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 .
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112 is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claim, filed 10/02/25.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims recite a gyro sensor located in a toilet space and configured to detect a rotation count of toilet paper, thereby amounting to a particular machine with identifiable structure and function (Remarks, filed 10/02/25, p. 7). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite the use of a conventional gyro sensor for performing its routine function of detecting rotation, which amounts to a generic component.
Applicant further argues that the use of the gyro sensor is not an insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere data gathering because the gyro sensor plays a meaningful role by providing specific rotation count data of toilet paper (Remarks, filed 10/02/25, p. 7). Examiner notes that the claims recite a conventional gyro sensor for detecting rotation data to determine an amount of toilet paper used. Thereafter, a cognitive level of a subject may be evaluated (e.g., mentally) based on the determined amount of toilet paper consumed.
Lastly, Applicant argues that the recited arrangement of the sensor and processor, and the recited use of the sensor-derived behavior data in evaluating cognitive level, impose meaningful limits on the claim (Remarks, filed 10/02/25, p. 7). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recitation of generic components for performing the abstract idea amounts to no more than applying the abstract idea using the generic components. That is, but for the recitation of the generic components, a human could visually determine a rotation count of toilet paper and determine an amount of toilet paper consumed, and thereafter mentally evaluate cognitive level of the subject based on the amount of toilet paper consumed. The use of a generic sensor and processor for performing the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Thus, because the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
The rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Particularly, while prior art teaches the use of sensors to detect rotation of a toilet paper roll (see e.g., U.S. Pub. 2019/0320515 A1), the prior art fails to further teach or suggest evaluating the cognitive level of the subject based on the amount of toilet paper consumed by a person detected by a gyro sensor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 15, analyzed as representative claim:
[Step 1] Claim 15 recites “A cognitive level evaluation method” which falls within the “process” statutory category of invention under 35 U.S.C. 101.
[Step 2A – Prong 1] The claim recites a series of steps which can be practically performed by one or more humans through mental process (i.e., observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Claim 15 recites “A cognitive level evaluation method, comprising: detecting a plurality of behaviors of a subject during a single toilet stay from a moment the subject begins using a toilet device in a toilet space until the subject leaves the toilet space, the toilet space accommodating a gyro sensor configured to detect a rotation count of toilet paper; storing behavior order information including (1) the plurality of behaviors detected during the single toilet stay of the subject in the toilet space and (2) an order of the plurality of behaviors performed in the single toilet stay; evaluating a cognitive level of the subject based on the behavior order information, wherein the evaluating comprises: comparing the order of the plurality of behaviors included in the behavior order information stored within a predetermined period with a behavioral order represented in a behavior pattern preset, calculating a mismatch rate at which the behavior pattern does not match with the order of the plurality of behaviors, and evaluating the cognitive level of the subject based on the mismatch rate; and reporting the cognitive level, wherein the evaluating the cognitive level of the subject is further based on whether the plurality of behaviors include two or more same behaviors, the detecting a plurality of behaviors of the subject in the toilet space comprises: detecting an amount of toilet paper consumed by the subject during the single toilet stay based on the rotation count of the toilet paper during the single toilet stay by the gyro sensor, and the evaluating the cognitive level of the subject is further based on the amount of toilet paper consumed by the subject. The bolded limitations of detecting a plurality of behaviors of a subject, storing the plurality of behaviors and an order of the plurality of behaviors, and evaluating a cognitive level of the subject using a mismatch rate by comparing the order of the plurality of behaviors of the subject with a behavioral order and calculating the mismatch rate based on the comparison, as well as whether a plurality of behaviors include two or more same behaviors and based further on a determined amount of toilet paper consumed by the subject, encompass, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations that can be performed in a human’s mind. That is, a human (e.g., an aid, nurse, etc.) can visually detect a plurality of behaviors of a subject in a toilet space, store in their mind the observed plurality of behaviors and order of the plurality of behaviors, and mentally compare the order of the plurality of behaviors with a known (stored/preset), usual/common order of behaviors (e.g., lift toilet lid, excrete, close toilet lid, flush) (behavior pattern preset), mentally calculate a mismatch rate based on the comparison, and mentally evaluate the cognitive level of the subject based on the mismatch rate. Moreover, the human could further mentally evaluate the cognitive level of the subject by determining whether the observed plurality of behaviors include two or more of the same behavior (e.g., tried to flush multiple times, used the toilet multiple times during the toilet stay even when not necessary, or any repeated behavior which may be indicative of an irregularity). Further, a human can mentally evaluate the cognitive level of the subject based additionally on an observed/determined amount of toilet paper used (i.e., based on visually-collected data, or using data collected from a sensor) (e.g., excessive toilet paper usage may indicate cognitive decline). Therefore, the claimed limitations encompass the abstract idea of mental processes (including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
[Step 2A – Prong 2] The additional italicized claim limitation of reporting the cognitive level is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of data transmission/display, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, a gyro sensor for detecting a rotation count of toilet paper is recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than implementation of the abstract idea using a generic component/sensor. Accordingly, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
[Step 2B] As discussed above under Step 2A – Prong 2, the additional limitation of reporting the cognitive level encompasses the insignificant extra-solution activity of data transmission/display, which also is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Moreover, the gyro sensor is recited at a high level of generality and merely encompasses the use of a generic, conventional component for performing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 1 is rejected for like reasoning as claim 15 presented above. While claim 1 is directed to a system with additional components of a memory and processor, wherein behavior order information as well as a behavioral order represented in a behavior pattern is stored in the memory, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and encompass merely applying the abstract idea using generic computing components performing their known functions (e.g., processor executing code for gathering, comparing, and evaluating data and memory for storing data). These additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality such that they do not amount to a particular machine or technical improvement thereof, nor do they represent an improvement in any other technology. Rather, the generic manner in which these additional elements are claimed amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use. Thus, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application or provide significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept).
Furthermore, the Specification further demonstrates that the additional elements are recited for their well-understood, routine, and conventional functionality, and which refers to the elements of the system in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the Specification does not need to describe the particulars of such elements to satisfy enablement (see Specification, [0139-0140], “The cognitive level evaluation system 1 or an execution object of the cognitive level evaluation method according to the present disclosure includes a computer system. The computer system may include a processor and a memory as principal hardware components. The functions of the cognitive level evaluation system 1 or the execution object of the cognitive level evaluation method according to the present disclosure may be performed by making the processor execute a program stored in the memory of the computer system. The program may be stored in advance in the memory of the computer system. Alternatively, the program may also be downloaded through a telecommunications line or be distributed after having been recorded in some non-transitory storage medium such as a memory card, an optical disc, or a hard disk drive, any of which is readable for the computer system. The processor of the computer system may be implemented as a single or a plurality of electronic circuits including a semiconductor integrated circuit (IC) or a large-scale integrated circuit (LSI). Those electronic circuits may be either integrated together on a single chip or distributed on multiple chips, whichever is appropriate. Those multiple chips may be integrated together in a single device or distributed in multiple devices without limitation. Also, the cognitive level evaluation system 1 as the computer system may be a system configured by one or more computers. For example, at least some functions of the cognitive level evaluation system 1 may be implemented as a cloud computing system as well.” (emphases added)). Thus, the additional elements define the field of use as a computer-implemented environment with the components listed above, amounting to merely automating a manual process. Therefore, claim 1 is also not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 4-7, 9-14 and 16 are dependent on claims 1 and 15 and therefore recite the same abstract idea noted above. While the dependent claims may have a narrower scope than the independent claims, the claims fail to recite additional limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept). Therefore, claims 4-7, 9-14, and 16 are also not patent eligible.
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 ALYSSA N BRANDLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol, can be reached at (571)272-4430. 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.
/ALYSSA N BRANDLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights