ETAILED 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 1-12 and 21-28 are pending:
Claims 1-12 and 27-28 are rejected.
Claims 13-20 have been canceled.
Claims 21-26 have been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 21-28 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claims 21-26, although presented as depending from claim 1, recite functional limitations corresponding to the process of detecting a liquid previously identified as a distinct invention (Group III). The claims do not include additional structural limitations that would distinguish them from the non-elected process invention.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-26 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Amendments
Amendments filed 02/03/2026 have been entered. Amendments to the claims have overcome §103 rejections as previously set forth in non-final Office Action mailed 11/04/2025.
Amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Response to Amendments
Arguments filed 02/03/2026 have been entered. Arguments were fully considered.
On pgs. 6 and 8 of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that:
Amended claim 1 recites "a liquid level sensing device comprising: a needle having a first end arranged in a liquid-collection cavity and a second end, wherein the first end is located at an upper portion of the liquid-collection cavity and lies below a vertical plane of a mesh collection area including a plurality of collection holes." Tan discloses a liquid collection device and a smart toilet which includes the liquid collection device. Tan however, unlike applicant, fails to disclose "a needle wherein the first end is located at an upper portion of the liquid-collection cavity and lies below a vertical plane of a mesh collection area including a plurality of collection holes."
However, Nakayama fails to disclose or teach the "needle having a first end arranged in a liquid-collection cavity and a second end, wherein the first end is located at an upper portion of the liquid-collection cavity and lies below a vertical plane of a mesh collection area including a plurality of collection holes" limitation. Nakayama does not include collection holes since the urine is collected directly in a cavity 110, and it then travels to a urine pool/sump 119. Nakayama, col. 8, In. 15-20. The Office Action points to Fig. 7 shown above, which has a metal screen 120 with multiple openings. However, these multiple openings do not collect the fluid, they are present solely in order to prevent urine from splashing backwards. Nakayama, col. 12, ln. 15-20.
This argument is persuasive in light of amendments and remarks; therefore, the rejection of Tan (CN105842013A) in view of Nakayama (USPN 5,720,054) is withdrawn. Amended claims 1 and 7 now require (1) a mesh collection area including a plurality of collection holes; and (2) a needle that lies below a vertical plane of said mesh collection area, which are shown in an alternative embodiment of Nakayama (USPN 5,720,054); claims are rejected under §102 as being anticipated by Nakayama (USPN 5,720,054).
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 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 27 recites “a small diameter”; the term “small” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 28 recites “the liquid-collection tube arm”; there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear how it is connected to the level sensing device or if this feature is external to the level sensing device?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-12 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakayama (USPN 5,720,054).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Nakayama teaches a liquid level sensing device (device shown in Figs. 25-30; detection of accumulation of urine, see C23/L1-15), comprising: a needle (urine sensing electrodes 644) having a first end (corresponds to frontal end towards urine pool or sump 640) arranged in a liquid-collection cavity (urine pool or sump 640) and a second end (corresponds to distal end away from urine pool or sump 640), wherein the first end (i.e. frontal end) is located at an upper portion of the liquid-collection cavity (see Fig. 30) and lies below a vertical plane of a mesh (metals screen 656; as shown in Figs. 25 and 30, the metallic screen 656 is positioned at the opening of the sampling vessel 638 and the electrodes 644, 646 are located within the interior of the vessel downstream of the screen, such that the electrodes are positioned on the interior side of the plane defined by the screen therefore the limitation of “lies below a vertical plane of a mesh” is met) collection area including a plurality of collection holes (see Fig. 30); a control circuit board (control circuit 222) configured to control a pump body mechanism (syringe pump 52; see 12/L20-45); and a wire (lead wire 662) electrically configured to connect the second end of the needle to the control circuit board (see C23/L30-40).
With respect to the limitation “a smart toilet”, the term “smart” does not provide structure or meaning to the elements. Nevertheless, Nakayama discloses all the level sensing device recited in claims 1 and 8, as well as a toilet (bowl 16 shown in Fig. 24) comprising said level sensing device.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Nakayama discloses the liquid level sensing device of claim 1.
With respect to the limitation, “wherein the liquid is urine”, which is directed to an intended use. Nakayama is capable of meeting the intended use because the device senses urine (Nakayama, see ABS and claims).
Regarding claim 3, Nakayama discloses the liquid level sensing device of claim 1, wherein the needle is an input electrode of the control circuit board (the urine sensing electrodes 644 and 646 are connected, respectively, to lead wires 662 and 664, these lead wires are connected to the control circuit of the urinalysis device, see C23/L30-40; C23/L30-40 implies that the electrodes are input electrodes).
Regarding claim 4, Nakayama discloses the liquid level sensing device of claim 1, wherein the control circuit board controls a start and a stop of the pump body mechanism (Fig. 20 illustrates a sequence of operations including drawing urine, injecting urine, and washing via a syringe pump, which are controlled operations; as described in C18/L45-67 the microprocessor 310 and control circuit 222 control operation of the sampling apparatus including the syringe pump, thereby controlling initiation and termination of pump operating corresponding to the steps shown in Fig. 20).
Regarding claim 7, Nakayama discloses the liquid level sensing device of claim 1, wherein the pump body mechanism is controlled to suction the liquid in the liquid-collection cavity through a liquid- suction tube (Urine thus sampled is sucked through the L-shaped suction pipe 124 and the flexible tube 122 by the syringe pump 52 arranged in the housing 22. The urine sample is then transferred to the urinalysis device 50 together with the carrier liquid in the reservoir 54 and is subjected to the quantitative analysis. Suction of the urine sample may be commenced automatically when, based on the signal from the electrodes 126 and 128, it is detected that urine has accumulated in the urine pool 118 up to the level of the upper electrode 128, see C15/L10-25; as described in C18/L45-67 the microprocessor 310 and control circuit 222 control operation of the sampling apparatus including the syringe pump, thereby controlling initiation and termination of pump operating corresponding to the steps shown in Fig. 20).
Regarding claim 10, Nakayama discloses the smart toilet of claim 8, wherein the pump body mechanism comprises an open end of a liquid-suction tube configured to connect with the pump body mechanism (Urine thus sampled is sucked through the L-shaped suction pipe 124 and the flexible tube 122 by the syringe pump 52, see C15/L10-25; it is implied in C15/L10-25 that there is an “open end of the tube” because the suction pipe has an inlet at the urine pool (cavity) and that inlet is necessarily an open end).
Regarding claim 11, Nakayama discloses the smart toilet of claim 8, wherein the control circuit board controls a start and a stop of the pump body mechanism according to the liquid level (Urine thus sampled is sucked through the L-shaped suction pipe 124 and the flexible tube 122 by the syringe pump 52 arranged in the housing 22. The urine sample is then transferred to the urinalysis device 50 together with the carrier liquid in the reservoir 54 and is subjected to the quantitative analysis. Suction of the urine sample may be commenced automatically when, based on the signal from the electrodes 126 and 128, it is detected that urine has accumulated in the urine pool 118 up to the level of the upper electrode 128, see C15/L10-25 operations; as described in C18/L45-67 the microprocessor 310 and control circuit 222 control operation of the sampling apparatus including the syringe pump, thereby controlling initiation and termination of pump operating corresponding to the steps shown in Fig. 20).
Regarding claim 27, Nakayama discloses the liquid level sensing device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of collecting holes have small diameter (it is preferable that the mesh of the metal screen 656 is selected to be as small as possible and at least smaller than the inner diameter of the suction 65 pipe 642, see C24/L60-67).
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 5-6, 9 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama (USPN 5,720,054) in view of Qin (CN 105842013, previously cited as “Tan”; US 2020/0309646 has been used as an English equivalent document for Qin).
Regarding claim 5, Nakayama discloses the liquid level sensing device of claim 1.
Nakayama does not teach wherein the needle is made of steel.
In a related field of endeavor, Qin teaches a device for collecting liquid and smart toilet (see ABS) wherein the needle is made of steel (steel needle 27, see ¶53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the needle material of Nakayama with the steel material of Qin because it has corrosion resistance, excellent mechanical strength and acts as a conductive substrate.
Regarding claim 6, Nakayama discloses the liquid level sensing device of claim 1.
Nakayama does not teach wherein the device monitors a urine level collected in the liquid-collection cavity in real time (the present invention to monitor the amount of the urine collected in the cavity in real time any existing liquid-level sensor can also be used to monitor the amount of the urine in the cavity in real time, see ¶60).
In a related field of endeavor, Qin teaches a device for collecting liquid and smart toilet (see ABS) wherein the device monitors a urine level collected in the liquid-collection cavity in real time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the device of Nakayama by configuring to monitor the urine level in real time as disclosed by Qin because it known that any existing liquid-level sensor can also be used to monitor the amount of the urine in the cavity in real time and for the benefit of improved reliable monitoring while collecting liquid (Qin, see ¶60).
Regarding claim 9, Nakayama discloses the smart toilet of claim 8.
Nakayama does not teach wherein the liquid level sensing unit is configured to monitor a liquid volume collected in the liquid-collection cavity in real time.
In a related field of endeavor, Qin teaches a device for collecting liquid and smart toilet (see ABS) wherein the liquid level sensing unit is configured to monitor a liquid volume collected in the liquid-collection cavity in real time (the present invention to monitor the amount of the urine collected in the cavity in real time any existing liquid-level sensor can also be used to monitor the amount of the urine in the cavity in real time, see ¶60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the device of Nakayama by configuring to monitor the urine level in real time as disclosed by Qin because it known that any existing liquid-level sensor can also be used to monitor the amount of the urine in the cavity in real time and for the benefit of improved reliable monitoring while collecting liquid (Qin, see ¶60).
Regarding claim 28, Nakayama discloses the liquid level sensing device of claim 1.
Nakayama does not teach wherein the end face of the needle located in an upper portion of the liquid-collection cavity does not exceed a perpendicular plane of the collecting hole closest to the liquid-collection tube arm.
In a related field of endeavor, Qin teaches a device for collecting liquid and smart toilet (see ABS) wherein the end face of the needle located in an upper portion of the liquid-collection cavity does not exceed a perpendicular plane of the collecting hole closest to the liquid-collection tube arm (the pump body to suck the amount of the urine in the cavity better , the end face of the solid steel needle 27 in the cavity does not exceed a vertical plane of the opening of the suction tube 1 , which is advantageous for the cavity 5 to collect sufficient urine before starting to suck the urine when the suction component 18 incline downwardly, see ¶54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the end face of the needle of Nakayama by arranging said end face of the needle located in an upper portion of the liquid-collection cavity such that it does not exceed a perpendicular plane of the collecting hole closest to the liquid-collection tube arm as disclosed by Qin because it advantageously collects sufficient urine before starting to suck the urine (Qin, see ¶54).
Prior art
Non-final Office Action mailed 11/04/2025 used “Tan” for CN 105842013; CN 105842013 was properly cited as “Qin” in the IDS filed 11/04/2025. The name correction has been made in the final Office Action.
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 EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 pm EST.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773