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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/2/2025 has been entered. Claims 1,3-4,6 and 8-10 are currently pending and under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of the amendment filed on 9/2/2025 clarifying the language of claim 1 the 112 rejections made against claims 1,3-4,6 and 8-10 have been withdrawn. It is noted that claim 1 is still unclear what physical conditions would fall with the different level since it would appear that the different levels would be patient specific and further clarification is required.
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 1,3-4,6 and 8-10 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. Claim 1 has been amended to recite “stored over time to one of three risk levels of physical condition at which the particular test subject belongs, the three risk levels being defined to represent high level indicative of a worst state of physical condition, an insufficient level of physical condition and a low level indicative of a best state of physical condition, respectively”, however it is unclear which physical condition(s) would encompass the “three risk levels” since high level indicative of a worst state of physical condition, an insufficient level of physical condition and a low level indicative of a best state of physical condition, would be patient specific and applicant has not defined within the claims or the disclosure which physical conditions would be associated with being high level indicative of a worst state of physical condition, an insufficient level of physical condition and a low level indicative of a best state of physical condition making it difficult to determine the metes and bounds of the claims, clarification is required. For the purpose of examination “three risk levels” has been interpreted to include any disclosure of a medium or moderate degree of health determination and levels higher or lower than a medium or moderate level. Claims 3-4, 6 and 8-10 directly or indirectly depend from claim 1 and are also rejected to for the reasons stated above regarding claim 1.
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, 3-4 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2005-292049A to Takeshita et al. (hereinafter "Takeshita"; previously cited) in view of JP 2009-250922 to Noguchi (hereinafter "Noguchi", previously cited).
It is noted that claims 1-4 and 8-10 contain a large amount of functional language (e.g. “for…”, “that…”, “configured to..”, etc.). Functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, see MPEP 2114.
In reference to at least claim 1
Takeshita teaches a excretory gas measuring apparatus (e.g. gas measuring device, para. [0010]) and method which discloses a biological information measurement system (e.g. Fig. 1) that presents detection measurement results for evaluation of physical condition (e.g. determine user’s physical condition, para. [0027], [0071], [0073], [0094]), of a test subject based on defecation gas discharged into a bowl of a flush toilet (e.g. excretion gas in a toilet bowl, para. [0002],[0007], [0010]), the biological information measurement system comprising: a suction device having a deodorant filter (e.g. deodorizing device 9, para. [0025]) and configured to collect gas in the bowl into which the defecation gas is discharged by the test subject (e.g. gas suction port 10, para. [0025]-[0026], claim 10); a gas detector (e.g. gas sensor 13, para. [0026]-[0027], [0030]-[0031], [0062]) provided for exposure to the gases collected by the suction device (e.g. multiple gas sensors to collected gases, para. [0034], [0044], [0071], [0092]); the gas detector comprising a first gas sensor (e.g. multiple gas sensors that include a “first gas sensor configured to detect odiferous gas”, para. [0034], [0044], [0071], [0092]) and a second gas sensor configured to detect a healthy-state gas composed of at least one of hydrogen gas, carbon dioxide gas or methane gas (e.g. gas sensor 13 including ones for sensing hydrogen, carbon dioxide and/or methane “second gas sensor configured to detect healthy-state gas”, para. [0026]-[0027], [0031], [0062]), the first and second gas sensor positioned upstream of the deodorant filter (e.g. gas sensor(s) including gas sensor 13 are positioned upstream of deodorizing device 9, Fig. 1); a storage device (e.g. storage unit 23 writes user attribute into the storage unit, para. [0083]-[0085]) that stores, a series of pairs of the first and second detection signals output over time from the gas detector (e.g. storage unit 23 stores time-series signal measurement values for the gas detectors for the user, para. [0030]-[0031], [0062]-[0063]), wherein each pair of the first and second detection signals stored in the storage device represents the odiferous gas and the healthy-state gas detected during an entire period of defecation act (e.g. storage unit 23 stores time-series signal measurement values for the gas detectors for the user, para. [0030]-[0031], [0062]-[0063]; gas detectors can include “plurality of types of gas concentration measurements”, para. [0093], therefore the storage device is capable of storing detection signals representative of odiferous gas and the healthy-state gas detected during an entire period of defecation), and a data analyzer that comprises a CPU (e.g. processing unit “data analyzer with CPU”, para. [0029]) is programmed to link each pair of the first and second detection signals stored over time to one of three risk levels of physical condition at which the particular test subject belongs (e.g. “the processing unit 21 may perform an intestinal state determination based on the time-series signal value stored in the storage unit 23.”, para. [0032]; It is determined which of the 1 to 3 sub-ranges of the ammonia gas concentration belongs to the measured value K….may calculate the final determination result with priority given to the determination result based on the hydrogen gas measurement value Vr.”, para. [0092], therefore first and second detection signals related to at least hydrogen and an odiferous gas such as ammonia are used to determine risk levels) , the three risk levels being defined to represent a high level indicative of a worst state of physical condition, an insufficient level of physical condition, and a low level indicative of a best state of physical condition, respectively (e.g. “In addition, the 1 sub-range is associated with a high intra-intestinal health level, the 2 sub-range is associated with an intra-intestinal level, and the 3 sub-range is associated with a low intra-intestinal level.”, para. [0057], therefore a high intra-intestinal health level is being interpreted as “best state of physical condition”, intra-intestinal level is being interpreted as “insufficient level of physical level of physical health” and low intra-intestinal health is being interpreted as “worst state of physical condition”) and being defined by a correlation between the amount or concentration of the healthy-state gas and the amount or concentration of the odiferous gas to link to each pair of the first and second detection signals (e.g. It is determined which of the 1 to 3 sub-ranges of the ammonia gas concentration belongs to the measured value K….may calculate the final determination result with priority given to the determination result based on the hydrogen gas measurement value Vr.”, para. [0092]; “not only the hydrogen gas but also 1 or more kinds of gases are detected, and the health level of the user is determined based on the plurality of types of gas concentration measurement results.”, para. [0093], therefore the concentration of gas hydrogen and another gas such as the odiferous gas ammonia is used to determine health level of the user), in such a manner that the risk level goes to a higher risk level as the amount or concentration of the odiferous gas represented by the first detection signal goes higher, while going to a lower risk level as the amount or concentration of the healthy-sate gas represented by the second detection signal goes higher (e.g. It is determined which of the 1 to 3 sub-ranges of the ammonia gas concentration belongs to the measured value K….may calculate the final determination result with priority given to the determination result based on the hydrogen gas measurement value Vr.”, para. [0092]; “not only the hydrogen gas but also 1 or more kinds of gases are detected, and the health level of the user is determined based on the plurality of types of gas concentration measurement results.”, para. [0093], therefore the concentration of gas hydrogen and another gas such as the odiferous gas ammonia is used to determine health level of the user; in a particular example defined by Figures 11A-B where 11A shows that as the second index of healthy hydrogen gas increases on the x-axis that healthy bacteria also increase on the y-axis (and vice versa) and where 11B shows that as the first index of odor gas increases on the x-axis that healthy bacteria decrease on the y-axis (and vice versa), para. [0044], [0091], therefore, when first index odor gas increases, then health condition decreases indicating a higher risk of illness, Fig. 11B, where health also decreases when second index gas decreases, Fig. 11A; when first index odor gas decreases, then health increases indicating a lower risk of illness, Fig. 11B, where health also increases when second index gas increases, Fig. 11A).
Takeshita discloses detection of various gases (e.g. multiple gas sensors, para. [0034], [0044], [0071], [0092]) including methane gas, carbon dioxide, hydrogen etc. (e.g. gas sensor 13 including ones for sensing hydrogen, carbon dioxide and/or methane, para. [0026]-[0027], [0030]-[0031], [0062]) and measuring the change in physical condition over time (e.g. determine intestinal health level, para. [0063], [0071], [0073], [0094]) including determining the intestinal condition of the user based on multiple detection signals measured over time (e.g. using the time series signal values “series of pairs” corresponding to the “detected amount or concentration of gas present” to determine the user’s intestinal state such as the health inside the user’s bowels, para. [0031], [0071], [0092]).
However, Takeshita does not explicitly disclose the first gas sensor configured to detect an odiferous gas composed of a sulfur component and a hydrogen gas or the sensors being semiconductor gas sensor or an electrolyte sensor.
Noguchi, in the same field of endeavor, discloses multiple sensors for detecting odiferous gases such as hydrogen sulfide “sulfur component” (e.g. plurality of gas sensors including hydrogen sulfide [0011], [0017], [0019]) and hydrogen gas to determine intestinal status information (e.g. measure hydrogen sulfide defecation in the gas coexistent gases such as hydrogen are present, para. [0007], [0019]). Noguchi further discloses wherein the gas sensor comprises a semiconductor gas sensor or a solid electrolyte sensor that are low-cost and have a long life (e.g. electrolytic type sensor and semiconductor type sensor, para. [0006]) and subtracting a value of a second signal from a sensor used to measure a healthy- state gas, i.e. second detected signal, from a sensor used to measure the odiferous gas from which detects hydrogen sulfide coexistent with hydrogen used to measure odiferous gas, i.e. first detected signal from the first sensor (e.g. concentration of hydrogen sulfide determined using equation(s) that subtracts hydrogen gas detected from additional sensor(s), para. [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gas sensor(s) within the system of Takeshita to include a gas sensor for detection of odiferous gases composed of a sulfur component coexistent with a hydrogen gas to further aid in determining an intestinal state of the subject, as taught by Noguchi, in order to accurately measure hydrogen sulfide odorous gases (e.g. ‘922, para. [0006]) thereby improving accuracy of the measurement for determining the intestinal state of the subject (e.g. ‘922, para. [0011]). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gas sensor(s) within the system of Takeshita to include a semiconductor gas sensor or a solid electrolyte sensor, as taught by Noguchi, in order to provide sensors that are low-cost and have a long life (e.g. ‘922, para. [0006]).
In reference to at least claim 3
Takeshita modified by Noguchi renders obvious a system according to claim 1. Takeshita further discloses an output device that outputs the measurement results that show the changes over the time of the pairs of first and second detection signals for evaluation of the physical condition of the particular test subject (e.g. determination result for display on a screen or an audio output, Figs. 9,11, para. [0016]-[0017], [0031]), wherein the output device is configured to display the measurement results in a two dimensional coordinate system defined in a physical condition display table (e.g. “displays the determination results on the display screen”, para. [0031]; “The processing unit 21 calculates a final determination result based on a determination result based on the hydrogen gas measurement value Vr and a determination result based on the ammonia gas measurement value K”, Fig. 11A,11B, para. [0090]-[0093]), the two-dimensional coordinate system in the physical condition table being formed of two coordinates representing the first and second detection signals, respectively, to determine a particular location of each of the pairs of the first and second detection signal in the physical condition display table (e.g. “The processing unit 21 calculates a final determination result based on a determination result based on the hydrogen gas measurement value Vr and a determination result based on the ammonia gas measurement value K”, Fig. 11A,11B, para. [0090]-[0093]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include using the detected healthy state gas such as hydrogen and/or carbon dioxide and the detected unhealthy gas such as methyl mercaptan as in Takeshita modified by Noguchi and correlate each measurement to a specific health condition as disclosed in Takeshita to provide a more accurate determination of health information. Further, since Takeshita discloses a display (e.g. determination result for display on a screen or an audio output, Figs. 9,11, para. [0016]-[0017], [0031]) and stored intestinal health degree determination table (e.g. “health degree determination table(s)”, Fig. 11A,11B, para. [0090]-[0093]), it would have been well within the level of ordinary skill to use the display to display the stored intestinal health degree determination table(s). Additionally, what the output displays is a matter of intended use and does not further define the display structure.
In reference to at least claim 4
Takeshita modified by Noguchi renders obvious a system according to claim 3. Takeshita further discloses wherein the physical condition display table is divided into a plurality of stage areas each representing a different risk level of physical conditions (e.g. “health degree determination table(s)”, “intestinal health degree” including “higher than the medium”, “about a medium degree of health”, Fig. 11A,11B, para. [0017], [0090]-[0093]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include using the detected healthy state gas such as hydrogen and/or carbon dioxide and the detected unhealthy gas such as methyl mercaptan as disclosed in Takeshita modified by Noguchi and correlate each measurement to a specific health condition as in Takeshita to provide a more accurate determination of health information.
In reference to at least claim 8
Takeshita modified by Noguchi renders obvious a system according to claim 1. Takeshita further discloses a measuring device comprising a device body that is separately from a toilet seat and provided with an edge portion bent downward for hanging with the toilet bowl (e.g. gas admission port 10A that includes sensor 13 “measuring device” that is separate from the toilet on an edge portion where the sensor hangs down, Fig. 1).
In reference to at least claim 9
Takeshita modified by Noguchi renders obvious a system according to claim 1. Takeshita further discloses wherein the data analyzer analyzes deterioration of intestinal environment caused by excessive stress or lack of sleep (e.g. determines the state of the user’s intestine “deterioration of intestinal environment”, para. [0027], [0030]; health state of the intestine “deterioration of intestinal environment”, para. [0043]-[0044]).
In reference to at least claim 10
Takeshita modified by Noguchi renders obvious a system according to claim 1. Takeshita further discloses wherein the data analyzer analyzes whether the physical condition is good or wrong based on a reference value which is set by using an amount of residual gas before an excretory act into the bowl (e.g. baseline “reference value” is a level previously registered in the storage unit such as at time point t1 “residual gas before an excretory act into the bowl”, para. [0048], [0062], [0092]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2005-292049A to Takeshita et al. (Takeshita) in view of JP 2009-250922 to Noguchi (hereinafter "Noguchi", previously cited). as applied to claim 3 further in view of US 2006/0008918 to Probert et al. (Probert) (previously cited).
In reference to at least claim 6
Takeshita modified by Noguchi renders obvious a system according to claim 3. Takeshita further discloses short chain fatty acid being produced using bacteria in the intestines (e.g. para. [0071]) but does not explicitly teach a gas sensor configured to detect a vaporized short-chain fatty acid contained in the defecation gas and output a third detection signal indicative of an amount of the detected vaporized short-chain fatty acid and using the third detection data to form a third index.
Probert, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a detector for measuring disease in defecation gas (e.g. para. [0007]-[0009]) with a gas detector detecting acetic acid/propionic acid of a short chain fatty acid (e.g. para. [0037], [0042], [0055]), the analyzer analyzing the condition of the user based on the detected data (e.g. using the data to determine the condition, para. [0031], [0042], [0053]), and detecting presence of diarrhea (e.g. determining the presence of diarrhea compared to normal stool, para. [0032], [0039], [0052], [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Takeshita modified by Noguchi to include gas sensor(s) for detecting acetic/propionic acid and using the acetic/propionic acid gases and including a third index related to the detection of acetic/propionic acid gases to further aid in determining the user’s physical condition and health risk, as taught by Probert, to provide rapid diagnosis of health conditions (e.g. ‘918, para. [0039]). Takeshita modified by Noguchi and Probert results in a combination that includes a third index of the acetic/propionic acid to determine health risk. What the output displays is a matter of intended use and does not further define the display structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is noted that the rejection has been amended in view of the claim amendments to show where the amended claim language is taught.
Applicant argues “neither Takeshita nor Noguchi discloses the above claim limitation, especially the limitation of “the three risk levels being defined to represent a high level indicative of a worst state of physical condition, an insufficient level of physical condition, and a low level indicative of a best state of physical condition, respectively, and being defined by a correlation between the amount or concentration of the healthy-state gas and the amount or concentration of the odiferous gas to link to each pair of the first and second detection signals in such a manner that the risk level goes to a higher risk level as the amount or concentration of the odiferous gas represented by the first detection signal goes higher, while going to a lower risk level as the amount or concentration of the healthy-sate gas represented by the second detection signal goes higher.”, see pg. 10 of the response filed 9/2/2025, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Takeshita discloses the three risk levels being defined to represent a high level indicative of a worst state of physical condition, an insufficient level of physical condition, and a low level indicative of a best state of physical condition, respectively (e.g. “In addition, the 1 sub-range is associated with a high intra-intestinal health level, the 2 sub-range is associated with an intra-intestinal level, and the 3 sub-range is associated with a low intra-intestinal level.”, para. [0057], therefore a high intra-intestinal health level is being interpreted as “best state of physical condition”, intra-intestinal level is being interpreted as “insufficient level of physical level of physical health” and low intra-intestinal health is being interpreted as “worst state of physical condition”) and being defined by a correlation between the amount or concentration of the healthy-state gas and the amount or concentration of the odiferous gas to link to each pair of the first and second detection signals (e.g. It is determined which of the 1 to 3 sub-ranges of the ammonia gas concentration belongs to the measured value K….may calculate the final determination result with priority given to the determination result based on the hydrogen gas measurement value Vr.”, para. [0092]; “not only the hydrogen gas but also 1 or more kinds of gases are detected, and the health level of the user is determined based on the plurality of types of gas concentration measurement results.”, para. [0093], therefore the concentration of gas hydrogen and another gas such as the odiferous gas ammonia is used to determine health level of the user), in such a manner that the risk level goes to a higher risk level as the amount or concentration of the odiferous gas represented by the first detection signal goes higher, while going to a lower risk level as the amount or concentration of the healthy-sate gas represented by the second detection signal goes higher (e.g. It is determined which of the 1 to 3 sub-ranges of the ammonia gas concentration belongs to the measured value K….may calculate the final determination result with priority given to the determination result based on the hydrogen gas measurement value Vr.”, para. [0092]; “not only the hydrogen gas but also 1 or more kinds of gases are detected, and the health level of the user is determined based on the plurality of types of gas concentration measurement results.”, para. [0093], therefore the concentration of gas hydrogen and another gas such as the odiferous gas ammonia is used to determine health level of the user). Takeshita explicitly discloses that “not only the hydrogen gas but also another one or more types of gases are detected and based on the plurality of types of gas concentration measurement results, the intestinal health degree of the user is determined”, para. [0093], therefore Takeshita discloses using a plurality of types of gas concentration measurement results to determine the intestinal health degree of the user, i.e. physical condition of the user. Takeshita discloses an example that uses not only hydrogen concentration but also ammonia concentration, i.e. an odiferous gas concentration, to determine the intestinal health degree of the user, i.e. physical condition of the user (e.g. It is determined which of the 1 to 3 sub-ranges of the ammonia gas concentration belongs to the measured value K….may calculate the final determination result with priority given to the determination result based on the hydrogen gas measurement value Vr.”, para. [0092]). Therefore, Takeshita does disclose the limitations as claimed. The secondary reference to Noguchi discloses using a concentration of an odiferous gas that includes a sulfur component.
Applicant argues “Takeshita discloses a gas measuring device in which the physical condition of a test subject is analyzed using hydrogen gas. Takeshita discloses odorous gas components diffused in the toilet bowl, but Takeshita does not use these odorous gas components to analyze the physical condition of a test subject.”, see pg. 10 of response filed 9/2/2025, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Takeshita explicitly discloses that “not only the hydrogen gas but also another one or more types of gases are detected and based on the plurality of types of gas concentration measurement results, the intestinal health degree of the user is determined”, para. [0093], therefore Takeshita discloses using a plurality of types of gas concentration measurement results including odiferous gas concentration measurements to determine the intestinal health degree of the user, i.e. physical condition of the user. Takeshita discloses an example that uses not only hydrogen concentration but also ammonia concentration, i.e. an odiferous gas concentration, to determine the intestinal health degree of the user, i.e. physical condition of the user (e.g. It is determined which of the 1 to 3 sub-ranges of the ammonia gas concentration belongs to the measured value K….may calculate the final determination result with priority given to the determination result based on the hydrogen gas measurement value Vr.”, para. [0092]). Therefore, Takeshita does disclose that the intestinal health degree of the user can include using a plurality of gas concentration measurement results including a hydrogen gas and an odiferous gas such as ammonia.
Applicant argues “Takeshita excludes the use of odiferous gas for analyzing the physical conditions and instead utilizes hydrogen gas. It is respectfully submitted that Takeshita teaches away from the present invention. Additionally, Takeshita is silent about odorous gas composed of a sulfur component as required by claim 1 of the present application.”, , see pg. 11 of response filed 9/2/2025, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Takeshita discloses an example that uses not only hydrogen concentration but also ammonia concentration, i.e. an odiferous gas concentration, to determine the intestinal health degree of the user, i.e. physical condition of the user (e.g. It is determined which of the 1 to 3 sub-ranges of the ammonia gas concentration belongs to the measured value K….may calculate the final determination result with priority given to the determination result based on the hydrogen gas measurement value Vr.”, para. [0092]). Takeshita explicitly discloses that “not only the hydrogen gas but also another one or more types of gases are detected and based on the plurality of types of gas concentration measurement results, the intestinal health degree of the user is determined”, para. [0093], therefore Takeshita discloses using a plurality of types of gas concentration measurement results including odiferous gas concentration measurements such as a hydrogen gas and an odiferous gas such as ammonia to determine the intestinal health degree of the user, i.e. physical condition of the user. Regarding the use of an odorous gas composed of sulfur it is Noguchi which is cited as teaching such limitation not Takeshita, see rejection above. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues “Noguchi discloses a health condition measuring instrument that calculates concentration of hydrogen sulfide contained in defecation gas using the response characteristics of gas sensors. In Noguchi, the concentration of hydrogen sulfide gas is used to analyze the health condition, but the concentration of hydrogen gas is not used for this purpose.”, , see pg. 11 of response filed 9/2/2025, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated previously, see response to arguments above, Takeshita explicitly discloses that “not only the hydrogen gas but also another one or more types of gases are detected and based on the plurality of types of gas concentration measurement results, the intestinal health degree of the user is determined”, para. [0093]. Takeshita further discloses an example that uses not only hydrogen concentration but also ammonia concentration, i.e. an odiferous gas concentration, to determine the intestinal health degree of the user, i.e. physical condition of the user (e.g. It is determined which of the 1 to 3 sub-ranges of the ammonia gas concentration belongs to the measured value K….may calculate the final determination result with priority given to the determination result based on the hydrogen gas measurement value Vr.”, para. [0092]). Therefore Takeshita discloses using a plurality of types of gas concentration measurement results including odiferous gas concentration measurements such as a hydrogen gas and an odiferous gas such as ammonia to determine the intestinal health degree of the user, i.e. physical condition of the user. Noguchi is not used within the rejection to teach the combination of hydrogen and hydrogen sulfide. It is used within the rejection to teach a sensor that monitors both hydrogen and using the information to determine hydrogen sulfide, i.e. an odiferous gas, that is used to determine health conditions. As stated previously, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is the combination of the elements disclosed within Takeshita which discloses the use of multiple gas concentration measurements to determined intestinal health levels and Noguchi which discloses the use of hydrogen sulfide which render obvious the claimed invention, see rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L GHAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5844. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM - 3:30PM ET.
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, JENNIFER MCDONALD can be reached on (571)270-3061. 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.
/JENNIFER L GHAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3796