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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this case and have been examined and addressed below. This communication is a Non-Final Rejection in response to the Claims filed on 06/04/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/11/2025 and 12/05/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “waste receptable” in line 1. Examiner interprets this to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-10 fall within the statutory category of an apparatus or system. Claims 11-20 fall within the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A, Prong One
As per Claim 1, the limitations of determine, in response to receiving the signals, one or more physiological characteristics about the user based on the measure sensor data; correlate the determined one or more physiological characteristics with reference data of previous users stored in a memory; and identify the user based on the correlation as one or the previous users, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The steps of determining physiological characteristics about the user, correlate the determined characteristics with reference data, and identify the user based on the correlation are concepts performed including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
As per Claim 11, the limitations of extracting one or more features of the recorded sensor data, comparing the sensor data or the features with reference data of a plurality of known users, and determining an identify of the user seated on the toilet, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The steps of extracting features of the sensor data, comparing the sensor data or features with the reference data of known users, and identify the user seated on the toilet are concepts performed including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements and combination of additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception. In particular, the claims recite the additional element – a set of sensors disposed on a seat coupled to a waste receptable and including a surface on which a user can be seated and a processor (claim 1) and a sensing system including a set of sensors disposed on a seat of a toilet and a processor (claim 11). The sensors and processor in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims also recites the additional elements of measuring sensor data present on the seat when the user is seated on the seat (Claim 1), which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception because a sensor being used for its ordinary purpose of measuring sensor data amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception as per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Additionally, this would amount to an attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it" (MPEP 2106.05(f)(I) see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Claim 1 also recites receiving signals indicative of the measured sensor data and Claim 11 recites recording sensor data of a user seated on the toilet, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, as in MPEP 2106.05(g), because the steps of receiving signals are mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea where the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). Because the additional elements do not impose meaningful limitations on the judicial exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with the respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a set of sensors disposed on a seat coupled to a waste receptable and including a surface on which a user can be seated and a processor (claim 1) and a sensing system including a set of sensors disposed on a seat of a toilet and a processor (claim 11) to perform the method of the invention amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component. The system including the sensors and processor are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as any of a variety of known sensors for monitoring signals associated with physical or physiological characteristics of a user (Specification [0008]) and a processor which can be any suitable processing device configured to run a set of instructions or code (Specification, [0038]), which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea beyond mere instructions to apply an exception. The limitation of measuring sensor data present on the seat when the user is seated on the seat has also been found to be mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims also include the additional elements of receiving signals indicative of the measured sensor data (Claim 1) and recording sensor data of a user seated on the toilet (Claim 11), which are both elements that are well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions in the field of data management because they are claimed at a high level of generality and include receiving or transmitting data as well as storing and retrieving information from memory, which have been found to be well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions by the Court (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added) and (iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves another technology. The claims do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-20 add further limitations which are also directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims merely serve to further specify or limit the elements of the independent claims and therefore are directed to the same abstract idea as the independent claims. The claims specify the types of sensors, however, the sensors are used in their ordinary purpose for sensing data and are therefore elements which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Because the additional elements do not impose meaningful limitations on the judicial exception and the additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional functionalities in the art, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kashyap et al. (US 2022/0151510 A1), hereinafter Kashyap.
As per Claim 1, Kashyap discloses a sensing system, comprising:
a set of sensors disposed on a seat coupled to a waste receptable and including a surface on which a user can be seated, the set of sensors configured to measure sensor data present on the seat when the user is seated on the seat ([0022-0023] sensors coupled to a bathroom use analysis device where the device is a toilet, [0026-0027] sensors measure characteristic of an individual from multiple sensors, [0050] for example a toilet seat includes a set of load cells/sensors to measure data such as distribution of force across sensors while user is on the seat; also see [0053] measure sensor values from electrodes in any pattern on the seat, [0055]); and
a processor operatively coupled to the set of sensors ([0073] computational device or computing device connected to the BUAD/bathroom use analysis device; [0022] sensors coupled to the BUAD), the processor configured to:
receive signals indicative of the measured sensor data ([0055] receive electrocardiogram measurements, [0056] receive signal from pulse oximeter, see also [0060] receive electrical signal from the sensor of the toilet seat);
determine, in response to receiving the signals, one or more physiological characteristics about the user based on the measured sensor data ([0026] measure a characteristic of an individual from a sensor; [0055] from the electrocardiogram measurements determine heart rate value for the user; [0056] using a detector analyze the received signal to determine blood oxygenation, heart rate, etc.; [0060] system can determine and record capacitance change from the electrical signal);
correlate the determined one or more physiological characteristics with reference data of previous users stored in a memory ([0028] system stores a set of identifiers used to identify the user, [0049] compare the weight of the current user to set of values stored in memory, [0054] match the measured bioelectrical impedance to the values stored in the user profile, [0055] match the current heart rate measured with the values stored in the user profiles, see also [0059]); and
identify the user based on the correlation as one of the previous users ([0022] identify user based on sensor data; [0049] match weight of current user to the first weight stored in user profile to identify current user; see also [0053] identify user based on matching bioelectrical impedance to stored profile; [0055] identify user based on matching heartrate to stored value in user profile; [0059]).
As per Claim 11, Kashyap teaches a method, comprising:
recording, with a sensing system including a set of sensors disposed on a seat of a toilet, sensor data of a user seated on the toilet ([0022-0023] sensors coupled to a bathroom use analysis device where the device is a toilet, [0026-0027] sensors measure characteristic of an individual from multiple sensors, [0028] store identifiers in association with a user, [0050] for example a toilet seat includes a set of load cells/sensors to measure data such as distribution of force across sensors while user is on the seat; also see [0053] measure sensor values from electrodes in any pattern on the seat, [0048] system records the measured user characteristics);
extracting, with a processor operably coupled to the set of sensors ([0073] computational device or computing device connected to the BUAD/bathroom use analysis device; [0022] sensors coupled to the BUAD), one or more features of the recorded sensor data ([0026] measure a characteristic of an individual from a sensor; [0055] from the electrocardiogram measurements determine heart rate value for the user; [0056] using a detector analyze the received signal to determine blood oxygenation, heart rate, etc.; [0060] system can determine and record capacitance change from the electrical signal);
comparing, with the processor, the sensor data or the one or more features with reference data of a plurality of known users ([0028] system stores a set of identifiers used to identify the user, [0049] compare the weight of the current user to set of values stored in memory, [0054] match the measured bioelectrical impedance to the values stored in the user profile, [0055] match the current heart rate measured with the values stored in the user profiles, see also [0059]); and
determining, with the processor and based on the comparing, an identity of the user seated on the toilet ([0022] identify user based on sensor data; [0049] match weight of current user to the first weight stored in user profile to identify current user; see also [0053] identify user based on matching bioelectrical impedance to stored profile; [0055] identify user based on matching heartrate to stored value in user profile; [0059]).
As per Claim 12, Kashyap discloses the method of Claim 11. Kashyap also teaches wherein determining an identity of the user includes:
determining a correlation between the sensor data or the one or more features of the recorded sensor data with the reference data of the plurality of known users ([0028] system stores a set of identifiers used to identify the user, [0049] compare the weight of the current user to set of values stored in memory, [0054] match the measured bioelectrical impedance to the values stored in the user profile, [0055] match the current heart rate measured with the values stored in the user profiles, see also [0059]); and
evaluating, based on a statistical model, if the correlation is indicative of the user being one of the plurality of known users ([0113] identify a user by matching the current set of user characteristics by executing statistical algorithm).
As per Claims 2 and 13, Kashyap discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 11. Kashyap also teaches wherein the set of sensors include force sensors configured to collectively measure forces present on the seat when the user is seated on the seat ([0050] load cells are the sensors in the toilet seat which measure distribution of force across the sensors when the user is seated).
As per Claims 4 and 15, Kashyap discloses the limitations of Claims 2 and 13. Kashyap also teaches wherein the one or more physiological characteristics include at least one of a seated weight, a ballistocardiogram (BCG), or a posture of the user (see Fig. 5 characteristics measures while seated for the user include weight; [0050] measure , [0105] physical characteristics recorded to compare for identifying user include weight, weight distribution on toilet, i.e. seated weight; [0038] posture analysis is performed, Examiner notes that only of the above is required by the claim, see also [0105] physical characteristics include weight).
As per Claims 5 and 16, Kashyap discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 11. Kashyap also teaches wherein the set of sensors further includes a temperature sensor configured to measure a core body temperature of the user ([0059] record the temperature of the user with a temperature sensor, see also [0105] physical characteristics include temperature).
As per Claims 6 and 17, Kashyap discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 11. Kashyap also teaches wherein the set of sensors further includes an electrocardiogram (ECG) sensor ([0026] sensor includes an electrocardiograms, [0055] electrocardiogram used to measure characteristics of a heartbeat, see also [0068] electrocardiogram measurements, see also [0105] electrocardiogram).
As per Claims 9 and 19, Kashyap discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 11. Kashyap also teaches wherein the set of sensors further includes one or more impedance sensors disposed on the seat ([0026] sensors include bioelectrical impedance circuits, [0053] electrodes for bioelectrical impedance are places in the seat, [0068] sensors including bioelectrical impedance measuring sensors are housed in the toilet seat in a variety of configurations, see also [0105]).
As per Claims 10 and 20, Kashyap discloses the limitations of Claims 9 and 19. Kashyap also teaches wherein the one or more impedance sensors include four impedance sensors, the four impedance sensors forming drive circuit configured to determine a bioimpedance of the user when the user is seated on the seat ([0068] sensors including bioelectrical impedance measuring sensors are housed in the toilet seat in a variety of configurations including four sensors on the top of the seat, [0054] where the electrodes are configured to make a bioelectrical impedance circuit, [0026] bioelectrical impedance circuits are generated from the sensors).
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.
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 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashyap (US 2022/0151510 A1), in view of Hall et al. (US 2022/0022810 A1), hereinafter Hall.
As per Claims 3 and 14, Kashyap discloses the limitations of Claims 2 and 13. Kashyap may not explicitly teach the following which is taught by Hall: wherein the set of sensors further include a scale device configured to measure forces present on the scale device when the user is seated on the seat and one or more feet of the user is placed on the scale device ([0203] sensors to measure weight /force exerted on a seat and a sensor to measure weight/force on a foot support, i.e. scale device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of sensors for measuring forces present on a scale device when the user is seated and of the feet from Hall with the known toilet with sensors to collect physiological data from a user from Kashyap in order to monitor a person during their normal routine activities such as using the toilet which reduces stress and misuse of measurements (Hall [0204-0205]).
Claims 7-8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashyap (US 2022/0151510 A1), in view of Borkholder et al. (US 2016/0374619 A1), hereinafter Borkholder.
As per Claim 7, Kashyap discloses the limitations of Claim 6. Kashyap may not explicitly teach the following which is taught by Borkholder: wherein the ECG sensor includes:
a first lead electrode configured to be in contact with a thigh of the user ([0053] ECG instrument positioned on surface of the toilet seat such that it is in contact with the seated individual’s skin, i.e. thigh as it is obvious that the thigh is what contacts the seat when sitting, see Fig. 1 first ecg electrode is on seat of toilet such that it contacts the left thigh);
a second lead electrode configured to be in contact with a first portion of another thigh of the user ([0053] second electrode is also on the seat of the toilet, see Fig. 1 second ecg electrode is on seat of toilet such that it contacts the right thigh); and
a driven-right-leg (DRL) electrode configured to be in contact with a second portion of the another thigh of the user ([0053] the third electrode is a reference electrode driven with the common mode signal of the other two electrodes or a fixed reference voltage or referenced to ground, see Fig. 1 where the third (ref) electrode is in the seat of the toilet such that it contacts the right thigh).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of sensors in toilet seat including ECG electrodes from Borkholder with the known toilet with sensors to collect physiological data from a user from Kashyap in order to measure vital signs of an individual without requiring change to lifestyle and habits to consistently and accurately measure their medical state (Borkholder [0003]).
As per Claims 8 and 18, Kashyap discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 11. Kashyap may not explicitly teach the following which is taught by Borkholder: wherein the set of sensors further includes a photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor ([0048] integrated toilet seat with sensors including PPG to measure change in blood volume).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the present application to combine the known concept of sensors in toilet seat including photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor from Borkholder with the known toilet with sensors to collect physiological data from a user from Kashyap in order to measure vital signs of an individual without requiring change to lifestyle and habits to consistently and accurately measure their medical state (Borkholder [0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bradley et al. (US 2019/0086890 A1) teaches a system for identifying a user based on sensors in household appliances such as a toilet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Evangeline Barr whose telephone number is (571)272-0369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at 571-270-5096. 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.
/EVANGELINE BARR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights