UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`15/102,285
`
`06/07/2016
`
`Yasuko YAMAMOTO
`
`HOKUP0324WOUS
`
`1680
`
`MARK D. SARALINO (PAN)
`RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
`1621 EUCLID AVENUE
`19mm
`CLEVELAND, OHIO 441 15
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
`WINDRICHMARCUS E
`
`MW
`
`3646
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`08/10/2018
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`ipdoeket@rennerotto.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Off/09 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/102,285
`Examiner
`MARCUS E WINDRICH
`
`Applicant(s)
`YAMAMOTO et al.
`Art Unit
`AIA Status
`3646
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1)[:] Responsive to communication(s) filed on
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a)D This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)
`
`This action is non-final.
`
`3)C] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4):] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)
`Claim(s)
`
`1—12 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`[:1 Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are rejected.
`
`[j Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`C] Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined aflowabte. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`httpfiwww.usptogovlpatentslinit_events[pph[index.'§p or send an inquiry to PPeredhagk@usptg.ggv.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10):] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 6—7—2016 is/are: a). accepted or b)[:] objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12). Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a). All
`
`b)I:J Some”
`
`c)C] None of the:
`
`1..
`
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.[:]
`
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3.[:] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20180806
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/102,285
`Art Unit: 3646
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`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
`
`2.
`
`The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6-7-2016 is being
`
`considered by the examiner.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1 12
`
`3.
`
`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.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 1
`
`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 pre-AIA the applicant regards
`
`as the invention.
`
`As per claim 1, the phrase “a body to be placed on a toilet bowl” is indefinite as it
`
`is unclear what this body is. Examiner recommends the word “body” be expanded to
`
`better represent what the object is. As best examiner can tell, from specification
`
`paragraph 11, body is referring to item 12a, the toilet seat body, which presumably
`
`houses the electronics of the apparatus.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/102,285
`Art Unit: 3646
`
`Page 3
`
`Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have
`
`been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to
`
`be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST
`
`BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH
`
`AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`5.
`
`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 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.
`
`6.
`
`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.
`
`7.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 US. 1, 148
`
`USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/102,285
`Art Unit: 3646
`
`Page 4
`
`4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
`
`obviousness or nonobviousness.
`
`8.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Kolar, et. al., U.S. Patent Number 6,250,601, published June 26,
`
`2001 in view of McEwan, U.S. Patent Number 5,519,400, published May 21, 1996.
`
`As per claim 1 Kolar discloses a toilet seat apparatus comprising:
`
`a body to be placed on a toilet bowl; a toilet seat attached to the body so as to be
`
`movable between an up-position and a down-position (Kolar, Fig. 24);
`
`and a human body detector configured to detect a human body as an object to
`
`be detected, the human body detector including a sensor configured to send a wireless
`
`signal and receive the wireless signal reflected by an object to output a sensor signal
`
`corresponding to motion of the object (Kolar, Col. 6, lines 4-14),
`
`a database device configured to store sample data containing at least one of a
`
`frequency distribution corresponding to the predetermined motion of the human body
`
`and a component ratio of signal intensities corresponding to the predetermined motion
`
`of the human body (Kolar, Col. 19 where the table shows various predetermined motion
`
`zones and conditions),
`
`and the recognizer including a first detection function of detecting, by performing
`
`the recognition process based on comparison between the detection data and the
`
`sample data, the human body of a person entering a space in which at least the toilet
`
`bowl is installed (Kolar, Col. 19, lines 5-28),
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/102,285
`Art Unit: 3646
`
`Page 5
`
`and a second detection function of detecting, by performing the recognition
`
`process based on comparison between the detection data and the sample data, the
`
`human body of a person sitting on the toilet seat (Kolar, Col. 19, lines 50-64).
`
`Kolar is silent in regards to a frequency analyzer and recognizer for detection of
`
`human movement through the use of Doppler filters and the frequency domain.
`
`McEwan teaches human motion detection using Doppler filtering in the frequency
`
`domain (Col. 8, lines 50-65).
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the invention to use the radar of McEwan with the device of Kolar as it is suggested by
`
`Kolar (Col. 6, lines 54-67).
`
`As per claim 2, Kolar as modified by McEwan discloses the toilet seat apparatus
`
`of claim 1, wherein: the sample data including first sample data and second sample
`
`data different from the first sample data; and the recognizer is configured to use the first
`
`sample data when performing the first detection function, and use the second sample
`
`data when performing the second detection function (Kolar, Col. 19, lines 50-64 where
`
`different data collected from different zones is used for determining the two functions).
`
`As per claim 4, Kolar as modified by McEwan further discloses the toilet seat
`
`apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a background signal remover configured to
`
`remove background signals from signals individually passing through the individual filter
`
`banks (Kolar, Col. 6, lines 50-53).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/102,285
`Art Unit: 3646
`
`Page 6
`
`As per claim 5, Kolar as modified by McEwan further discloses the toilet seat
`
`apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a distance meter configured to measure a
`
`distance to the human body based on the sensor signal, the recognizer being
`
`configured to perform the recognition process in combination with a measurement result
`
`of the distance meter (Kolar, Col. 19, lines 50-55 using distance zones).
`
`As per claim 6, Kolar as modified by McEwan further discloses the toilet seat
`
`apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a direction detector configured to detect a
`
`moving direction of the human body, based on the sensor signal, the recognizer being
`
`configured to perform the recognition process in combination with a detection result of
`
`the direction detector (Kolar, Col. 8, lines 44-49).
`
`As per claim 8, Kolar as modified by McEwan further discloses the toilet seat
`
`apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sensor is provided to face a back of the human body
`
`of a person sitting on the toilet seat (Kolar, Fig. 108).
`
`As per claim 10, Kolar as modified by McEwan further discloses a toilet bowl
`
`apparatus comprising: the toilet seat apparatus of claim 1; and the toilet bowl on which
`
`the body of the toilet seat apparatus is placed (Kolar, Fig. 108).
`
`As per claim 11, Kolar as modified by McEwan further discloses the toilet bowl
`
`apparatus of claim 10, further comprising a controller configured to control operation of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/102,285
`Art Unit: 3646
`
`Page 7
`
`a water supply device for supplying water into the toilet bowl based on a detection result
`
`of the human body detector (Kolar, Col. 15, lines 45-50).
`
`As per claim 12, Kolar as modified by McEwan further discloses the toilet bowl
`
`apparatus of claim 11, further comprising a flush tank for storing water to be supplied
`
`into the toilet bowl, the flush tank being to face a back of the human body of a person
`
`sitting on the toilet seat, and the sensor is provided to the flush tank (Kolar, Fig. 9 and
`
`Col. 21, lines 15-19).
`
`9.
`
`Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolar
`
`and McEwan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murata, et. al., U.S.
`
`Patent Application Publication Number 2011/0000559, published January 6, 2011.
`
`As per claim 3, Kolar as modified by McEwan discloses the toilet seat apparatus
`
`but is silent in regards to the use of two different thresholds for the detection functions.
`
`Murata teaches motion detection of plumbing appliances using two detection
`
`thresholds (1172-75).
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the invention to use intensity thresholds in order to gain the benefit of determining how
`
`close the user is to the apparatus and adjust functions based on the user position.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/102,285
`Art Unit: 3646
`
`Page 8
`
`10.
`
`Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolar
`
`and McEwan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stivoric, et. al., U.S.
`
`Patent Application Publication Number 2007/0100666, published May 3, 2007.
`
`As per claim 7, Kolar as modified by McEwan discloses the apparatus of claim 1
`
`but fails to disclose detection of respiration.
`
`Stivoric teaches detection of respiration around a toilet seat (1198 and 101 ).
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the invention to check respiration to gain the benefit of seeing if the person is in
`
`distress, as Kolar already looks for persons in distress (Col. 21, lines 10-20).
`
`11.
`
`Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolar
`
`and McEwan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Long, U.S. Patent
`
`Number 4,093,948, published June 6, 1978.
`
`As per claim 9, Kolar as modified by McEwan discloses the apparatus of claim 1
`
`but fails to disclose normalizing the Doppler signals.
`
`Long teaches normalization of Doppler results (Col. 13, lines 27-45).
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the invention to normalize the data in order to gain the benefit of reducing the effects of
`
`outliers and clutter as taught by Long (Col. 13, lines 27-45).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/102,285
`Art Unit: 3646
`
`Page 9
`
`Conclusion
`
`12.
`
`The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
`
`applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
`
`13.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is
`
`(571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F ~7-3:30.
`
`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, Jack Keith can be reached on 5712726878. The fax phone number for the
`
`organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/102,285
`Art Unit: 3646
`
`Page 10
`
`/MARCUS E WINDRICH/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
`
`