), wherein the wireless communications module is configured to wirelessly transmit the measurement value to an external device (wireless communication module 101 transmits a digital height to a smartphone 111; see Fig. 6; see col. 6, lines 8-37).
Jones fails to explicitly teach a short-range wireless communications module, and wherein the short-range wireless communications module comprises Bluetooth and is configured to transmit data to the external device in real time, however, Bluetooth is a well-known type of wireless communication for communicating date over short ranges for transmitting data between a wireless device and a smartphone and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the wireless module with Bluetooth. See col. 20, line 55 – col. 21, line 15 of Shimizu.
Regarding claim 10, Jones teaches a method of using a digital anthropometer (a method for measuring a height using a height-measuring device 1 of Figs. 1-2 and 4-5), the method comprising:
positioning a wheel on a surface to be measured (drive sprocket 82 arranged in the enclosure and spins with the encoder wheel 75; see col. 4 line, 40 – col. 5, line 31; see Fig. 4);
rolling the wheel along the surface to measure a displacement (The slotted retractable tape's 84 motion effectively engages, and spins both a drive sprocket 82 and the encoder wheel 75 by means of the slotted retractable tape's 84 array of stamped slots 88 which make interlacing contact with gear teeth 77 that tangentially circumscribe the drive sprocket 82. See col. 4 line, 61 – col. 5, line 31; see Fig. 4);
converting the displacement into a distance using a rotary encoder coupled to the wheel (the displacement of the encoder is converted to a height; see col. 4, lines 40-60);
displaying the distance on a digital display, the displayed distance being indicative of the displacement (the height is displayed on a display 30 which would reasonably be understood to be a digital display as it is connected to ASIC board 35 and includes an LED or LCD display, a touch screen, GUI buttons, etc; see Figs. 1, 2, and 4; see col. 3, lines 41-61); and
transmitting the distance wirelessly to an external device via a transmitter module (wireless communication module 101 transmits a digital height to a smartphone 111; see Fig. 6; see col. 6, lines 8-37).
Jones fails to explicitly teach transmitting via a Bluetooth module, however, Bluetooth is a well-known wireless communication for communicating date over short ranges for transmitting data between a wireless device and a smartphone. See col. 20, line 55 – col. 21, line 15 of Shimizu.
Regarding claims 11-13, Jones fails to teach further comprising switching between different units of measurement by toggling a unit button; further comprising freezing the displayed measurement value by pressing a hold button; and further comprising resetting the displayed measurement value to zero by pressing a zero button, however, such buttons are conventional on anthropometer sensors and including such buttons would not provide any new or unexpected results or require any undue experimentation.
Regarding claim 14, Jones teaches further comprising sensing an amount of force applied during measurement using a pressure sensor (the system includes a weight scale which is equivalent to a measurement of force using a pressure sensor; see Fig. 6; see col. 6, lines 38-64).
Regarding claim 17, Jones teaches further comprising indicating a horizontal plane orientation of the digital anthropometer using an output from a sensor (a bubble type or electronic level indicator 45 is affected to the housing to ensure the height measuring device has the truest perpendicular wall mount with respect to the floor; see Fig. 4; see col. 3, lines 29-33).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,658,058 (Jones) in view of US 2018/0035918 (Emalfarb).
Regarding claim 4, Jones fails to explicitly teach further comprising a second digital display positioned on an opposite side of the enclosure, the second digital display configured to provide visibility of the measurement value from multiple angles, however, the limitations as claimed would be an obvious matter of design choice and a mere duplication of parts without requiring any undue experimentation or providing any new or unexpected results. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a second display which may be visible from a different position if a first display is not positioned in a desired location. For example, Emalfarb teaches wherein a scale may have a single display or two displays which may be view from different angles. See [0080], [0089], [0098], [0103], [0108] of Emarlfarb.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,658,058 (Jones).
Regarding claim 7, Jones fails to explicitly teach wherein the rotary encoder is configured to measure displacement with a resolution of 0.1 millimeters, however, Jones teaches in col. 4, lines 44-55:
The rotary encoder decodes height measurements of users or objects using a set of two coordinated emitter beam ([71], [72]) signals, being 90° out-of-phase, an encoder wheel [75] having a reflective surface, and an array of coded segments [80], which are thin, opaque lines, radially situated around the encoder wheel [75]. Each coded segment [80] is non-reflective and has a certain thickness, and the reflective sectors [81] are spaced equally, radially, and adjacently around the encoder wheel [75] axis. Note that the specificity of number, size, and spacing of these coded segments [80] and reflective sectors [81] determines the rotary encoder's [78] resolution.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the number, size, and spacing to achieve the desired displacement resolution as claimed without requiring any undue experimentation.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,658,058 (Jones) in view of US 2018/0035918 (Emalfarb).
Regarding claim 15, Jones fails to teach further comprising providing visibility of the measurement value from multiple angles using a second digital display, however, the claim is rejected in an equivalent manner as claim 4.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0041393 (He) in view of US 8,109,008 (Niemczak).
Regarding claim 18, He teaches a digital anthropometer (a measuring body 1; see Fig. 1), comprising:
an enclosure housing a rotary encoder (the measuring body 1 houses an angle detection device 7; see Figs. 4, 12; see [0063]);
a wheel associated with the enclosure and rotatably coupled to the rotary encoder, the wheel configured to measure a displacement as the wheel rolls along a body part of a user to measure a length of the body part (measuring wheel 2 is coupled to the angle detection device 7 and rolls along the body to measure a length; see [0052], [0061], [0109]);
a pressure sensor associated with the rotary encoder (pressure sensor 6; see [0058], see Fig. 4);
a controller configured to: receive output from the rotary encoder indicative of the wheel rolling against the body part (a control device receives a signal from the angle detection device 7 and a first detection device 7);
receive a pressure signal from the pressure sensor while the wheel is used against the body part (pressure sensors measure the pressure when the wheel is pressed against the skin; see [0058]); and
determine a measurement value corresponding to the length of the body part based on rotations of the wheel as determined from the output of the rotary encoder (measuring wheel 2 is coupled to the angle detection device 7 and rolls along the body to measure a length; see [0052], [0061], [0109]).
He fails to teach a microcontroller, however it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the controller of He to be implemented as a microcontroller which includes memory, RAM, and software as disclosed in Niemczak in order to control the device, store data, and perform calculation with a microcontroller in the unit. See col. 7, line 63 – col. 8, line 12 of Niemczak.
Regarding claim 19, He further teaches further comprising a support arm extending from the enclosure (handle 101 extends from the body 1; see Fig. 1).
The combination of claims 1 and 6 recite similar subject matter as claim 18 and is rejected in an equivalent manner as claim 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 20, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest wherein the pressure sensor is configured to provide real-time feedback to the microcontroller, allowing for dynamic adjustment of the displayed measurement value based on detected pressure to enhance measurement accuracy, and wherein the microcontroller is further configured to generate an alert via the digital display or an auditory signal when an applied pressure exceeds a predefined threshold, thereby indicating that excessive force is being applied to avoid distorting the measurement value, in combination with all other limitations of parent claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN LEE YENINAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0372. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10 - 6.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/STEVEN L YENINAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights