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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/17/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2020/0390398 A1 (hereinafter Hall et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Hall discloses a toilet device (100), comprising: a casing (400); a biological information measurement sensor (“health and wellness sensor” par. 54) configured to measure biological information of a user (par. 54); a controller disposed inside the casing (“processor” par. 7), the controller being configured to transmit the biological information to a personal digital assistant of the user (“personal electronic devices” par. 46, 47); and a wireless communication part (“wireless communications” par. 61) configured to connect the controller and the personal digital assistant (par. 46, 47) by a wireless communication (“wireless technology” par. 46), the controller being connected with the personal digital assistant when a distance between the personal digital assistant and the wireless communication part is not more than a prescribed distance “near-field communication” or “Bluetooth” par. 46), the wireless communication part being disposed inside the casing (“the shroud (400) covers all in the internal support components that comprise the frame…the interior of the toilet frame may include, among other things, plumbing connections, fluid supply lines, support structures, health and wellness assessment devices, electronic circuits, digital devices (e.g., processors, memory), storage tanks, and communication modules.” par. 51).
Regarding claim 7, Hall discloses the toilet device according to claim 1, further comprising: a storage part (“storage buffer” par. 44; “memory” par. 51), the controller being configured to perform a registration mode including associating identification information identifying the personal digital assistant and user information identifying the user (par. 43), and storing the identification information and the user information in the storage part (par. 43, 45, 46, 47), after performing the registration mode, the controller performing a user authentication of designating the user information (“comparing results to a database of known users” par. 45) and the identification information when the distance between the personal digital assistant and the wireless communication part becomes the prescribed distance or less (“The disclosed system is designed not to identify a person in the same room unless that person is in position to use the toilet standing or sitting” par. 43), the prescribed distance being modifiable by the personal digital assistant (system is programmable and therefore capable of being modifiable by the personal digital assistant if so desired; par. 48).
Regarding claim 8, Hall discloses the toilet device according to claim 7, wherein whether or not the distance between the personal digital assistant and the wireless communication part is not more than the prescribed distance is determined by whether or not a strength of a radio signal emitted from the wireless communication part and received by the personal digital assistant is not less than a threshold, and the threshold is modifiable by the personal digital assistant (the system utilizes a near-field communication or Bluetooth connection both of which have predetermined thresholds for signal strength; par. 46; furthermore, the system is configured modifiable by the personal digital assistant if a user so desires since it utilizes a software program and thus is capable of being modified by a personal digital assistant).
Regarding claim 9, Hall discloses the toilet device according to claim 7, further comprising: a human body detection sensor (203) configured to detect the user, the controller performing the user authentication when the human body detection sensor detects the user and the distance between the personal digital assistant and the wireless communication part is not more than the prescribed distance (par. 43 46).
Regarding claim 10, Hall discloses the toilet device according to claim 9, wherein the human body detection sensor includes a proximity sensor configured to detect an approach of the user, and a distance at which the proximity sensor can detect the user is different from the prescribed distance (par. 46, 49).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall.
Regarding claims 2-4, Hall fails to show the specific location of the wireless communication part and thus fails to show at least a part of the wireless communication part is positioned higher than a vertical-direction center of the casing, and whether or not the distance between the personal digital assistant and the wireless communication part is not more than the prescribed distance is determined by whether or not a strength of a radio signal emitted from the wireless communication part and received by the personal digital assistant is not less than a threshold, wherein at least a part of the wireless communication part is positioned behind a longitudinal-direction center of the casing, and wherein the wireless communication part is positioned leftward of a lateral-direction center of the casing, or rightward of the lateral-direction center of the casing. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on this exact location, and moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the device of Hall to work equally well with the wireless communication part in the claimed position relative to the casing. So long as the device is capable of emitting and receiving the appropriate wireless signal, precisely where it is located is considered an engineering design choice. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to configure the system of Hall such that at least a part of the wireless communication part is positioned higher than a vertical-direction center of the casing, and whether or not the distance between the personal digital assistant and the wireless communication part is not more than the prescribed distance is determined by whether or not a strength of a radio signal emitted from the wireless communication part and received by the personal digital assistant is not less than a threshold, wherein at least a part of the wireless communication part is positioned behind a longitudinal-direction center of the casing, and wherein the wireless communication part is positioned leftward of a lateral-direction center of the casing, or rightward of the lateral-direction center of the casing as a mere rearrangement of parts because the specific location would not prevent the device from operating as intended and is therefore a design choice (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C) In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publication 2015/0359522 is directed to the state of the art of biological sensors in toilets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANIE M LOEPPKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5208. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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, David Angwin can be reached at (571) 270-3735. 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.
/JANIE M LOEPPKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights