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: “evaluation unit”, “first determination unit” and “second determination unit” in claim 14.
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.
Para 0063 of the specification teaches hardware structures tied to the units above.
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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 A1/A2 as being anticipated by U. S. Publication No. 2022/0338586 to Weiler.
Regarding Claims 1, 14, and 16, Weiler teaches a computer-implemented system, method and program for determining at least one production value for producing a custom tailored compression garment for a limb, comprising the steps of: receiving a three dimensional dataset of the limb acquired using a 3D scan device, evaluating the dataset to derive at least one reference information describing the position of an anatomical feature of the limb along the length of the limb (figs. 3 and 6-9 teaches 3d imaging of the limbs; para 0154 teaches anatomical landmark which are reference information), determining the at least one measurement position for the at least one production value in the three dimensional dataset using at least one rule of a rule set, wherein each rule relates at least one reference information to at least one measurement position, and determining the at least one production value from the three dimensional dataset at the at least one determined measurement position, wherein the at least one production value is associated with at least one measurement position along the length of the limb (23),wherein the at least one production value comprises manufacturing values and/or intermediate values, and wherein the at least one production value is used to derive a knitting program adapted to control a garment production apparatus (para 0182 teaches determining length value, para 074 and 0184 teaches knitting using the length value; para 0163 and 0181-186 teaches knitting machine and software, for generating production values and control garment production).
Regarding Claim 2, Weiler teaches that the three dimensional dataset is acquired using a contact-free, imaging-based 3D scan device (20) such as a tablet (21) or mobile phone running a scanning application (para 0100 teaches a phone or tablet for imaging and acquiring 3d data).
Regarding Claim 3, Weiler teaches that the evaluation of the three dimensional dataset comprises determining a surface of the limb (para 0060, 0132, fig. 3 teaches 3d imaging of the limb).
Regarding Claim 4, Weiler teaches at least one reference information is determined by analyzing the sequence of at least one characterizing value of the limb (23) along the limb (23), wherein the characterizing value is determined from the three-dimensional dataset (para 017 teaches different compression values based on length of limb).
Regarding Claim 5, Weiler teaches analyzing the sequence comprises finding a local and/or global maximum or minimum of the characterizing value along the length of the limb (para 017 teaches different compression values based on length of limb).
Regarding Claim 6, Weiler teaches at least one reference information describes the position (1-14) of an anatomical landmark, selected from the group consisting of one or more of a joint, a bone, a muscle, and a tendon (para 0154 teaches anatomical landmarks like largest circumference of calf muscle).
Regarding Claim 7, Weiler teaches at least one rule defines a measurement position depending on at least one position (1-14) of an anatomical feature of at least one reference information (para 0154 and 0157 teaches anatomical landmarks like which are reference positions).
Regarding Claim 8, Weiler teaches that for at least one measurement position, at least two rules for determining the measurement position using at least two different and available reference information are provided in the rule set (34) and all rules are used for a plausibility check or for statistically refining the associated measurement position (para 0095 and 0096 teaches multiple measurement methods for the compression garments; furthermore para 0154 teaches anatomical landmarks which are reference points for imaging).
Regarding Claim 9, Weiler teaches at least one length value describing the distance between two measurement positions along the limb (23) is determined as at least one of the at least one production value, wherein if the compression garment is to be produced by flat knitting, the length value is determined along the outline of the limb (23) and, if the garment is to be produced by circular knitting, the length value is determined along a longitudinal axis of at least a part of the limb (para 0182 teaches flat piece knitting, and determining length value, para 074 and 0184 teaches circular knitting and length value associated with the knitting).
Regarding Claim 10, Weiler teaches that the rule set (34) is updated using machine learning and training data obtained from actually produced compression garments (para 0107-0109 teaches software logic for producing compression garments).
Regarding Claim 11, Weiler teaches a method for producing a compression garment for a limb (23) of a patient, comprising automatically performing the steps of a method according to claim 1, whereafter the compression garment is automatically produced by the garment production apparatus (31) using the at least one production value (para 0150, 0151 and 0161 teaches automatically producing the compression garment from the production value).
Regarding Claim 12, Weiler teaches that the garment production apparatus is a knitting machine (para 0163 and 0181 teaches knitting machine).
Regarding Claim 13, Weiler teaches sending the at least one production value to a computing device of a manufacturer for automatic production of the compression garment (para 084-086 teaches compression value for the garments for automatic production; para 0150, 0151 and 0161 teaches automatically producing the compression garment from the production value).
Regarding Claim 15, Weiler teaches that the determination system is configured to send the at least one production value to a computing device of a manufacturer for automatic production of the compression garment by the garment production apparatus (para 0150, 0151 and 0161 teaches automatically producing the compression garment from the production value).
Conclusion
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