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 .
Claim(s) Status
Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
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) are: 1) detection section configured to detect vibration of a toilet bowl ; extraction section configured to extract a feature value included in a vibration waveform and indicating excretion behavior of each of urination and defecation of a user; determination section configured to determine whether an occurrence cause of the vibration is the urination or the defecation based on the extracted feature value; recording section configured to record the determined urination and defecation, in claim(s) 1-13. 2) life behavior recording device configured to detect and record life behavior other than the excretion behavior of the user in a residence, in claim(s) 10-13. 3) detection section configured to detect movement of the user in the residence; recording section configured to record the obtained life behavior in association with occurrence date and time of the obtained life behavior, in claim 11.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 Objections
Claim(s) 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: In particular, claim 1 recites “a recording section configured to record the determined urination and defecation”, however it should to recites “a recording section configured to record the determined occurrence of the urination or the defecation”. Claims 2-13 have the same issue due to dependency. Appropriate correction is required. In particular, claim 14 has the same issue as the objected claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 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. In particular, claim 1 recites “an extraction section configured to extract a feature value included in a vibration waveform and indicating excretion behavior of each of urination and defecation of a user”, however it is unclear if the vibration waveform is associated with the detected vibration of the toilet bowl, since the detection section and the extraction section have not been limited to be in communication with each other and the vibration waveform has not been limited to have been acquired by the detection of vibration of the toilet bowl. Further detail is required to clarify that the detection section and the extraction section are in communication with one another to enable extraction of the feature values included in vibration waveforms that indicate excretion behavior of each of urination and defecation of a user. Further, the toilet bowl needs to be limited to be in use by the user to make it clear that the user’s use of the toilet bowl during excretion behaviors generates the detected vibration of the toilet bowl. Likewise, the determination section needs to be limited to be in communication with the extraction section and the recording section to make it clear that the user excretion behaviors during use of the toilet bowl enables determination of urination and defecation. Claims 2-13 have the same issue due to dependency. In particular, claim10 is presented in a dependent form (depending on claim 1) however it claims an life behavior display system in the preamble presented in an independent form which makes it indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant meant to claim an independent claim or a dependent claim. Claims 11-13 have the same issue due to dependency. In particular, claim 14 has the same issues as addressed in the 112 rejection of claim 1, therefore it is indefinite and requires further details.
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, 5-7, 9 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamai (US 20230020686 A1). 1) Regarding claim 1 and 14, Kamai discloses an excretion behavior recording device (Fig. 1: excreta identification device 2) comprising: a detection section (Fig. 1: microphone 1) configured to detect vibration of a toilet bowl (according to applicant’s specification the vibration device may be a sound detecting device that using frequency analysis. Kamai illustrates in Fig. 2 the microphone being coupled to the toilet bowl. Kamai further discloses, in ¶60, using frequency analysis to determine a feature amount); an extraction section (Fig. 1: feature amount extraction unit 212) configured to extract a feature value included in a vibration waveform (¶60 with regard to the frequency analysis) and indicating excretion behavior of each of urination and defecation of a user (¶¶60-61; Fig. 3); a determination section (Fig. 1: excreta identification unit 213) configured to determine whether an occurrence cause of the vibration is the urination or the defecation based on the extracted feature value (¶¶60-61; and a recording section (Fig. 1: identification result output unit 214)) configured to record the determined urination and defecation (¶62 discloses that the identification result (recording) is outputted and that it may also be transmitted to a server). 2) Regarding claim 5, wherein the recording section is configured to record the determined urination and defecation in association with occurrence dates and times of the determined urination and defecation, respectively (¶63). 3) Regarding claim 6, wherein the extraction section, the determination section, and the recording section are configured using a field-programmable-gate-array device (FPGA device) (¶122), and the recording section is configured to perform recording in an internal memory of the FPGA device or perform recording in an external memory via communication (¶¶42-65; Fig. 1 with regard to the server). 4) Regarding claim 7, wherein the determination section is configured to determine that the occurrence cause of the vibration is noise other than the urination and the defecation in a case where it is not possible to determine that the occurrence cause is at least one of the urination and the defecation based on the extracted feature value (Kamai discloses, in ¶63, that the identification can determined that urination or defecation has not been performed based on the analysis then report the information to the server). 5) Regarding claim 9, wherein the detection section is provided on the toilet bowl of which the user who is a recording target is one (¶¶46-53; Fig. 2).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamai. 1) Regarding claim 3, wherein the feature value includes at least one of a duration time and a maximum amplitude value of the vibration waveform (Kamai discloses, in ¶4 the concept of using frequency and duration characteristics excretion. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using frequency and duration characteristics excretion, with the motivation to enhance the detection features of the system).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanai in view of Murthy et al. (“Murthy”, US 20220044801 A1). 1) Regarding claim 8, further comprising: a display section configured to display a content recorded by the recording section. Murthy discloses, in ¶29; Fig. 2, the concept of configuring a living body information acquisition system with a display to display health information thereon. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of configuring a living body information acquisition system with a display to display health information thereon, with the motivation to enhance the monitoring feature features of the system.
Claim(s) 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanai in view of Murthy and Deleo (US 20120208155 A1). 1) Regarding claim 10, Kamai and Murthy with the same motivation to combine as presented in the rejection of claim 8 teach a behavior display system (see analysis the rejection of claim 8) comprising: the excretion behavior recording device according to claim 1 (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 14); a life behavior recording device configured to detect and record life behavior other than the excretion behavior of the user (see analysis of the rejection of claim 9) in a residence (Kamai: ¶53). As per the limitation a display device configured to display multiple items of the life behavior including the excretion behavior of the user in a time-series graphic form. Murthy discloses, in ¶¶21, 29, 42-44, 47, 51-54 and illustrates, Fig. 4 time graphics charting which suggest that the illustration of Fig. 4 can be displayed via display device. Furthermore, Deleo discloses, in ¶112, the concept of displaying time graphic displayed excretion data. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of displaying time graphic displayed excretion data, with the motivation to enhance the monitoring features of the system. 2) Regarding claim 11, wherein the life behavior recording device includes a detection section configured to detect movement of the user in the residence, an analysis section configured to analyze the detected movement to obtain the life behavior. Murthy discloses, in ¶¶22, 43-44, the concept of using a camera to detect motion of a user and recording health status information during excretion events, which may be located at the home of a user to enable analysis of the health status of the user.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using a camera to detect motion of a user and recording health status information during excretion events, which may be located at the home of a user to enable analysis of the health status of the user, with the motivation to enhance the monitoring features of the system. As per the limitation a recording section configured to record the obtained life behavior in association with occurrence date and time of the obtained life behavior (Kamia: ¶65; Murthy: ¶¶7). 3) Regarding claim 12, wherein the display device is configured to display the multiple items of the life behavior of the user in a graphic form of a daily life cycle (Murthy: Fig. 4 with corresponding disclosure disclosing that the graph provides different location data where a user has performed excretion behaviors/events (see elements 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, corresponding to multiple items since each of them correspond to excretion activities at different locations, respectively)).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanai in view of Murthy and Deleo, and in further view of Bagger et al. (“Bagger”, WO 2021151446 A1). 1) Regarding claim 13, wherein the life behavior of the user includes at least one item of meal behavior, sleep behavior, face washing and hand washing behavior, clothing change behavior, and bathing behavior. Bagger discloses, in claims 25 & 35, the concept of monitoring excretion, defecation, urination, intake of food or drink, and exercise to determine health status of a subject. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of monitoring excretion, defecation, urination, intake of food or drink, and exercise to determine health status of a subject, with the motivation to enhance the monitoring features of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2 & 4 is 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHICO A FOXX whose telephone number is (571)272-5530. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 M-F.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
CHICO A. FOXX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2684
/CHICO A FOXX/Examiner, Art Unit 2685