DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 Amendment
As to the claim amendments and remarks filed on 10/13/25, the previous prior art rejection has been withdrawn and modified to address the claim amendments.
Claim Status
Claims 11-30 are pending. Claims 1-10 are canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 19-27 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.
With respect to claim 19, it is unclear if applicants are attempting to claim the test paper and the corresponding relationship of the magnetic attraction devices or not because the test paper and the corresponding relationship of the magnetic attraction devices appear to be a function of the bottom support cavity. The bottom support cavity is configured to receive a replacement box, and the replacement box and corresponding test paper is not positively recited. Applicants do not positively recite the test paper in lines 4-5, and the bottom support cavity is configured to receive a replacement box with test paper. Therefore, references to the test paper and the corresponding relationship of the magnetic attraction devices are directed to intended use of the bottom support cavity. However, lines 6-7 of claim 19 then attempts to limit the magnetic attraction devices relating them to the test paper. The problem is that the relationship of the test paper and the corresponding relationship of the magnetic attraction devices is defined in terms of the relationship between the magnetic attraction devices and the unclaimed test paper when in use. This is indefinite as it is unclear how this is meant to further define the replacement box bottom support of the claims and it is unclear how this is met given magnetic attraction devices and a bottom support cavity alone (without including the test paper). The fact is, with such a recitation, a given bottom support cavity that meets the other limitations could meet the limitations of the claim when used with a test paper and fail to meet the limitations of the claim when used without a test paper. As such, given any bottom support cavity alone, it is unclear whether the limitations of the claim would be met and it is unclear how to determine whether or not the limitation is met. In summary, because the test paper is not positively recited, then it is unclear what limitations the relationship of the test paper is attempting to define with respect to the detection robot. Please clarify which structures are required in the claim. For purposes of examination, and based on applicants arguments, the examiner will interpret the claims to require the test paper.
As to line 8 of claim 19, it is unclear what “the magnetic attraction device” is attempting to refer back to since multiple devices have been referenced. Thus, based on the antecedent basis, it is unclear whether this is one of the particular first or second magnetic attraction devices or whether it is both of them. Claims 21, 22, 26 recite similar limitations and are similarly rejected.
Claims 20-27 are rejected based on further claim dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 11-14, 19-22, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbedette et al (WO2021175909 where US 20230105892 is used as the corresponding document; hereinafter “Barbedette”; already of record).
As to claim 11, Barbedette teaches a replacement box for a urinalysis device (Barbedette; Figs. 1-4, 18), the replacement comprising:
at least one test paper (Barbedette teaches a plurality of test strips in a rotatable holder; [11, 22, 29, 151, 153] Fig. 1, 4, 8, 11);
a box body upper cover (Barbedette teaches upper cover 28; [122-125]);
a box body lower cover configured to be connected to the box body upper cover to form a box body cavity, the box body cavity housing the at least one test paper (Barbedette teaches lower cover 30; [122-125]); and
a first magnetic attraction and a second magnetic attraction device device disposed at a bottom portion of the box body lower cover, wherein the first magnetic attraction device and the second magnetic attraction device are configured to be attracted to guide the replacement box to reach a preset position when the replacement box is inserted into a replacement box bottom support (Barbedette teaches first and second magnets/ferromagnetic material 23 at the bottom of the lower cover 30; [111], Fig. 4. How the first magnets are used or what they are configured to be attracted to is a matter of intended use. Barbedette teaches the magnets/ferromagnetic material cooperating with corresponding magnets 70 in the bottom support 66; Figs. 2, 18).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to…”). However, 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 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
Although Barbedette teaches multiple magnetic attraction devices, Barbedette does not specifically the magnetic attraction devices are on opposite sides of the at least one test paper. However, without some statement of criticality or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the magnets that are within the test strip housing and that interact with a bottom support to secure the device to be arranged such that there was a magnet in the middle and on the outside of the rotary test strip carrier, the resulting configuration being a magnet on each side of the test paper to allow for secure adhesion such that the center mass was secured since securing the center of the device would provide for a secure connection with the least amount of rotational torque, and also because moving the magnets would still accomplish the function of securing the device as long as the magnets were in alignment with each other since it has been generally recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.'
As to claim 12, Barbedette teaches the replacement box according to claim 11, wherein the first magnetic attraction device is configured to be attracted to a third magnetic attraction device of the replacement box bottom support so as to reach the preset position when the replacement box is inserted into the replacement box bottom support (Barbedette teaches first and second magnets/ferromagnetic material 23 at the bottom of the lower cover 30; [111], Fig. 4. How the first magnets are used or what they are configured to be attracted to is a matter of intended use, and additionally the third magnets and bottom support are not positively recited and any limitations directed towards the third magnets do not further limit the device structure. Barbedette teaches the magnets/ferromagnetic material cooperating with corresponding magnets 70 in the bottom support 66; Fig. 2).
As to claim 13, Barbedette teaches the replacement box according to claim 12, wherein the first magnetic attraction device is made of a magnetic material or a metal material (Barbedette teaches first magnets/ferromagnetic material 23 at the bottom of the lower cover 30; [111], Fig. 4).
As to claim 14, Barbedette teaches the replacement box according to claim 13, wherein one of the first magnetic attraction device and the third magnetic attraction device is made of the magnetic material and the other of the first magnetic attraction device and the third magnetic attraction device is made of the metal material (Barbedette teaches first magnets/ferromagnetic material 23 at the bottom of the lower cover 30; [111], Fig. 4. How the first magnets are used or what they are configured to be attracted to is a matter of intended use, and additionally the second magnets are not positively recited and any limitations directed towards the third magnets do not further limit the device structure. Barbedette teaches the magnets/ferromagnetic material cooperating with corresponding magnets 70 in the bottom support 66; Fig. 2).
As to claim 19, Barbedette teaches a replacement box bottom support for a urinalysis device (Barbedette; Figs. 1-4, 18), the replacement box bottom support comprising:
a bottom support body (Barbedette teaches bottom support 66; Fig. 2, [111]);
a bottom support cavity disposed in the bottom support body and configured to receive a replacement box including at least one test paper (Barbedette teaches bottom support 66 which has a corresponding portion to receive replacement box 22; Fig. 2, [111-113]); and
a first magnetic attraction device and a second magnetic attraction device disposed at a bottom portion of the bottom support cavity on opposite sides of the at least one test paper, wherein the magnetic attraction device of the replacement box bottom support is configured to guide the replacement box to reach a preset position when the replacement box is inserted into the replacement box bottom support ((Barbedette teaches first and second magnets/ferromagnetic material 23 at the bottom of the lower cover 30; [111], Fig. 4. Barbedette teaches the magnets/ferromagnetic material cooperating with corresponding magnets 70 in the bottom support 66; Figs. 2, 18, [111]).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to…”). However, 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 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
Although Barbedette teaches multiple magnetic attraction devices, Barbedette does not specifically the magnetic attraction devices are on opposite sides of the at least one test paper. However, without some statement of criticality or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the magnets that are within the test strip housing and that interact with a bottom support to secure the device to be arranged such that there was a magnet in the middle and on the outside of the rotary test strip carrier, the resulting configuration being a magnet on each side of the test paper to allow for secure adhesion such that the center mass was secured since securing the center of the device would provide for a secure connection with the least amount of rotational torque, and also because moving the magnets would still accomplish the function of securing the device as long as the magnets were in alignment with each other since it has been generally recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.'
As to claim 20, Barbedette teaches the replacement box bottom support according to claim 19, wherein the magnetic attraction device of the replacement box bottom support is configured to be attracted to a magnetic attraction device of the replacement box so as to guide the replacement box to reach the preset position when the replacement box is inserted into the replacement box bottom support (Barbedette teaches the magnets/ferromagnetic material cooperating with corresponding magnets 70 in the bottom support 66; Figs. 2, 18. How the magnets are used or what they are configured to be attracted to is a matter of intended use as the replacement box has not been positively recited. Barbedette teaches first magnets/ferromagnetic material 23 at the bottom of the lower cover 30 of replacement box; [111], Fig. 4).
As to claim 21, Barbedette teaches the replacement box bottom support according to claim 20, wherein the magnetic attraction device of the replacement box bottom support is made of a metal material or a magnetic material (Barbedette teaches the magnets/ferromagnetic material cooperating with corresponding magnets 70 in the bottom support 66; Figs. 2, 18. How the magnets are used or what they are configured to be attracted to is a matter of intended use as the replacement box has not been positively recited. Barbedette teaches first magnets/ferromagnetic material 23 at the bottom of the lower cover 30 of replacement box; [111], Fig. 4).
As to claim 22, Barbedette teaches the replacement box bottom support according to claim 21, wherein one of the magnetic attraction device of the replacement box and the magnetic attraction device of the replacement box bottom support is made of the magnetic material and the other of the magnetic attraction device of the replacement box and the magnetic attraction device of the replacement box bottom support is made of the metal material (Barbedette teaches the magnets/ferromagnetic material cooperating with corresponding magnets 70 in the bottom support 66; Figs. 2, 18. The other magnetics of the replacement box do not further limit the device as they have not been positively recited. Barbedette teaches first magnets/ferromagnetic material 23 at the bottom of the lower cover 30 of replacement box; [111], Fig. 4).
As to claim 28, Barbedette teaches a method for assembling a replacement box mounting structure for a urinalysis device (Barbedette; Figs. 1-4), the method comprising: providing a replacement box comprising at least one test paper, a first magnetic attraction device disposed at a bottom portion of a box body lower cover of the replacement box on a first side of the at least one test paper and a second magnetic attraction device disposed at the bottom portion of the box body lower cover of the replacement box; providing a replacement box bottom support comprising a third magnetic attraction device disposed at a bottom portion of a bottom support cavity; inserting the replacement box into the bottom support cavity of the replacement box bottom support; and guiding the replacement box to reach a preset position by an attraction between the first magnetic attraction device and the second magnetic attraction device (Barbedette teaches a plurality of test strips in a rotatable holder; [11, 22, 29, 151, 153] Fig. 1, 4, 8, 11. Barbedette teaches first magnets/ferromagnetic material 23 at the bottom of the lower cover 30; [111], Fig. 4. Barbedette teaches the magnets/ferromagnetic material cooperating with corresponding magnets 70 in the bottom support 66; Figs. 2, 18).
Although Barbedette teaches multiple magnetic attraction devices, Barbedette does not specifically the magnetic attraction devices are on opposite sides of the at least one test paper. However, without some statement of criticality or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the magnets that are within the test strip housing and that interact with a bottom support to secure the device to be arranged such that there was a magnet in the middle and on the outside of the rotary test strip carrier, the resulting configuration being a magnet on each side of the test paper to allow for secure adhesion such that the center mass was secured since securing the center of the device would provide for a secure connection with the least amount of rotational torque, and also because moving the magnets would still accomplish the function of securing the device as long as the magnets were in alignment with each other since it has been generally recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.'
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbedette et al (WO2021175909 where US 20230105892 is used as the corresponding document; hereinafter “Barbedette”; already of record) in view of Soderlund et al (US 20210270850; hereinafter “Soderlund”; already of record).
As to claim 15, Barbedette teaches the replacement box according to claim 11, with the box body upper cover and box body lower cover (see above).
Barbedette does not specifically teach a bottom surface of the upper cover protrudes beyond the lower cover to form a protruding portion. However, Soderlund teaches the analogous art of a system for analysis with a cover and base (Soderlund; Fig. 1) where the bottom surface of upper cover 121 protrudes beyond the lower cover 124 to form a protruding portion (Soderlund teaches that the peripheral flange of upper cover 121 protrudes beyond the lower cover 124 in order to close the device; Fig. 1-2. Soderlund also teaches a protrusion 211 that protrudes beyond the lower cover 124; [34, 35]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the upper cover, lower cover, and corresponding support of Barbedette such that the upper cover protruded beyond the lower cover to connect to the base as in Soderlund because Soderlund teaches that the protrusion sends a signal indicating that the lid is in the closed position (Soderlund; [34, 35]) and also because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a peripheral protrusion would help to protect the inner components thereby providing a protection flange from splashing.
As to claim 16, Barbedette teaches the replacement box according to claim 15, wherein the protruding portion of the box body upper cover is configured to trigger at least one detection switch of the replacement box bottom support so as to generate an in-place signal by pressing the at least one detection switch (The modification of the upper cover of Barbedette to have a protrusion as in Soderlund has already been discussed above in claim 15. What the protrusion is configured to do is a matter of intended use not further defining the structure beyond that of a capability, and the bottom support and its corresponding detection switch does not further define the structure of the claims because it has not been positively recited. Sunderland’s protrusion(s) are capable of performing the claimed function. Soderlund teaches that the peripheral flange of upper cover 121 protrudes beyond the lower cover 124 in order to close the device; Fig. 1-2. Soderlund also teaches a protrusion 211 that protrudes beyond the lower cover 124; [34, 35]).
As to claim 17, Barbedette teaches the replacement box according to claim 16, wherein the in-place signal is configured to turn on an indicating device of the replacement box bottom support, and wherein the indicating device is communicably coupled to the at least one detection switch (The modification of the upper cover of Barbedette to have a protrusion as in Soderlund has already been discussed above in claim 15. What the protrusion is configured to do is a matter of intended use not further defining the structure beyond that of a capability, and the bottom support and its corresponding detection switch and indicating device does not further define the structure of the claims because none of this structure has not been positively recited. Sunderland’s protrusion(s) are capable of performing the claimed function. Soderlund teaches that the peripheral flange of upper cover 121 protrudes beyond the lower cover 124 in order to close the device; Fig. 1-2. Soderlund also teaches a protrusion 211 that protrudes beyond the lower cover 124; [34, 35]).
As to claim 18, Barbedette teaches the replacement box according to claim 16, wherein the protruding portion of the box body upper cover is configured to trigger two detection switches of the replacement box bottom support, and wherein the two detection switches are respectively disposed on two sides of the replacement box bottom support (The modification of the upper cover of Barbedette to have a protrusion as in Soderlund has already been discussed above in claim 15. What the protrusion is configured to do is a matter of intended use not further defining the structure beyond that of a capability, and the bottom support and its corresponding detection switch and indicating device does not further define the structure of the claims because none of this structure has not been positively recited. Sunderland’s protrusion(s) are capable of performing the claimed function. Soderlund teaches that the peripheral flange of upper cover 121 protrudes beyond the lower cover 124 in order to close the device; Fig. 1-2. Soderlund also teaches a protrusion 211 that protrudes beyond the lower cover 124; [34, 35]).
Claims 23-24, 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbedette et al (WO2021175909 where US 20230105892 is used as the corresponding document; hereinafter “Barbedette”; already of record) in view of Hyun et al (US 20190201887; hereinafter “Hyun”; already of record).
As to claim 23, Barbedette teaches the replacement box bottom support according to claim 19, with the bottom support body (see above).
Barbedette does not specifically teach at least one detection switch disposed at the bottom support body and configured to detect whether the replacement box reaches the preset position. However, Hyun teaches the analogous art of connecting two components, where the bottom support body has a detection switch configured to detect whether the connection is in the present position (Hyun teaches bottom support includes a detection switch 170 which detects when the connection is in position; [93], Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the bottom support of Barbedette to have included a position detector as in Hyun because Hyun teaches that the position detector helps ensure that the components are properly positioned in contact (Hyun; 93]).
As to claim 24, Barbedette teaches the replacement box bottom support according to claim 23, wherein the at least one detection switch is triggered by a protruding portion of the replacement box to generate an in-place signal, and wherein an upper cover bottom surface of a box body upper cover of the replacement box protrudes beyond a box body lower cover of the replacement box to form the protruding portion (The modification of the support of Barbedette to have the detection switch as in Hyun has already been discussed above in claim 23. What the detection switch is configured to do is a matter of intended use not further defining the structure beyond that of a capability, and the upper cover and corresponding protrusion beyond a lower cover does not further define the structure of the claims because the replacement box and its corresponding structure have not been positively recited. Hyun’s detection switch would be capable of performing the claimed function).
As to claim 26, Barbedette teaches the replacement box bottom support according to claim 24, wherein a height from the upper cover bottom surface of the box body upper cover protruding beyond the box body lower cover to a bottom portion of the magnetic attraction device of the replacement box is smaller than a height from a top portion of the magnetic attraction device of the replacement box bottom support to a top portion of the at least one detection switch (Barbedette teaches the claimed replacement box bottom support as discussed above. However, the upper cover and lower cover, as well as the magnetic attraction device and the replacement box do not further limit the claims as they have not been positively recited).
As to claim 27, Barbedette teaches the replacement box bottom support according to claim 23, with one detection switch on the side of the replacement box bottom support (see claim 23 above).
Barbedette does not specifically teach two detection switches respectively disposed on two sides. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the singular detection switch of modified Barbette to include two switches because this would provide the advantage of an additional fail safe sensor and also provide the advantage of ensuring that the entirety of the connections were properly connected, since it has been held that the mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP 2144.04 Section VI (B) and St. Regis Paper Co. v Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbedette et al (WO2021175909 where US 20230105892 is used as the corresponding document; hereinafter “Barbedette”; already of record) in view of Hyun et al (US 20190201887; hereinafter “Hyun” ; already of record) in view of Abe et al (US 20190033334; hereinafter “Abe” ; already of record).
As to claim 25, Barbedette teaches the replacement box bottom support according to claim 24, with the detection switch detecting an in-place signal (see above).
Barbedette does not specifically teach an indicating device communicably coupled to the at least one detection switch, wherein the indicating device is turned on in response to the in-place signal generated by the detection switch. However, Abe teaches the analogous art of an analysis device with a cover and a base, and an indicating device communicably coupled to the at least one detection switch, wherein the indicating device is turned on in response to the in-place signal generated by the detection switch (Abe teaches base 39 includes a sensor 72 and display/indicator 75, and where the sensor is a detection switch to detect whether or not the cover is closed, and the display/indicator can output that information to a user (Abe; [70, 71, 122]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the detection switch which detects whether contact is made to properly close and connect the support and cover of modified Barbedette to include an indicator that indicates information based on the detection switch as in Abe because Abe teaches that an indicator helps to notify a user of the state of the closure (Abe; [71]).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbedette et al (WO2021175909 where US 20230105892 is used as the corresponding document; hereinafter “Barbedette”) in view of Soderlund et al (US 20210270850; hereinafter “Soderlund”; already of record) and in view of Hyun et al (US 20190201887; hereinafter “Hyun”; already of record).
As to claim 29, Barbedette teaches the method according to claim 28, with the box body upper cover, box body lower cover, and bottom support body (see above).
Barbedette does not specifically teach a bottom surface of the upper cover protrudes beyond the lower cover to form a protruding portion. However, Soderlund teaches the analogous art of a system for analysis with a cover and base (Soderlund; Fig. 1) where the bottom surface of upper cover 121 protrudes beyond the lower cover 124 to form a protruding portion (Soderlund teaches that the peripheral flange of upper cover 121 protrudes beyond the lower cover 124 in order to close the device; Fig. 1-2. Soderlund also teaches a protrusion 211 that protrudes beyond the lower cover 124; [34, 35]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the upper cover, lower cover, and corresponding support of Barbedette such that the upper cover protruded beyond the lower cover to connect to the base as in Soderlund because Soderlund teaches that the protrusion sends a signal indicating that the lid is in the closed position (Soderlund; [34, 35]) and also because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a peripheral protrusion flange would help to protect the inner components thereby providing a protection flange from splashing.
Modified Barbedette does not specifically teach at least one detection switch disposed at the bottom support body and configured to detect the protruding portion. However, Hyun teaches the analogous art of connecting two components, where the bottom support body has a detection switch configured to detect whether the protrusion connection is in the present position (Hyun teaches bottom support includes a detection switch 170 which detects when the outer lid protrusion connection is in position; [93], Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the bottom support of modified Barbedette to have included a position detector as in Hyun because Hyun teaches that the position detector helps ensure that the components are properly positioned in contact (Hyun; 93]).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbedette et al (WO2021175909 where US 20230105892 is used as the corresponding document; hereinafter “Barbedette”; already of record) in view of Soderlund et al (US 20210270850; hereinafter “Soderlund”; already of record) in view of Hyun et al (US 20190201887; hereinafter “Hyun”; already of record) in view of Abe et al (US 20190033334; hereinafter “Abe”); already of record.
As to claim 30, Barbedette teaches the method according to claim 29, with the detection switch detecting an in-place signal (see above).
Modified Barbedette does not specifically teach an indicating device communicably coupled to the at least one detection switch, wherein the indicating device is turned on in response to the in-place signal generated by the detection switch. However, Abe teaches the analogous art of an analysis device with a cover and a base, and an indicating device communicably coupled to the at least one detection switch, wherein the indicating device is turned on in response to the in-place signal generated by the detection switch (Abe teaches base 39 includes a sensor 72 and display/indicator 75, and where the sensor is a detection switch to detect whether or not the cover is closed, and the display/indicator can output that information to a user (Abe; [70, 71, 122]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the detection switch which detects whether contact is made to properly close and connect the support and cover of modified Barbedette to include an indicator that indicates information based on the detection switch as in Abe because Abe teaches that an indicator helps to notify a user of the state of the closure (Abe; [71]).
Other References Cited
The prior art of made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include;
Yan et al (US 20220047249; hereinafter “Yan”; already of record) teaches that magnets are variants of connections used to attach a sensor to a toilet; [20].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 10/13/25 have been considered, but are moot because the arguments are towards the amended claims and not the current grounds of rejection.
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 BENJAMIN R WHATLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8am-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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/BENJAMIN R WHATLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights