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 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 47 is 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.
Claim 47 recites the limitation "each support of the at least one support" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that claim 47 may have been intended to depend from claim 46 (instead of 45, as currently written) which would overcome this issue.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 37-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0231271 A1 to Borkholder et al. (hereinafter “Borkholder”) in view of US 9,595,185 B1 to Hall et al. (hereinafter “Hall”) in view of US 2018/0084960 A1 to Iwabata et al. (hereinafter “Iwabata”).
Regarding Claims 37, 42, 45, 50 and 52, Borkholder teaches a kit, comprising:
a coupler (see hinges in e.g. FIG. 1-2 and 5) configured to couple to a ring and a lid to a base of a toilet (see FIGS. 1-2 illustrating the toilet seat, i.e. the claimed ring; see e.g. Para. 50 clarifying that the seat is attached to a “base surface” and/or a “toilet surface” which refers to the base of the toilet), the coupler configured to couple the ring and the lid to the base such that the ring and the lid can pivot relative to the base (see hinges in e.g. FIG. 1-2 and 5; see e.g. Para. 73),
a platform configured to attach to at least one of the ring or the base such that a portion of forces exerted by a subject seated on a surface of the ring when the ring is coupled to the base via the coupler are transferred through the platform to the base (see the “standoff” in FIG. 6, and described in e.g. Paras. 50-51, which acts as a platform that transmits force to the sensor underneath it); and
at least one sensor disposed adjacent to the platform and configured to measure the portion of the forces that transfer from the ring to the base through the platform (see “sensor” in FIG. 6).
Borkholder fails to specifically teach that the coupler includes the platform and sensor. Rather, Borkholder teaches that the platforms (“standoffs”) are located at various locations under the ring, with the hinges (i.e. coupler(s)) being “floating” hinges that are not load-bearing and do not receive any force transmitted by the user’s weight (see e.g. Para. 66 of Borkholder). The problem being solved here is that if any force is transmitted through the hinges, but not measured, then an accurate weight reading could not occur.
As evidence of a known alternative solution to Borkholder’s floating hinges, attention is directed to the Hall reference which teaches a similar arrangement in which sensors can be integrated into the hinges as well as under the ring, thereby ensuring that all load transmitted from the user’s weight is analyzed by the system (see claim 2 of Hall). In other words, to solve the problem of unmeasured force being transmitted through the hinges, Hall demonstrates that one solution is to add sensors to the hinges themselves, whereas Borkholder solved the problem using hinges that do not receive any transmitted force. One skilled in the art would recognize these two solutions as being suitable known alternatives to each other for solving the same problem, and would thus find it obvious to use either arrangement. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of Applicant's effective filing date to modify Borkholder to utilize load-bearing hinges having force sensors therein, as an alternative to non-load-bearing floating hinges, because doing so would involve merely substituting one known arrangement for another known arrangement which were both known in the art to be suitable for solving the same problem.
Concerning the placement of the platform and sensor being part of the coupler and also being configured to attach to at least one of the ring or the base, Iwabata teaches a similar force/weight-measuring toilet seat apparatus including a sensor built into one or both the hinges (see e.g. Para. 35: “The seating detection sensor may be provided in at least one of the two hinge portions.”) including a platform (50) coupled to the ring (160), the platform having a first surface that faces the coupler (see bottom side of 50 in FIG. 13A) and a second surface that faces the ring (see upper side of 50 in FIG. 13A), the sensor (60) disposed on the second surface of the platform (see FIG. 13A). Accordingly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of Applicant's effective filing date to modify Borkholder in view of Hall to utilize the structure of Iwabata within the hinges, because although Hall provides sufficient rationale to modify Borkholder to add sensors to the hinges, neither Borkholder nor Hall show the specific structure within the hinge to accomplish the inclusion of the sensor, and thus to achieve this modification one skilled in the art would look for other prior art examples of how this was accomplished, which in this case includes Iwabata’s teaching. One skilled in the art would recognize that simply adapting Iwabata structure within the hinge into Borkholder would lead to predictable result discussed above in the modification in view of Hall, i.e. Borkholder would be modified to use hinges with sensors included therein, to achieve the same result of detecting the entirety of a user’s weight who is sitting on the toilet seat.
Regarding Claims 38, 41, 46 and 51, see e.g. Para. 51 and FIG. 2 of Borkholder (four standoffs can be used, or other numbers; each standoff is equivalent to the claimed “supports”; they are distributed around the ring). As explained in the rejections of the independent claims above, the combination of references renders obvious the configuration in which sensors are positioned in supports under the seat as well as in the hinges/coupler, which collectively measure the entire forces exerted by the subject seated on the seat/ring.
Regarding Claims 39, 47, 53 and 56, see e.g. “microprocessor” in Para. 30 of Borkholder; also see e.g. Paras. 51 and 74-76 (BCG and weight is measured from a combination of the multiple sensors used).
Regarding Claims 40, 43-44, 48-49 and 54-55, see e.g. Paras. 48-49 of Borkholder discussing BCG, PPG and ECG sensors and a broad range of measurements that can be determined from those sensors (see e.g. Para. 49: “An embodiment of the system can enable a broad range of daily measurements extracted from the bECG, bBCG, and bPPG including: heart rate; heart rate variability; left ventricular ejection time; pulse transit time based on ECG R-wave or the BCG ejection (correlation to vascular compliance); blood pressure; cardiac output; cardiac contractility; abnormal heart function or issues with autonomic nervous control of the heart (Valsava maneuver); blood oxygenation (SpO.sub.2 via filtered PPG sensors); respiration rate (IPG or PPG); stress levels (e.g., via heart rate variability); body weight; body temperature; QT interval (time between Q and T waves of the ECG); QRS duration (time from the Q wave to the T wave); PTT; PWV; PAT; LVET; and PEP”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hall ‘302: see Col. 3 lines 61-63: “A toilet seat 114 may comprise strain gauges 112 and 116, and/or additional strain gages may be located on or near hinges of toilet seat 114 and in footstool 104.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R DOWNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm ET.
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, NIKETA PATEL can be reached at (571)-272-4156. 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.
/JOHN R DOWNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights