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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/02/24 has been considered by the examiner
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-8 and 15-20) in the reply filed on July 16, 2026 is acknowledged. Therefore, Invention II (claims 9-14) has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the presence”. Examiner notes this should read “a presence”
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the device”. Examiner notes this should read “the sample-collection device”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 15, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over McCord (US 2020/0015791)
Regarding claim 15, McCord teaches a sample-collection device to detect various medicines and their metabolites from a urine stream of a patient [par. 8], the device comprising: a device carrier [fig. 1, element 100] having at least one reagent-infused strip [fig. 2, element 212; par. 63] to collect at least a portion of the urine stream [par. 48, 63]; and a camera [fig. 2, element 220] to collect an image from each of the at least one reagent-infused strips and produce information therefrom [par. 49]
Regarding claim 17, McCord further teaches a signaling device comprising a combination transponder and signaler to transmit the information received from the camera to a storage device for later analysis of the various medicines and their metabolites [par. 49, 54]
Regarding claim 18, McCord further teaches the camera comprises a color camera configured to collect one or more color changes on each of the at least one reagent-infused strips [par. 56].
Regarding claim 20, McCord further teaches a biometric- identification device to identify a user of the device, the biometric-identification device comprising a device selected from a fingerprint scanner, a facial scanner, and a retinal scanner [par. 14].
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCord
Regarding claim 1, McCord teaches an apparatus that can be attached to a toilet to detect various medicines and their metabolites from a urine stream of a patient [par. 8], the apparatus comprising: a device carrier [fig. 1, element 100] having at least one reagent-infused strip [fig. 2, element 212; par. 63], an absorbent pad [fig. 2, 7, element 212; par. 48, 63 “A test matrix may have multiple layers, including for example a backing, one or more layers for reagents, and a top laminate layer. Materials may be selected to absorb sufficient urine sample volume to perform the tests”, Examiner notes the reagent-infused strip comprises an absorbent portion]; a camera [fig. 2, element 220] to collect an image from each of the at least one reagent-infused strips and produce information therefrom [par. 49]; and a signaling device comprising a combination transponder and signaler to transmit information received from the camera to a storage device for later analysis of the various medicines and their metabolites [par. 49, 54]
An alternate embodiment of McCord teaches a transfer tube [figs. 5A-C, element 501] to direct at least portions of the urine stream from the absorbent pad to the at least one reagent- infused strip [par. 57]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by McCord, to incorporate a transfer tube to direct at least portions of the urine stream from the absorbent pad to the at least one reagent- infused strip, for filtering the urine, as evidence by McCord [par. 57]
Regarding claim 2, McCord further teaches the information received from the camera is configured to be transmitted wirelessly to a storage device [par. 49, 54]
Regarding claim 3, McCord further teaches the camera comprises a color camera configured to collect one or more color changes on each of the at least one reagent-infused strips [par. 56]
Regarding claim 5, McCord further teaches a biometric-identification device to identify a user of the apparatus, the biometric-identification device comprising a fingerprint scanner [par. 14]
Regarding claim 7, McCord further teaches a urination-detection device, the urination-detection device to detect the presence of the urine stream of the patient [par. 53, 54]
Regarding claim 8, McCord further teaches the camera is mounted to an underside of a toilet ring mounted on the toilet [par. 16, 41]
Regarding claim 16, McCord further teaches an absorbent pad [fig. 2, 7, element 212; par. 48, 63 “A test matrix may have multiple layers, including for example a backing, one or more layers for reagents, and a top laminate layer. Materials may be selected to absorb sufficient urine sample volume to perform the tests”, Examiner notes the reagent-infused strip comprises an absorbent portion]
Another embodiment of McCord teaches a transfer tube [figs. 5A-C, element 501] hydraulically coupled to the at least one reagent-infused strip to direct the at least portions of the urine stream from the absorbent pad to the at least one reagent-infused strip [par. 57].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by McCord, to incorporate an absorbent pad and a transfer tube hydraulically coupled to the at least one reagent-infused strip to direct the at least portions of the urine stream from the absorbent pad to the at least one reagent-infused strip, for filtering the urine, as evidence by McCord [par. 57]
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCord and in further view of Murray (US 2022/0390379)
Regarding claims 4 and 19, McCord teaches an apparatus that can be attached to a toilet to detect various medicines and their metabolites from a urine stream of a patient, as disclosed above, and mount the device carrier to a toilet ring [fig. 1; par. 41]; and a driving component configured to adjust the device carrier from a stored position to a position that is at least partially into the urine stream [par. 12, 41]
However, McCord does not teach a bracket to mount the device
Murray teaches a bracket to mount the device [fig. 2, 3, element 192; par. 43]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by McCord, to incorporate a bracket to mount the device, for allowing the extension of the device, as evidence by Murray [par. 43]
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCord and in further view of Tan (US 2019/0369085)
Regarding claim 6, McCord teaches an apparatus that can be attached to a toilet to detect various medicines and their metabolites from a urine stream of a patient, as disclosed above.
However, McCord does not teach a biometric-identification device to identify a user of the apparatus, the biometric-identification device comprising at least one device selected from a facial scanner and a retinal scanner
Tan teaches a biometric-identification device to identify a user of the apparatus, the biometric-identification device comprising at least one device selected from a facial scanner and a retinal scanner [par. 70]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by McCord, to incorporate a biometric-identification device to identify a user of the apparatus, the biometric-identification device comprising at least one device selected from a facial scanner and a retinal scanner, for determining the identification of the user to further personalize the configuration of the device for the user, as evidence by Tan [par. 70, 78]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE LINING ROZANSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm, alt F 8:30am-5pm.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on 571-272-4233. 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.
/GRACE L ROZANSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights