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 .
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 08/20/2026 have been fully considered.
Claims 1-21 are pending for examination.
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.
Claims 1-4, 11-12 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shemer et al. (USPGPUB 2005/0261605) in view of Hall et al. (USPN 9,810,686 – applicant cited). In regard to claim 1, Shemer discloses a station for a urine analysis device (element 10, Figs. 1-8 and associated descriptions), the station comprising: a case configured to be removably positioned on an inner wall of a toilet bowl (elements 1, 2 and/or 3, Figs. 1-3 and associated descriptions), wherein the case comprises a plurality of sensors (Fig. 3 and associated descriptions) and urine collecting structures (elements 9, Fig. 1 and associated descriptions).
Shemer does not specifically discloses a housing, within the case, configured to at least partially receive a cartridge comprising a plurality of test supports, the cartridge being movably mounted within the housing, a position sensor, configured to directly measure a position of a test support of the cartridge relative to the case.
Hall teaches a urine analysis device (Figs. 1-10 and associated descriptions) comprising an a housing (housing 324 and/or 328 and associated structures, Fig. 3B and associated descriptions; Col 5 lines 1-11), connected to a urine collecting structure (element 212, Figs. 2A and 3B and associated descriptions), configured to at least partially receive a cartridge comprising a plurality of test supports (element 218 with a plurality of test supports 216, Figs. 2B, 3B, 4A-B, 5A-B, and 7-9 and associated descriptions), the cartridge being movably mounted within the housing (element 218 is movably mounted with in the housing 324 and/or 328 and/or associated structure(s) housing elements 216/218/220/222, Fig. 3B and associated descriptions; rotation and associated movement, Figs. 4A-9 and associated descriptions), a position sensor (a sensor, optical sensor, and/or indicator, Col 4 lines 25-39; element 434, Figs. 4A-5B and associated descriptions) configured to directly measure the position of a test support of the cartridge relative to a case (a sensor, optical sensor, and/or indicator, Col 4 lines 25-39; element 434, Figs. 4A-5B and associated descriptions; It is noted that element 434 detects/ measures the reflectivity of specific color wavelengths from the colored test support 417b, Figs. 4A-5B and associated descriptions, in other words, element 434 does not detect of specific color wavelengths when the colored test support 417b is not located/ positioned under the illumination area. The detection of the specific color wavelengths is considered as directly measure a position of a test support).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the case of the station (Shemer) to incorporate the housing and associated sensing structures as taught by Hall under the urine collecting structures, since both devices are urine analysis systems for toilets and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the sensor(s) as taught by Hall provide additional chemical reaction information of the collected urine sample. The rationale would have been to obtain more information about the urine sample of the user.
In regard to claim 2, Shemer as modified by Hall discloses the position sensor comprises a light source (optical sensor, Col 4 lines 25-39; element 434, Figs. 4A-5B and associated descriptions of Hall; referring to claim 1 above) and an optical sensor (, optical sensor, and/or indicator, Col 4 lines 25-39; element 434, Figs. 4A-5B and associated descriptions; Col 5 lines 12-57 of Hall), the light source being configured to emit light towards a test support and the optical sensor being configured to receive the light (optical sensor, Col 4 lines 25-39; element 434, Figs. 4A-5B and associated descriptions; “A light source 434 may emit light 436 onto the colored protrusions 417B to measure reflectivity of specific color wavelengths”, Col 5 lines 12-57 of Hall; referring to claim 1 above).
In regard to claim 3, Shemer as modified by Hall discloses an analyzer (element 434, Figs. 4A-5B and associated descriptions; Col 5 lines 12-57 of Hall; referring to claim 1 above), the analyzer operating in an analysis zone of the housing (element 434 and associated illumination area underneath, Figs. 4A-5B and associated descriptions; Col 5 lines 12-57 of Hall; referring to claim 1 above), and the position sensor is configured to directly measure a position of a test support located in the analysis zone (element 434 and associated illumination area underneath, Figs. 4A-5B and associated descriptions; Col 5 lines 12-57 of Hall; referring to claim 1 above).
In regard to claim 4, Shemer as modified by Hall discloses the analyzer is the position sensor (element 434, Figs. 4A-5B and associated descriptions; Col 5 lines 12-57 of Hall; referring to claim 1 above).
In regard to claim 11, Shemer as modified by Hall discloses the case comprises an injector, configured to inject urine onto the test support which is identified as being in position by the position sensor (element 330 dispenses a urine specimen 332 to elements 216, Figs. 3B-5B and 7-9 and associated descriptions; an electrical source may activate… one or more nozzles, Col 4 lines 25-39; claim 16 of Hall).
In regard to claim 12, Shemer as modified by Hall discloses the station comprises a motor for driving the cartridge in displacement (Col 4 lines 25-39 of Hall; claims 18-19) but does not specifically discloses a stepping drive actuator. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a stepping motor is an alternative equivalent motor for rotating spools. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the motor with a stepping motor to yield predictable results. The rationale would have been the simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results (obvious to substitute elements, devices, etc.), KSR, 550, U.S. at 417.
In regard to claim 15, Shemer as modified by Hall discloses a fastening element configured to removably fasten the case to the inner wall of the toilet bowl, the fastening element comprising at least one of a magnet, an adhesive surface, a suction-cup surface, and a hook configured to attach to a rim of the toilet bowl (hook, Figs. 1-2 and associated descriptions of Shemer).
In regard to claim 16, Shemer as modified by Hall discloses a urine analysis device (Figs. 1-10 and associated descriptions) comprising a station according claim 1 (referring to claim 1 above) and the cartridge (referring to claim 1 above), the cartridge being configured to be at least partially received in the housing of the case (referring to claim 1 above), each test support being integral with the cartridge and being configured to selectively scroll past the position sensor (Figs. 4A-5B and 8-9 and associated descriptions of Hall; referring to claim 1 above).
In regard to claim 17, Shemer as modified by Hall discloses the test support is a test strip (Figs. 4A-5B and 8-9 and associated descriptions of Hall; referring to claim 1 above).
In regard to claim 18, Shemer as modified by Hall discloses the cartridge comprises a rotary support configured to be rotated by station (element 218 and associated spools/ elements, Figs. 3B-5B and 8-9 and associated descriptions of Hall; referring to claim 1 above), the cartridge comprising test strips attached to and integral with the rotary support, the test strips being arranged parallel to one another (elements 216/714A/714B, Figs. 3B-5B and 8-9 and associated descriptions of Hall).
In regard to claim 19, Shemer as modified by Hall discloses a method of measuring the position of a test support using the urine analysis device according to claim 16, the method comprising measuring a position of a test support directly (referring to claims 1 and 16 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10, 13 and 20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the claims 6-10, 13 and 20 are allowed for the reasons of record.
Claims 5 and 21 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest “the housing is an annular housing, about an axis of rotation, in the case, the annular housing being configured to at least partially receive the cartridge mounted for rotation about the axis of rotation in the station” and “the test support itself constitutes a marker for the position sensor, the position sensor being configured to directly measure the position of the test support relative to the case by sensing the test support itself, without measuring a position of the cartridge, of a rotary support of the cartridge, or of a separator of the cartridge” in combination with the other claimed elements/ steps.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-2 of Remarks, filed on 08/20/2026, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment and argument with respect to claim 1 filed on 08/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are deemed to be moot in views of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regard to claim 2, applicant alleged that Hall does not teach an optical sensor. In response, Hall teaches “a light source 434 may emit light 436 onto the colored protrusions 417B to measure reflectivity of specific color wavelengths”, Col 5 lines 22-24. It is inherent that an optical sensor is utilized for the measurements.
In regard to the double patenting rejections, the TD filed on 08/20/2026 have been approved. The double patenting rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
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 CHU CHUAN LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5507. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/CHU CHUAN LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights