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 Status
Claims 1-11 are currently pending and under examination herein.
Claims 1-11 are rejected.
Priority
Foreign priority is acknowledged to JP2020-188528 filed 11/12/2020. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Priority is also acknowledged to PCT/JP2020/048946 filed 12/25/2020. In this action, claims 1-11 are examined as though they had an effective filing date of 11/12/2020. In future actions, the effective filing date of one or more claims may change, due to amendments to the claims, or further analysis of the disclosure(s) of the priority application(s).
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed 12/20/2022 and IDS filed on 12/05/2024. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/20/2022 and 12/05/2024 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 09/20/2022 are accepted by the examiner.
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.
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) 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:
an acquisition unit that in claim 10
a determination unit that in claim 10
an output unit that in claim 10
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The specification and drawings indicate that the acquisition unit, determination unit, and output unit appear to be a generic computing device (see figures 1 and 6). Furthermore, the algorithm needed for the determination function appears to be present in the specification and drawings (see figures 12 and 16-17).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea and natural law without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP § 2106, claims found to recite statutory subject matter (Step 1: YES) are then analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1). Claims 1-9 are directed to a method and claims 10-11 are directed to systems. In the instant application, the claims recite the following limitations that equate to an abstract idea:
Claim 1 recites the limitation - determining whether or not one who excreted has farted based on the first time series data of the hydrogen concentration. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, making a determination if someone has farted based on hydrogen concentrations could include equations and could practically be done by the human mind. This draws the limitation to a mathematical concept and a mental process, which classifies the limitation as an abstract idea. Additionally, this describes a natural correlation, which classifies the limitation as a law of nature. Claims 2-9 depend on claim 1, and thus contain the above issues due to said dependence.
Claim 2 recites the limitation - when a value of the hydrogen concentration in the first time series data exceeds a threshold value, it is determined that the one who excreted has farted. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, making this determination if someone has farted could include equations and could practically be done by the human mind. This draws the limitation to a mathematical concept and a mental process, which classifies the limitation as an abstract idea. Additionally, this describes a natural correlation, which classifies the limitation as a law of nature.
Claim 3 recites the limitation - it is determined that the one who excreted has farted when a value of the hydrogen concentration in the first time series data exceeds a threshold value, a rising slope of the first time series data until reaching a peak is larger than a threshold value, and a falling slope of the first time series data after reaching the peak is smaller than a threshold value. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, making this determination if someone has farted could include equations and could practically be done by the human mind. This draws the limitation to a mathematical concept and a mental process, which classifies the limitation as an abstract idea. Additionally, this describes a natural correlation, which classifies the limitation as a law of nature.
Claim 4 recites the limitation - it is determined whether or not the one who excreted has farted based on the first time series data and the second time series data. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, making this determination if someone has farted could include equations and could practically be done by the human mind. This draws the limitation to a mathematical concept and a mental process, which classifies the limitation as an abstract idea. Additionally, this describes a natural correlation, which classifies the limitation as a law of nature. Claim 5 depends on claim 4, and thus contain the above issues due to said dependence.
Claim 5 recites the limitation - it is determined that the one who excreted has farted when a value of the hydrogen concentration in the first time series data exceeds a threshold value and a value of the hydrogen concentration in the second time series data exceeds a threshold value. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, making this determination if someone has farted could include equations and could practically be done by the human mind. This draws the limitation to a mathematical concept and a mental process, which classifies the limitation as an abstract idea. Additionally, this still describes a natural correlation, which classifies the limitation as a law of nature.
Claim 6 recites the limitation - it is determined which of feces or fart the one who excreted has excreted based on the first time and the second time. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, making this determination if someone has farted could include equations and could practically be done by the human mind. This draws the limitation to a mathematical concept and a mental process, which classifies the limitation as an abstract idea. Additionally, this describes a natural correlation, which classifies the limitation as a law of nature. Claims 7-9 depends on claim 6, and thus contain the above issues due to said dependence.
Claim 7 recites the limitation - it is determined that the one who excreted has farted when a difference between the second time and the first time is equal to or less than a predetermined time, and it is determined that the one who excreted has defecated when the difference is longer than the predetermined time. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, making this determination if someone has farted could include equations and could practically be done by the human mind. This draws the limitation to a mathematical concept and a mental process, which classifies the limitation as an abstract idea. Additionally, this describes a natural correlation, which classifies the limitation as a law of nature.
Claim 8 recites the limitation - it is determined which of feces or fart the one who excreted has excreted based on the first time, the second time, the third time, and the fourth time. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, making this determination if someone has farted could include equations and could practically be done by the human mind. This draws the limitation to a mathematical concept and a mental process, which classifies the limitation as an abstract idea. Additionally, this describes a natural correlation, which classifies the limitation as a law of nature. Claim 9 depends on claim 8, and thus contain the above issues due to said dependence.
Claim 9 recites the limitation - it is determined that the one who excreted has farted when a first difference between the second time and the first time is equal to or less than a predetermined time and a second difference between the fourth time and the third time is equal to or less than a predetermined time, and it is determined that the one who excreted has defecated when the first difference is longer than the predetermined time and the second difference is longer than the predetermined time. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, making this determination could include equations and could practically be done by the human mind. This draws the limitation to a mathematical concept and a mental process, which classifies the limitation as an abstract idea. Additionally, this describes a natural correlation, which classifies the limitation as a law of nature.
Claim 10 recited the limitation - determine whether or not one who excreted has farted based on the first time series data of the hydrogen concentration. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, making this determination if someone has farted could include equations and could practically be done by the human mind. This draws the limitation to a mathematical concept and a mental process, which classifies the limitation as an abstract idea. Additionally, this describes a natural correlation, which classifies the limitation as a law of nature.
Claim 11 recites the limitation - determine whether or not one who excreted has farted based on the first time series data of the hydrogen concentration. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, making this determination if someone has farted could include equations and could practically be done by the human mind. This draws the limitation to a mathematical concept and a mental process, which classifies the limitation as an abstract idea. Additionally, this describes a natural correlation, which classifies the limitation as a law of nature.
These limitations recite concepts of determining information that are so generically recited that they can be practically performed in the human mind as claimed, which falls under the “Mental processes” and “Mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. These recitations are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and comparing information regarding a sample or test to a control or target data in Univ. of Utah Research Found. v. Ambry Genetics Corp. (774 F.3d 755, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO (689 F.3d 1303, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2012)) that the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind or mathematical relationships. Therefore, these limitations fall under the “Mental process” and “Mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. Additionally, the limitations describe natural correlations, which fall under natural laws. This is similar to a correlation between the presence of myeloperoxidase in a bodily sample (such as blood or plasma) and cardiovascular disease risk (Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1361, 123 USPQ2d 1081, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2017)) that the courts have identified as a law of nature. As such, claims 1-11 recite an abstract idea and law of nature (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
Claims found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1 are then further analyzed to determine if the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or not (Step 2A, Prong 2). These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite an additional element that reflects an improvement to technology (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)). Rather, the claims provide insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and provide mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1 recites an excreta determination method performed by a computer, the method comprising acquiring first time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space inside a toilet bowl measured by an internal sensor arranged inside the toilet bowl; and outputting a determination result.
Claim 4 recites acquiring second time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space outside the toilet bowl measured by an external sensor arranged outside the toilet bowl.
Claim 6 recites acquiring first time at which the first time series data reaches a peak; and acquiring second time at which the first time series data converges after the first time series data reached the peak.
Claim 8 recites acquiring second time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space outside the toilet bowl measured by an external sensor arranged outside the toilet bowl; acquiring third time at which the second time series data reaches a peak; and acquiring fourth time at which the second time series data converges after the second time series data reached the peak.
Claim 10 recites an acquisition unit that acquires first time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space inside a toilet bowl measured by an internal sensor arranged inside the toilet bowl; a determination unit; and an output unit that outputs a determination result.
Claim 11 recites a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing an excreta determination program causing a computer to function to acquire first time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space inside a toilet bowl measured by an internal sensor arranged inside the toilet bowl; and output a determination result.
There are no limitations that indicate that the claimed determinations require anything other than generic computing systems. As such, these limitations equate to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer that the courts have stated does not render an abstract idea eligible in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. There is no indication that these steps are affected by the judicial exception in any way and thus do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As such, claims 1-11 are directed to an abstract idea and natural law (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite conventional additional elements that equate to mere instructions to apply the recited exception in a generic way or in a generic computing environment. The claims also recite conventional additional elements that represent insignificant extra-solution activities. The instant claims recite the additional elements listed above.
As discussed above, there are no additional limitations to indicate that the claimed determinations require anything other than generic computer components in order to carry out the recited abstract idea in the claims. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea or natural law using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea or natural law eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. MPEP 2106.05(f) discloses that mere instructions to apply the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept to the claims. As specified in MPEP 2106.05(g), extra-solution activities can be understood as incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Insignificant extra-solution activities include mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, and displaying information. Additionally, the specification indicates it is easy to determine whether or not the one who excreted has farted by determining whether or not the value of the hydrogen concentration in the first time series data has exceeded the threshold value (Page 4, Paragraph 0018).
The additional elements do not comprise an inventive concept when considered individually or as an ordered combination that transforms the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: No). As such, claims 1-11 are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kizuka et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 20160223549). Italicized text from reference art.
Below the applicable claims are listed:
Claim 1. An excreta determination method performed by a computer, the method comprising: i. acquiring first time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space inside a toilet bowl measured by an internal sensor arranged inside the toilet bowl; ii. determining whether or not one who excreted has farted based on the first time series data of the hydrogen concentration; and iii. outputting a determination result
Claim 2. The excreta determination method according to claim 1, wherein in the determination, when a value of the hydrogen concentration in the first time series data exceeds a threshold value, it is determined that the one who excreted has farted.
Claim 3. The excreta determination method according to claim 1, wherein in the determination, it is determined that the one who excreted has farted when a value of the hydrogen concentration in the first time series data exceeds a threshold value, a rising slope of the first time series data until reaching a peak is larger than a threshold value, and a falling slope of the first time series data after reaching the peak is smaller than a threshold value.
Claim 6. The excreta determination method according to claim 1, further comprising: acquiring first time at which the first time series data reaches a peak; and acquiring second time at which the first time series data converges after the first time series data reached the peak, and wherein in the determination, it is determined which of feces or fart the one who excreted has excreted based on the first time and the second time.
Claim 7. The excreta determination method according to claim 6, wherein in the determination, it is determined that the one who excreted has farted when a difference between the second time and the first time is equal to or less than a predetermined time, and it is determined that the one who excreted has defecated when the difference is longer than the predetermined time.
Claim 10. An excreta determination device comprising: an acquisition unit that acquires first time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space inside a toilet bowl measured by an internal sensor arranged inside the toilet bowl; ii. a determination unit that determines whether or not one who excreted has farted based on the first time series data of the hydrogen concentration; and iii. an output unit that outputs a determination result.
Claim 11. A non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing an excreta determination program causing a computer to function to: i. acquire first time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space inside a toilet bowl measured by an internal sensor arranged inside the toilet bowl; ii. determine whether or not one who excreted has farted based on the first time series data of the hydrogen concentration; and iii. output a determination result.
Regarding Claim 1, Kizuka et al. teaches (Claim 1.i) acquiring first time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space inside a toilet bowl measured by an internal sensor arranged inside the toilet bowl. (Page 11, Paragraph 0167: a semiconductor gas sensor is used in the gas detector as a gas sensor to detect odiferous gas and hydrogen gas). Figure 1 shows the location of the gas detector in the bowl. Kizuka et al. also teaches (Claim 1.ii) determining whether or not one who excreted has farted based on the first time series data of the hydrogen concentration (Page 27, Paragraph 0307: When a fart occurs, a large amount of defecation gas is discharged into a bowl as compared with that during defecation, so that defecation gas by a fart is suitable for analysis). Kizuka et al. also teaches (Claim 1.iii) outputting a determination result (Page 14, Paragraph 0191: FIG. 5 shows an example of the screens to be displayed in the display device of the remote control; Figure 5: Amount of health-state gas). Additionally, The methods of Kizuka et al. are taught being performed by a computer (Page 21, Paragraph 0256: Estimation of the amount of gas based on a detection signal of each of the sensors is performed by the data analyzer serving as physical condition state discrimination means for discriminating a physical condition state, that is, by a CPU built in the remote control and a storage device).
Regarding Claim 2, Kizuka et al. teaches when a value of the hydrogen concentration in the first time series data exceeds a threshold value, it is determined that the one who excreted has farted (Page 27, Paragraph 307: With respect to a fart act, it is possible to determined that a fart act is performed when it is detected that a difference between a detection value of the odiferous gas sensor and a reference value steeply rises at a rate of change of a predetermined value or more).
Regarding Claim 3, Kizuka et al. teaches it is determined that the one who excreted has farted when a value of the hydrogen concentration in the first time series data exceeds a threshold value, a rising slope of the first time series data until reaching a peak is larger than a threshold value, and a falling slope of the first time series data after reaching the peak is smaller than a threshold value (Page 27, Paragraph 307: With respect to a fart act, it is possible to determined that a fart act is performed when it is detected that a difference between a detection value of the odiferous gas sensor and a reference value steeply rises at a rate of change of a predetermined value or more).
Regarding Claim 6. Kizuka et al. teaches acquiring a first time at which the first time series data reaches a peak; and acquiring second time at which the first time series data converges after the first time series data reached the peak, and wherein in the determination, it is determined which of feces or fart the one who excreted has excreted based on the first time and the second time (Page 27, Paragraph 307: With respect to a fart act, it is possible to determined that a fart act is performed when it is detected that a difference between a detection value of the odiferous gas sensor and a reference value steeply rises at a rate of change of a predetermined value or more; a period from a time point, from which the difference described above steeply rises, until a detection value of the gas sensor returns to the reference value again, may be set as a fart period (i.e., the rise and fall describe a peak and multiple time points are compared to threshold values)).
Regarding Claim 7, Kizuka et al. teaches it is determined that the one who excreted has farted when a difference between the second time and the first time is equal to or less than a predetermined time, and it is determined that the one who excreted has defecated when the difference is longer than the predetermined time. (Page 27, Paragraph 307: With respect to a fart act, it is possible to determined that a fart act is performed when it is detected that a difference between a detection value of the odiferous gas sensor and a reference value steeply rises at a rate of change of a predetermined value or more; a period from a time point, from which the difference described above steeply rises, until a detection value of the gas sensor returns to the reference value again, may be set as a fart period (i.e., if the value remains high beyond the predetermined period, it was not a fart but defecation); Page 17, Paragraph 0228: If concentration of gas measured by the odiferous gas sensor is larger than a predetermined value even if a predetermined time has elapsed after a defecation period has been finished, the control device determines that there is a stool attached to the bowl).
Regarding Claim 10, Kizuka et al. teaches an excreta determination device comprising (Claim 10.i) an acquisition unit that acquires first time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space inside a toilet bowl measured by an internal sensor arranged inside the toilet bowl (Figure 1; Part 20: gas detector). Kizuka et al. also teaches (Claim 1.ii) a determination unit that determines whether or not one who excreted has farted based on the first time series data of the hydrogen concentration (Figure 2 shows the use of generic computer (PC for test subject) for making the determination). Kizuka et al. also teaches (Claim 10.iii) an output unit that outputs a determination result (Figure 1, Part 8: remote control; see (Figure 2, part 68: display device) for a more detailed view of the remote control including the display).
Regarding Claim 11, Kizuka et al. teaches a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing an excreta determination program causing a computer to function to: i. acquire first time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space inside a toilet bowl measured by an internal sensor arranged inside the toilet bowl; ii. determine whether or not one who excreted has farted based on the first time series data of the hydrogen concentration; and iii. output a determination result. (Figure 2 shows the use of generic computer (PC for test subject) which inherently contain non-transitory computer readable recording medium. It also can receive data (Claim 11.i), make a determination (Claim 11.ii), and display the results (Claim 11.iii) when executing a program to perform the limitations of claim 1 (see regarding claim 1 of the current rejection)).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kizuka et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 20160223549), as applied to Claims 1-3, 6-7, and 10-11 in the 35 USC 102 rejection above, in view of Short and Briggs (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 20160239624). Italicized text from reference art.
Below the applicable claims are listed:
Claim 1. An excreta determination method performed by a computer, the method comprising: i. acquiring first time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space inside a toilet bowl measured by an internal sensor arranged inside the toilet bowl; ii. determining whether or not one who excreted has farted based on the first time series data of the hydrogen concentration; and iii. outputting a determination result
Claim 2. The excreta determination method according to claim 1, wherein in the determination, when a value of the hydrogen concentration in the first time series data exceeds a threshold value, it is determined that the one who excreted has farted.
Claim 3. The excreta determination method according to claim 1, wherein in the determination, it is determined that the one who excreted has farted when a value of the hydrogen concentration in the first time series data exceeds a threshold value, a rising slope of the first time series data until reaching a peak is larger than a threshold value, and a falling slope of the first time series data after reaching the peak is smaller than a threshold value.
Claim 4. The excreta determination method according to claim 1, further comprising acquiring second time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space outside the toilet bowl measured by an external sensor arranged outside the toilet bowl, and wherein in the determination, it is determined whether or not the one who excreted has farted based on the first time series data and the second time series data.
Claim 5. The excreta determination method according to claim 4, wherein in the determination, it is determined that the one who excreted has farted when a value of the hydrogen concentration in the first time series data exceeds a threshold value and a value of the hydrogen concentration in the second time series data exceeds a threshold value.
Claim 6. The excreta determination method according to claim 1, further comprising: acquiring first time at which the first time series data reaches a peak; and acquiring second time at which the first time series data converges after the first time series data reached the peak, and wherein in the determination, it is determined which of feces or fart the one who excreted has excreted based on the first time and the second time.
Claim 7. The excreta determination method according to claim 6, wherein in the determination, it is determined that the one who excreted has farted when a difference between the second time and the first time is equal to or less than a predetermined time, and it is determined that the one who excreted has defecated when the difference is longer than the predetermined time.
Claim 8. The excreta determination method according to claim 6, further comprising: i. acquiring second time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space outside the toilet bowl measured by an external sensor arranged outside the toilet bowl; ii. acquiring third time at which the second time series data reaches a peak; and iii. acquiring fourth time at which the second time series data converges after the second time series data reached the peak, and iv. wherein in the determination, it is determined which of feces or fart the one who excreted has excreted based on the first time, the second time, the third time, and the fourth time.
Claim 9. The excreta determination method according to claim 8, wherein in the determination, it is determined that the one who excreted has farted when a first difference between the second time and the first time is equal to or less than a predetermined time and a second difference between the fourth time and the third time is equal to or less than a predetermined time, and it is determined that the one who excreted has defecated when the first difference is longer than the predetermined time and the second difference is longer than the predetermined time.
Claim 10. An excreta determination device comprising: an acquisition unit that acquires first time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space inside a toilet bowl measured by an internal sensor arranged inside the toilet bowl; ii. a determination unit that determines whether or not one who excreted has farted based on the first time series data of the hydrogen concentration; and iii. an output unit that outputs a determination result.
Claim 11. A non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing an excreta determination program causing a computer to function to: i. acquire first time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space inside a toilet bowl measured by an internal sensor arranged inside the toilet bowl; ii. determine whether or not one who excreted has farted based on the first time series data of the hydrogen concentration; and iii. output a determination result.
Regarding Claim 1, Kizuka et al. teaches (Claim 1.i) acquiring first time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space inside a toilet bowl measured by an internal sensor arranged inside the toilet bowl. (Page 11, Paragraph 0167: a semiconductor gas sensor is used in the gas detector as a gas sensor to detect odiferous gas and hydrogen gas). Figure 1 shows the location of the gas detector in the bowl. Kizuka et al. also teaches (Claim 1.ii) determining whether or not one who excreted has farted based on the first time series data of the hydrogen concentration (Page 27, Paragraph 0307: When a fart occurs, a large amount of defecation gas is discharged into a bowl as compared with that during defecation, so that defecation gas by a fart is suitable for analysis). Kizuka et al. also teaches (Claim 1.iii) outputting a determination result (Page 14, Paragraph 0191: FIG. 5 shows an example of the screens to be displayed in the display device of the remote control; Figure 5: Amount of health-state gas). Additionally, The methods of Kizuka et al. are taught being performed by a computer (Page 21, Paragraph 0256: Estimation of the amount of gas based on a detection signal of each of the sensors is performed by the data analyzer serving as physical condition state discrimination means for discriminating a physical condition state, that is, by a CPU built in the remote control and a storage device).
Regarding Claim 2, Kizuka et al. teaches when a value of the hydrogen concentration in the first time series data exceeds a threshold value, it is determined that the one who excreted has farted (Page 27, Paragraph 307: With respect to a fart act, it is possible to determined that a fart act is performed when it is detected that a difference between a detection value of the odiferous gas sensor and a reference value steeply rises at a rate of change of a predetermined value or more).
Regarding Claim 3, Kizuka et al. teaches it is determined that the one who excreted has farted when a value of the hydrogen concentration in the first time series data exceeds a threshold value, a rising slope of the first time series data until reaching a peak is larger than a threshold value, and a falling slope of the first time series data after reaching the peak is smaller than a threshold value (Page 27, Paragraph 307: With respect to a fart act, it is possible to determined that a fart act is performed when it is detected that a difference between a detection value of the odiferous gas sensor and a reference value steeply rises at a rate of change of a predetermined value or more).
Regarding Claim 4, Kizuka et al. teach acquiring second time series data indicating hydrogen concentration, and wherein in the determination, it is determined whether or not the one who excreted has farted based on the first time series data and the second time series data (Page 16, Paragraph 0210: The measurement value of non-defecation gas is recognized as odiferous noise, which is not acquired with the present defecation act by a test Subject, to be stored as an environment reference value that is a noise level to be a base of measurement of defecation gas (i.e., take multiple measurement at multiple time points); Page 17, Paragraph 0222: the data analyzer performs calculation of results of a medical examination to analyze physical condition of a test Subject on the basis of time-dependent change in a plurality of detection data items that is detected in defecation performed multiple times in a predetermined period and that is stored in a storage device, as well as performs time-dependent diagnosis based on stored values, and then selects advice contents based on the time dependent diagnosis (i.e., multiple measurements taken at multiple time points are used for the determination)).
Regarding Claim 5, Kizuka et al. teaches it is determined that the one who excreted has farted when a value of the hydrogen concentration in the first time series data exceeds a threshold value and a value of the hydrogen concentration in the second time series data exceeds a threshold value (Page 27, Paragraph 307: With respect to a fart act, it is possible to determined that a fart act is performed when it is detected that a difference between a detection value of the odiferous gas sensor and a reference value steeply rises at a rate of change of a predetermined value or more; a period from a time point, from which the difference described above steeply rises, until a detection value of the gas sensor returns to the reference value again, may be set as a fart period (i.e., multiple time points are compared to threshold values)).
Regarding Claim 6, Kizuka et al. teaches acquiring a first time at which the first time series data reaches a peak; and acquiring second time at which the first time series data converges after the first time series data reached the peak, and wherein in the determination, it is determined which of feces or fart the one who excreted has excreted based on the first time and the second time (Page 27, Paragraph 307: With respect to a fart act, it is possible to determined that a fart act is performed when it is detected that a difference between a detection value of the odiferous gas sensor and a reference value steeply rises at a rate of change of a predetermined value or more; a period from a time point, from which the difference described above steeply rises, until a detection value of the gas sensor returns to the reference value again, may be set as a fart period (i.e., the rise and fall describe a peak and multiple time points are compared to threshold values)).
Regarding Claim 7, Kizuka et al. teaches it is determined that the one who excreted has farted when a difference between the second time and the first time is equal to or less than a predetermined time, and it is determined that the one who excreted has defecated when the difference is longer than the predetermined time. (Page 27, Paragraph 307: With respect to a fart act, it is possible to determined that a fart act is performed when it is detected that a difference between a detection value of the odiferous gas sensor and a reference value steeply rises at a rate of change of a predetermined value or more; a period from a time point, from which the difference described above steeply rises, until a detection value of the gas sensor returns to the reference value again, may be set as a fart period (i.e., if the value remains high beyond the predetermined period, it was not a fart but defecation); Page 17, Paragraph 0228: If concentration of gas measured by the odiferous gas sensor is larger than a predetermined value even if a predetermined time has elapsed after a defecation period has been finished, the control device determines that there is a stool attached to the bowl).
Regarding Claim 8, Kizuka et al. teaches acquiring second time series data indicating hydrogen concentration; acquiring third time at which the second time series data reaches a peak; acquiring fourth time at which the second time series data converges after the second time series data reached the peak; and it is determined which of feces or fart the one who excreted has excreted based on the first time, the second time, the third time, and the fourth time. Gasses are measured at multiple time points to a make the fart determination (see above). Figure 9 demonstrates the hydrogen sensors recoding two peaks and two convergences (Page 6, Paragraph 0076: FIG. 9 is a graph schematically showing a detection signal of each of sensors provided in a biological information measurement system 1 in one defecation act of a test Subject).
Regarding Claim 9, Kizuka et al. teaches it is determined that the one who excreted has farted when a first difference between the second time and the first time is equal to or less than a predetermined time and a second difference between the fourth time and the third time is equal to or less than a predetermined time, and it is determined that the one who excreted has defecated when the first difference is longer than the predetermined time and the second difference is longer than the predetermined time (Page 21-22, Paragraph 0261: After an excretory act of the test subject has been performed, a detection value of each of the hydrogen gas sensor returns to the reference value of residual gas. Subsequently, when the second excretory act of the test subject is performed, a detection value of the hydrogen gas sensor steeply rises again. For the second excretory act, as with the first excretory act, the amount of hydrogen gas, discharged from the test subject, is also estimated on the basis of an increment from the reference value of residual gas (i.e., a comparison of two values to two threshold values); Page 17, Paragraph 0228: If concentration of gas measured by the odiferous gas sensor is larger than a predetermined value even if a predetermined time has elapsed after a defecation period has been finished, the control device determines that there is a stool attached to the bowl).
Regarding Claim 10, Kizuka et al. teaches an excreta determination device comprising (Claim 10.i) an acquisition unit that acquires first time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space inside a toilet bowl measured by an internal sensor arranged inside the toilet bowl (Figure 1; Part 20: gas detector). Kizuka et al. also teaches (Claim 1.ii) a determination unit that determines whether or not one who excreted has farted based on the first time series data of the hydrogen concentration (Figure 2 shows the use of generic computer (PC for test subject) for making the determination). Kizuka et al. also teaches (Claim 10.iii) an output unit that outputs a determination result (Figure 1, Part 8: remote control; see (Figure 2, part 68: display device) for a more detailed view of the remote control including the display).
Regarding Claim 11, Kizuka et al. teaches a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing an excreta determination program causing a computer to function to: i. acquire first time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space inside a toilet bowl measured by an internal sensor arranged inside the toilet bowl; ii. determine whether or not one who excreted has farted based on the first time series data of the hydrogen concentration; and iii. output a determination result. (Figure 2 shows the use of generic computer (PC for test subject) which inherently contain non-transitory computer readable recording medium. It also can receive data (Claim 11.i), make a determination (Claim 11.ii), and display the results (Claim 11.iii) when executing a program to perform the limitations of claim 1 (see regarding claim 1 of the current rejection)).
Kizuka et al. does not teach measuring hydrogen concentration from a sensor outside of the bowl (Claims 4 and 8)
Regarding clams 4 and 8, Short and Briggs teach recoding hydrogen concentration from a sensor outside the bowl (Page 22, Paragraph 0255: the system of the present invention comprises an apparatus attached to a human body; The measuring device is located in the apparatus and is configured for contact with a bodily fluid such as sweat on the skin of the individual for measuring one or more biomarkers. The apparatus may also use location data, time and/or environmental data collected by the device to assist the predictor in making a suitable prediction; Page 12, Paragraph 0141: Electrochemical electrodes for gaseous biomarkers (such as these in breath or fart gas) operate by reacting with the gaseous biomarker and producing an electrical signal proportional to the gaseous biomarker concentration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing date to modify Kizuka et al. with Shorty and Briggs because Kizuka et al. suggests measuring the environmental concentration of hydrogen (Page 16, Paragraph 0210: The measurement value of non-defecation gas is recognized as odiferous noise, which is not acquired with the present defecation act by a test Subject, to be stored as an environment reference value that is a noise level to be a base of measurement of defecation gas). Shorty and Briggs utilize sensors external to a toilet bowl to monitor concentrations of gaseous biomarkers (see Regarding Claims 4 and 8 above) that would serve as the environmental reference value. Additionally, both refences are utilizing functionally similar methodologies, sensors to measure the concentration of gasses in the air and relating this input data to biological functions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art the time of the effective filling date to combine the methods from the references indicated above.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would predict that the method taught by Shorty and Briggs could be readily added to the method of Kizuka et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because they utilize the same data acquisition tool (sensors) to collect data related to the same subject (human bowel function). Accordingly, claims 1-11 taken as a whole would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12332237 (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The applicable instant claims include:
Instant Claim 1. An excreta determination method performed by a computer, the method comprising:
i. acquiring first time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space inside a toilet bowl measured by an internal sensor arranged inside the toilet bowl;
ii. determining whether or not one who excreted has farted based on the first time series data of the hydrogen concentration; and
iii. outputting a determination result.
Instant Claim 2. The excreta determination method according to claim 1, wherein in the determination, when a value of the hydrogen concentration in the first time series data exceeds a threshold value, it is determined that the one who excreted has farted.
Reference Claim 1 is directed to a method for aiding in treating constipation by notifying a terminal of a caregiver or family member that a person suffers constipation, comprising: detecting with a hydrogen-gas-concentration sensor sensing data indicating the concentration of hydrogen gas of flatulence from a toilet used by the person even when the flatulence is odorless; capturing and recording with a camera an image of a bowl of the toilet used by the person and generating with the camera image data of the image of the toilet bowl; acquiring with a hardware processor the sensing data of the concentration of the hydrogen gas of the flatulence from the toilet detected by the hydrogen-gas-concentration sensor (Instant Claim 1.i); acquiring with the hardware processor the image data captured by the camera; determining with the hardware processor that the person is constipated by determining the presence of the odorless flatulence without the presence of a defecation product in the toilet bowl in response to receiving the sensing data representing a hydrogen gas concentration higher than a reference concentration (Instant Claim 1.ii and 2), and image data from the camera indicating the absence of the defecation product in the toilet bowl; and outputting to the terminal with the hardware processor the determination that the person is constipated to inform the caregiver or family member of the need to obtain constipation treatment for the person (Instant Claim 1.iii).
All limitations of Instant Claims 1 and 2 are therefore anticipated by Reference Claim 1.
Claims 1 and 4 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18525223 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The applicable instant claims include:
Instant Claim 1. An excreta determination method performed by a computer, the method comprising:
i. acquiring first time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space inside a toilet bowl measured by an internal sensor arranged inside the toilet bowl;
ii. determining whether or not one who excreted has farted based on the first time series data of the hydrogen concentration; and
iii. outputting a determination result.
Instant Claim 4. The excreta determination method according to claim 1, further comprising
i. acquiring second time series data indicating hydrogen concentration in a space outside the toilet bowl measured by an external sensor arranged outside the toilet bowl, and
ii. wherein in the determination, it is determined whether or not the one who excreted has farted based on the first time series data and the second time series data.
Reference claim 1 is drawn to an information processing method comprising: by a computer, acquiring first data in which excretion related data of a user acquired by a sensor installed in a toilet (Instant Claim 1.i) and a user ID for identifying the user are associated with each other in a first predetermined period, generating a reference database indicating an excretion tendency of the user based on the acquired first data; acquiring second data in which the excretion related data of the user acquired by the sensor installed in the toilet (Instant Claim 4.i) and the user ID are associated with each other in a second predetermined period; generating alert information to the user based on the reference database and the second data (Claim 1.ii and 4.ii); and outputting the generated alert information (Instant Claim 1.iii).
All limitations of Instant Claims 1 and 4 are therefore anticipated by Reference Claim 1. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE H ELKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached at (571) 272-9047. 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.
/B.H.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/Karlheinz R. Skowronek/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1687