Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/694,003

EXCREMENT ANALYSIS APPARATUS, EXCREMENT ANALYSIS METHOD, PRE-COLONOSCOPY STATE CONFIRMATION APPARATUS, STATE CONFIRMATION SYSTEM, STATE CONFIRMATION METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 21, 2024
Examiner
CZEKAJ, DAVID J
Art Unit
2487
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Paramount Bed Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
48%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
5y 6m
To Grant
39%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 48% of resolved cases
48%
Career Allow Rate
111 granted / 231 resolved
-9.9% vs TC avg
Minimal -9% lift
Without
With
+-9.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
5y 6m
Avg Prosecution
2 currently pending
Career history
233
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
12.4%
-27.6% vs TC avg
§103
67.8%
+27.8% vs TC avg
§102
9.0%
-31.0% vs TC avg
§112
5.1%
-34.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 231 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-9, 22-26, and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (2023/0225714), hereinafter “Sato”. Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses a memory and processing to do excrement analysis includes an inputting imaging data captured by an image capture apparatus being installed in such a way as to include, in a capturing range, an excretion range of excrement in a toilet bowl of a toilet (Sato: figures 1-2), performing classification processing of classifying a capturing target substance in a pixel unit by using semantic segmentation with respect to imaging data being input (Sato: figures 5-6 and 10), and outputting a classification result by the classification processing (Sato: paragraph 0025). Regarding claim 2, Sato discloses classifies, for each pixel, the capturing target substance into any of the excrement, a foreign body not being allowed to be discard into the toilet bowl, and another substance (Sato: figure 5). Regarding claim 3, Sato discloses classifies the excrement into any of feces, urine, and urine dripping, or any of feces, urine, feces and urine, and urine dripping (Sato: figure 5). Regarding claim 4, Sato discloses the classification processing also performs together with at least one of classification of the feces into a plurality of predetermined feces characteristics, feces colors, and the urine into urine colors (Sato: figure 5). Regarding claim 5, Sato discloses the another substance includes at least one of a buttocks washing machine, toilet paper, and a substance after flushing the excrement (Sato: figures 2 and 5). Regarding claim 6, Sato discloses the another substance includes the buttocks washing machine (Sato: figure 2), the excrement analysis includes stopping subsequent classification processing with a result by the processing is classified into the buttocks washing machine (Sato: figure 8, wherein the analysis is stopped at s12), and outputting an excretion completion notification to an observer when a classification result by the processing is classified into the buttocks washing machine (Sato: figure 8; paragraph 0025). Regarding claim 7, Sato discloses outputting an excretion notification to an observe observing a user of the toilet when a classification result is classified into the excrement (Sato: paragraph 0025), after the notification is output, classify each pixel being classified into the excrement into any of feces, urine, urine dripping, or any of feces, urine, feces and urine, and urine dripping, and also performs together with at lease one of classification of the feces into a plurality of predetermined feces characteristics, colors, and classification of the urine to a plurality of urine colors (Sato: figures 5-7), and outputting the classification result (Sato: figure 8; paragraph 0025). Regarding claim 8, Sato discloses outputting as information including a classification image drawn by performing color classification for each classification (Sato: figure 10). Regarding claim 9, Sato discloses outputting includes notifying an observer observing a user of the toilet of a classification result (Sato: paragraph 0025). Regarding claims 22-26 and 35-36, please see the rejections above. 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 10-11 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (2023/0225714), hereinafter “Sato”. Regarding claim 10, please see the above rejections. While not disclosed, it would have been obvious to determine whether a user of the toilet completes pretreatment before colonoscopy (Official Notice). Doing so would have been obvious in order to let an observer know when a patient is ready for a procedure. Regarding claim 11, please see the rejections above. Regarding claims 27-28 please note the rejections above. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: 20210265059 08/2021 Paineau 20200264098 08/2020 Huang 20180303466 10/2018 Kashyap 11604177 03/2023 Park Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVE J CZEKAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-7327. The examiner can normally be reached 8-6:00 Monday-Thursday and every other Friday. 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, please contact Jamie Atala at 571-272-7384. 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. /Dave Czekaj/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 21, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12586173
APPARATUS FOR HAIR INSPECTION ON SUBSTRATE AND METHOD FOR HAIR INSPECTION ON SUBSTRATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12532015
METHODS AND DEVICES FOR CANDIDATE DERIVATION FOR AFFINE MERGE MODE IN VIDEO CODING
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12526440
HIERARCHICAL DATA STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12513281
STEREOSCOPIC IMAGE DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12483690
VIDEO ENCODING/DECODING METHOD AND DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
48%
Grant Probability
39%
With Interview (-9.1%)
5y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 231 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month