DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
The action is in response to amendments filed on 03/04/2026. Claim 11 have been amended. Claim 13 has been cancelled. Claims 11-12, 14-20 are pending and examined below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 11-12, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170086728 A1 (cited in IDS; hereinafter referred to as “Hidas”) in view of US 8567258 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “Belotserkovsky”).
Regarding claim 11, Hidas, a system for measuring urine flow rate, teaches a smart device for displaying urine flow information to a user (paragraphs [0076]-[0080]), the smart device comprising:
a transceiver for receiving data from a uroflowmetry device that detects a urine level in the uroflow device (mobile device (a smart phone) can receive data information; paragraph [0079]) and a number of rotations of a paddle wheel that rotates in response to urine exiting the uroflowmetry device, the received data including a urine flowrate based on both the urine level and the number of rotations of the paddle wheel (paragraphs [0108]-[0110]);
a display (output means 804; paragraphs [0024], [0076]; Figure 7); and
a processor (mobile device is a smart phone (and thus has a processor); paragraphs [0076]-[0080]) configured to, while the user is urinating, display the urine flowrate on the display (smart phone can display flow rate information to user; paragraphs [0076]-[0080]); but does not explicitly teach a processor configured to, while the user is urinating, display the urine flowrate on the display via a software application to provide real-time urination feedback to the user and wherein the processor is further configured to display data on the display as an interactive game with which the user interacts.
However, Belotserkovsky, a urine flow monitoring device, teaches a processor configured to, while the user is urinating, display the urine flowrate on the display via a software application to provide real-time urination feedback to the user (claims 23, 24, and 30; Figure 13). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hidas, to show real time urination feedback to the user, as taught by Belotserkovsky, because doing show allows the user to instantaneously ascertain their urinary rate.
Further, Schneider, a physiological sensor device, teaches wherein the processor is further configured to display data on the display as an interactive game with which the user interacts (abstract). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hidas, in view of Belotserkovsky (which already teaches displaying urine flow data), to display data on the display as an interactive game with which the user interacts, as taught by Schneider, because doing so provides a fun and interactive way for a user to see data.
Regarding claim 12, Hidas, in view of Belotserkovsky and Schneider, teaches wherein the processor is further configured to display the urine flowrate on the display as a data graph (output means displays graphs indictive of uroflow; paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 15, Hidas, in view of Belotserkovsky and Schneider, teaches wherein the processor is further configured to transmit, via the transceiver, the urine flowrate to a server, the urine flowrate being accessible via the server by medical professionals (paragraphs [0077]-[0078]).
Regarding claim 16, Hidas, in view of Belotserkovsky and Schneider, teaches wherein the a transceiver is configured to receive, from the uroflowmetry device, the urine level in the uroflow device and the number of rotations of the paddle wheel (paragraphs [0108]-[0113]), and
wherein the processor is further configured to compute the urine flowrate based on the urine level in the uroflowmetry device and the number of rotations of the paddle wheel (paragraphs [0108]-[0113]).
Regarding claim 17, Hidas, in view of Belotserkovsky and Schneider, teaches wherein the processor is further configured to control the display to display control buttons, allowing the user to control computation of urine flowrate and a display format for the urine flowrate (paragraph [0076]-[0080]).
Regarding claim 18, Hidas, in view of Belotserkovsky and Schneider, teaches wherein the processor is further configured to control the display to display historical urine flowrate data to the user (paragraph [0076]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidas, in view of Belotserkovsky and Schneider, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US 20220044801 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Murthy”).
Regarding claim 13, Hidas, in view of Belotserkovsky and Schneider, teaches displaying urine flow data on a smart phone (paragraph [0076]-[0080]), but does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to display coaching advice on the display instructing the user on proper techniques for normal uroflow.
However, Murthy, a health monitor device, teaches wherein the processor is further configured to display coaching advice on the display instructing the user on how to deal with a medical issue (paragraph [0029]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hidas, in view of Belotserkovsky and Schneider, to display coaching advice on the display instructing the user on how to deal with a medical issue, as taught by Schneider, thus yielding wherein the processor is further configured to display coaching advice on the display instructing the user on proper techniques for normal uroflow, because doing so provides a fun and interactive way for a user to see data.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidas, in view of Belotserkovsky and Schneider, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US 20120053540 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Belotserkovsky ‘540”).
Regarding claim 19, Hidas, in view of Belotserkovsky and Schneider, teaches the smart phone having a transceiver to receive data from a sensor (paragraph [0079]), but does not explicitly teach wherein the transceiver is paired with the uroflowmetry device via Bluetooth.
However, Belotserkovsky ‘540, a urine flow monitoring device, teaches wherein the transceiver is paired with the uroflowmetry device via Bluetooth (paragraph [0063]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Hidas, in view of Belotserkovsky and Schneider, to use Bluetooth, as taught by Belotserkovsky ‘540, because doing so allows the transceiver to receive data from the sensor. Making this modification merely combines prior art elements according to known methods well known in the industry (see MPEP 2143, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidas, in view of Belotserkovsky and Schneider, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US 20100087752 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Li”).
Regarding claim 20, Hidas, in view of Belotserkovsky and Schneider, does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to compute and display a best-fit curve based on the urine flowrate.
However, Li, a urinary monitoring system, teaches wherein the processor is further configured to compute and display a best-fit curve based on the urine flowrate (paragraph [0052], [0065]; as shown in Figures 4A-B). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hidas, in view of Belotserkovsky and Schneider, to have a best fit curve, as taught by Li, because doing so provides a representation of the trend of a set of data points on a graph.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026 with respect to 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant traverses the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 11.
Specifically, Applicant argues that the prior art of record fails to teach providing real time urination feedback and that the combination of Hides, in view of Schneider, uses impermissible hindsight. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Hidas, teaches a processor (mobile device is a smart phone (and thus has a processor); paragraphs [0076]-[0080]) configured to, while the user is urinating, display the urine flowrate on the display (smart phone can display flow rate information to user; paragraphs [0076]-[0080]); but does not explicitly teach a processor configured to, while the user is urinating, display the urine flowrate on the display via a software application to provide real-time urination feedback to the user. However, Belotserkovsky, a urine flow monitoring device, teaches a processor configured to, while the user is urinating, display the urine flowrate on the display via a software application to provide real-time urination feedback to the user (“A urine flow monitoring device which measures in real time urine flow parameters …”; claims 23; “an indicator device to which the output signal is applied to provide a visual display indication of the flow rate”; claim 24, and 30; Figure 13). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hidas, to show real time urination feedback to the user, as taught by Belotserkovsky, because doing show allows the user to instantaneously ascertain their urinary rate.
Second, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
As such Applicant’s arguments are found to be unpersuasive.
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 ABID A MUSTANSIR whose telephone number is (408)918-7647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 am to 6 pm Pacific Time.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/ABID A MUSTANSIR/Examiner, Art Unit 3791