DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant's amendment filed on 7/23/26. Claims 2 and 7 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-10 are currently pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
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, 3-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the steps of determining a difference in a first and second weight and whether that difference is larger than a preset threshold, generating an updated second weight by averaging the first and third weight, generating an updated urine volume and analyzing the updated urine volume to generate a urine flow chart.
The limitations of determining a difference in a first and second weight and whether that difference is larger than a preset threshold, generating an updated second weight, generating an updated urine volume and analyzing the updated urine volume to generate a urine flow chart., as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “data analysis unit” and outputting digital data (all of which include or involve generic computer components), the claims are direct to concepts relating to organizing information in a way that can be performed mentally or analogous to human mental work and nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the processor, “determining” and “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually determining a difference and calculating a correction then plotting the data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a uroflowmeter. The meter performs mere data gathering and amount to insignificant extra-solutional activity, specifically pre-solutional activity. Additionally, the processor unit and implied output device are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly, the dependent claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept and well-understood, routine and conventional activity is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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: “a data retrieval unit” a “comparison calculation unit” and “a data analysis unit” in claim 6 which are a chip or chips.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Buskirk in view of Fukumoto et al. US 2009/0163811.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Buskirk discloses a urine flow data processing method, comprising the following steps of:
obtaining a urine volume data measured by a uroflowmeter, wherein the urine volume data comprises a first weight at a first time and a second weight at a second time, and the second time is later than the first time ([Col. 4 Lines 18-40] the device is a uroflow meter that takes weight measurements over time);
determining whether the difference between the first weight and the second weight is larger than a presetting threshold value ([Col. 12 Lines 12-46] the program compares successive volume readings);
generating an updated second weight corresponding to the second time according to the first weight, the second weight, and a third weight at a third time when the difference between the first weight and the second weight is larger than the presetting threshold value, and replacing the second weight with the updated second weight to generate an updated urine volume data, wherein the third time is later than the second time ([Col. 14 Lines 7-28] the device either replace a reading with the preceding reading or averages the retrospective and prospective readings, including the first and third readings. The comparison calculation unit and data analysis unit being the microprocessor 470); and
analyzing the updated urine volume data to generate a urine flow chart ([FIG14] the flow is charted).
Buskirk discloses generating the updated weight according to the first weight, the second weight, and a third weight when the difference between the second weight and the third weight is larger than the presetting threshold value, and replacing the updated second weight with the second weight to generate the updated urine volume data of the step, ([Col. 14 Lines 7-28] the device averages the retrospective and prospective readings, including the first and third readings).
Buskirk does not specifically disclose the updated second weight is the value obtained by adding the first weight and the third weight and then diving it by two. Fukumoto teaches a similar physiological device that uses a moving average of the first and third readings ([¶117,118]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Buskirk with the teachings of Fukumoto in order to filter the signal.
Regarding claim 3 and 8, Buskirk discloses the following step of: replacing the second weight and the third weight with the first weight to generate the updated urine volume data when the second weight is less than the first weight and the third weight is less than the second weight ([Col. 12 Lines 30-35] the device either replace a reading with the preceding reading or averages the retrospective and prospective readings, including the first and third readings).
Regarding claim 4 and 9, Buskirk discloses when the difference between the updated second weight and the third weight is larger than the presetting threshold value, the urine flow data processing method further comprises the following step of: generating an updated third weight corresponding to the third time according to the second weight, the third weight and a fourth weight at a fourth time, and replacing the third weight with the updated third weight to generate the updated urine volume data, wherein the fourth time is later than the second time ([Col. 14 Lines 7-28] the device either replace a reading with the preceding reading or averages the retrospective and prospective readings, including the first and third readings. This is the same as the replacement of the second weight but later in time).
Regarding claim 5 and 10, Buskirk does not disclose the presetting threshold value is between 1g and 1.5g. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Buskirk to include the specific threshold rather than Buskirk’s general difference determination since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 6-7, filed 7/23/26, with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 7/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the 101 rejection, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the current claims recite a real-time correction that is not taught in the prior art, however, the claim limitations do not require real-time analysis. The claim language does not recite or require a specific time scale. There is an argument to be made that real-time processing could be impossible or impractical for a human to calculate mentally or by hand but that is not relevant to the current claim language. The claim limitations only require observing the weight over time and determining a correction that is the average of two values, without a specific time scale this could be minutes or hours apart.
Applicant argues that device components are not generic computer elements, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The addition of the data retrieval unit, a comparison calculation unit and a data analysis unit do not add significantly more. The units are generic chips programmed to perform generic computer processes like data transmission and storage, calculations and processing. Additionally, the claimed improvement of correcting errors in the uroflowmeter so that the graph can be more accurate does not appear to be an improvement as the prior art teaches error correction and error correcting using moving averages.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the 103 rejection, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Van Buskirk discloses replacing the erroneous value with a newly corrected or average value ([Col. 14 Lines 7-28]). Fukumoto is then relied on to teach an average calculation like the claims recite. Applicant argues that Fukumoto does not replace the original weight with the updated second weight but Fukumoto at FIG.5 clearly shows that the second weight or value A(H,D) is replaced with the updated value A’(H,D).
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 MICHAEL ANTHONY CATINA whose telephone number is (571)270-5951. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6pm.
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, Robert Chen can be reached at 5712723672. 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.
/MICHAEL A CATINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /TSE CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
