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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In regards to claim 6, the claimed subject matter “panning, tiling and rotating” should be “panning, tilting [,] and rotating” since it is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “identifier” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 9-14 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. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “identifier” in claim 9 is used by the claim to mean “identify a parameter of the expelled material from the classified image,” while the accepted meaning is “one who identifiers”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Clarification is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASAO JP 2009270951 in view of SAGEDER WO 2017036952 in further view of paper of Yani Zhang, “Neural Network Based Classification Using Blur Degradation and Affine Deformation Invariant Features”, 2000 hereafter Zhang.
With respect to claim 1, Masao teaches a method to measure a parameter of a material expelled by a user, the method comprising:
acquiring an image “image recognition unit that captures feces” (pg. 2, ¶ 5) of the expelled material to form an acquired image;
classifying the image based on one or more of image attributes “parameters the color characteristics; and identifying the parameter of the expelled material from the classified image “stool pH” ” (pg. 3, ¶ 8, lines 1-10).
Masao does not teach detecting the user's presence at a toilet.
Sageder, in the same field of endeavor as Masao of detecting excreta in toilets (fig 9, b Sageder), teaches a presence detector detects that a person has the intention to use a device located within a toilet bowl (fig 9), conditions which require the activation of the urine detector (pg. 12, ¶ 2, lines 5-7). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine Sageder’s presence detector with Masao’s image recognition unit to detect the excreta inside the toilet with reduced power consumption.
The combination does not teach applying intrinsic camera parameters to compute an affine transformation of the image to obtain a rectified image.
Zhang, in the same field of endeavor as Masao of image recognition and classification (fig 1 Zhang), teaches an image may be rectified using an affine transformation to compensate for affine deformation (pg. 76, col 1, ¶ 2, lines 4-5) . At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to combine Zhang’s computer with the combination’s camera to enable efficient detection of objects without geometric distortion (pg. 76, col 1, ¶ 2, lines 1-5).
With respect to claim 5 according to claim 1, the combination teaches the method wherein forming an image of the expelled material further comprises detecting one or more of an electromagnetic radiation “stool color image signal” (pg. 5, ¶ 1, lines 8-10 Masao) from the expelled material.
With respect to claim 7 according to claim 1, the combination does not teach processing the rectified image further comprises communicating the rectified image to a network computing resource.
Zhang, in the same field of endeavor as Masao of image recognition and classification (fig 1 Zhang), teaches an image may be rectified to a network computing resource i.e. neural network (fig 1). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to combine Zhang’s networking computing resource with the combination’s camera to enable efficient detection of objects without geometric distortion (pg. 76, col 1, ¶ 2, lines 1-5).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASAO JP 2009270951 in view of SAGEDER WO 2017036952 in further view of paper of Yani Zhang, “Neural Network Based Classification Using Blur Degradation and Affine Deformation Invariant Features”, 2000 hereafter Zhang in further view of ATTAR WO 2016135735.
With respect to claim 3 according to claim 1, the combination does not teach projecting light of a plurality of spectra onto the expelled material.
Attar, in the same field of endeavor as Masao of imaging color of excreta inside toilets for health purposes, teaches projecting light of a plurality of spectra i.e. white light onto the expelled material while imaging the reflected light via a camera (pg. 13, ¶ 4 lines 1-5). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Attar’s white light source with the combination’s camera to efficiently detect color in a dark toilet bowl.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASAO JP 2009270951 in view of SAGEDER WO 2017036952 in further view of paper of Yani Zhang, “Neural Network Based Classification Using Blur Degradation and Affine Deformation Invariant Features”, 2000 hereafter Zhang in further view of LIU CN 104790484.
With respect to claim 6 according to claim 1, the combination does not teach the method wherein forming an image further comprises rotating the image sensor relative to the toilet.
Liu, in the same field of endeavor as Masao of imaging within toilet bowl, teaches a rotating image sensor configured to inspect the walls of a toilet (pg. 5, ¶ 7-8). At the time prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Liu’s rotating image sensor with the combination’s processor to provide a wider field of view capturing feces that could have landed on the walls of toilet.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASAO JP 2009270951 in view of SAGEDER WO 2017036952 in further view of paper of Yani Zhang, “Neural Network Based Classification Using Blur Degradation and Affine Deformation Invariant Features”, 2000 hereafter Zhang in further view of Hall US 20150342574.
With respect to claim 8 according to claim 1, the combination does not teach the method further comprising the step of identifying a user associated with the expelled material and identifying a prior user history.
Hall, in the same field of endeavor as Masao of imaging within toilet bowl (0079, lines 1-5), teaches identifying a user by connecting with the internet to access a user's profile and medical history records (which can be updated following receipt and analysis of that particular urine specimen (0038, lines 15-20). At the time prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to identify a user via the combination’s processor to keep track of a user’s health over time.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. TAN CN 109884058.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 2, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “computing one or more gradient magnitudes for the rectified image using a mathematical operator such; binning the one or more gradient magnitudes into a histogram, wherein the image encoded as features as a quantized histogram of gradients; labeling features and comparing the labeled features with known parameters to assess one or more expelled parameter” , in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 2.
As to claim 4, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “acquiring the image by an image sensor, the image sensor comprises components for spectroscopic detection of a substance in the material, wherein the components for spectroscopic detection further comprise a laser diode or photo diode array, a prism, a photosensor or photodetector, and a distance sensor” , in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 4.
As to claim 9, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “image sensor including components for spectroscopic detection of a substance in the material and wherein the components for spectroscopic detection further comprise a laser diode or photo diode array, a prism, a photosensor or photodetector, and a distance sensor” , in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 9.
As to claim 15, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “wherein the image sensor further comprises components for spectroscopic detection of a substance in the material and wherein the components for spectroscopic detection further comprise a laser diode or photo diode array, a prism, a photo sensor or photodetector, and a distance sensor” , in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAURICE C SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-2526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/MAURICE C SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2877