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 .
Status of Claims
The present Office action is responsive to the application as filed on 12-01-2022, including the preliminary amendment filed the same day. As directed, claims 1 and 12 have been amended, claim 9 has been cancelled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-8 and 10-13 are currently pending examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 vibration capsule, the external device, the motor, the acceleration sensor, the working system, the configurator, the internal memory, and the microcontroller unit must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). In addition, the steps detailed in claims 1-8 and 10-13 should also be show, or the features cancelled from the claims. 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 Objections
Claims 1-8 and 10-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 1, line 1, it is suggested that “comprises” be replaced with “comprising” for clarity.
At claim 1, line 6, it is suggested that “the position” be replaced with “a position” as the limitation has not yet been introduced.
At claims 2, lines 1-2, it is suggested that the phrase “the step of “analyzing the working acceleration data by the external device” comprises:” be replaced with “the step of [[“]]analyzing the working acceleration data by the external device[[”]] further comprises:” for clarity.
At claim 3, lines 1-2, it is suggested that “the step of “obtaining a working acceleration data of the vibration data” comprises:” be replaced with “the step of [[“]]obtaining [[a]]the working acceleration data of the vibration data[[”]] further comprises:” for clarity.
At claim 4, lines 12, it is suggested that “the step of “transmitting the working data to an external device” comprises:” be replaced with “the step of [[“]]transmitting the working data to [[an]]the external device[[”]] further comprises:” for clarity.
At claim 5, lines 1-2, it is suggested that “before the step of “receiving a detection command of an acceleration sensor” comprises:” be replaced with “before the step of [[“]]receiving [[a]]the detection command of [[an]]the acceleration sensor[[”]], the control method further comprises:” for clarity.
At claim 6, lines 1-2, it is suggested that “the step of “controlling a power supply of the vibration capsule to supply power to a working system of the vibration capsule” comprises:” be replaced with “the step of [[“]]controlling [[a]]the power supply of the vibration capsule to supply power to [[a]]the working system of the vibration capsule[[”]] further comprises:” for clarity.
At claim 6, line 4, it is suggested that “the startup acceleration data” be replaced with “the startup acceleration value” for consistency with line 3.
At claim 6, line 6, it is suggested that “the startup acceleration data” be replaced with “the startup acceleration value” for consistency with line 3.
At claim 7, lines 1-2, it is suggested that “the step of “presetting the working system” comprises:” be replaced with “the step of [[“]]presetting the working system[[”]] further comprises:” for clarity.
At claim 7, line 3, it is suggested that “an internal memory” be replaced with “the internal memory” as the limitation was introduced in claim 1, line 13.
At claim 8, lines 1-2, it is suggested that “after the step of “determining the position of the vibration capsule” comprises:” be replaced with “after the step of [[“]]determining the position of the vibration capsule[[”]], the control method further comprises:” for clarity.
At claim 8, line 6, it is suggested that “a motor” be replaced with “the motor” as the limitation was already introduced at claim 1, line 12.
At claim 8, lines 6-7, it is suggested that “the current acceleration data” be replaced with “a current acceleration data” as the limitation has not been introduced.
At claim 10, lines 1-2, it is suggested that “the step of “communicating with the external device and transmitting matching information” comprises:” be replaced with “the step of [[“]]communicating with the external device and transmitting matching information[[”]] further comprises:” for clarity.
At claim 11, lines 1-2, it is suggested that “after the step of “determining the position of the vibration capsule” comprises:” be replaced with ““after the step of [[“]]determining the position of the vibration capsule[[”]], the control method further comprises:” for clarity.
At claim 11, line 3, it is suggested that “an internal memory” be replaced with “the internal memory” as the limitation was introduced in claim 1, line 13.
At claim 11, line 7, it is suggested that “a motor” be replaced with “the motor” as the limitation was already introduced at claim 1, line 12.
At claim 11, line 8, it is suggested that “current” be eliminated for consistency in the claims.
At claim 12, lines 1-3, it is suggested that “A control system of a vibration capsule, the control system is operated in a microcontroller unit of the vibration capsule, wherein the microcontroller unit executes instructions to:” be amended to read “A control system of a vibration capsule, comprising: in the vibration capsule, wherein the control system is operated in the microcontroller unit, and the microcontroller unit is configured to execute[[s]] instructions to:” for clarity.
At claim 12, line 8, it is suggested that “the position” be replaced with “a position” as the limitation has not yet been introduced.
At claim 12, line 10, it is suggested that “transmitting” be replaced with “transmit” for grammatical clarity.
At claim 12, line 14, it is suggested that “updating” be replaced with “update” for grammatical clarity.
At claim 13, lines 1-2, it is suggested that “before “receive a detection command from an accelerometer”, the microcontroller executes instructions to:” be replaced with “before [[“receive a]]the detection command is received from an acceleration sensor is configured to execute[[s]] instructions to:” for clarity and consistency in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3 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.
Regarding claim 3, line 3 recites “obtaining a working acceleration value detected by the acceleration sensor” and line 4 recites “calculating the working acceleration value and generating the working acceleration data” which, when taken together, render the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the working acceleration value can be both obtained from the acceleration sensor, and seemingly subsequently calculated, when it has already been obtained. Is the acceleration value either obtained or calculated? Are calculations made relative to/based on the acceleration value, thereby allowing the working acceleration data to be derived? For the purposes of examination, the prior art will be understood to read on claim 3 if the acceleration value is either obtained or calculated, so long as the obtained or calculated value is used to generate the working acceleration data as claimed.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan (US 2017/0296428), hereinafter referred to as Duan ‘428, in view of Duan (US 2017/0340242), hereinafter referred to as Duan ‘242.
Regarding claim 1, Duan ‘428 discloses a control method of a vibration capsule (“vibration capsule device” in paragraph 53, lines 1-2, and shown at least in Fig. 1) (paragraph 60, lines 8-19, see “control instructions” and “controllable protocol”), comprising:
controlling an acceleration sensor (“accelerometer”) of the vibration capsule (“vibration capsule device” in paragraph 53, lines 1-2, and shown at least in Fig. 1) to work (paragraph 74, lines 1-4; paragraph 75, lines 1-12, see any of “turned on automatically”, “receives an external instruction”, or “turned on when it arrives at a certain location” for the claimed language of “controlling the acceleration sensor to work”);
obtaining a working acceleration data of the vibration capsule (“vibration capsule device” in paragraph 53, lines 1-2, and shown at least in Fig. 1) (paragraph 74, lines 1-4 for accelerometer; paragraph 75, lines 1-2; paragraph 76, lines 1-13, where the crude data is obtained);
transmitting the working acceleration data to an external device (paragraph 74, lines 1-4 for accelerometer; paragraph 75, lines 1-2; paragraph 76, lines 1-13, see “sent out to the external device”); and
analyzing the working acceleration data (paragraph 76, lines 1-4, where crude data is taken by the sensor, and see the final four lines, where the external device determines commands based on the data; paragraph 78, lines 1-8, see “analyzed”) and determining the position of the vibration capsule by the external device (paragraph 68, lines 1-6 and 9-15; paragraph 91, lines 1-8 and 12-19; paragraph 112, lines 1-9);
communicating with the external device and transmitting matching information (paragraph 67, lines 1-8);
determining whether a reply data information corresponding to the matching information is received (paragraph 67, lines 4-8, where when command data is received by the wireless communication module, it processes the response from the external device into readable instructions, and thus the wireless communication module must determine/recognize that an instruction was received initially in order to process the data);
obtaining command information from the reply data information when the reply data information is received, and controlling a motor of the vibration capsule to work (paragraph 67, lines 1-8 for command information; paragraph 62, lines 1-7 for motor control; notably both excerpts refer to the movement control unit for ultimately passing commands to the motor from the external device and wireless communication module).
Duan ‘428 fails to disclose receiving a detection command of the acceleration sensor before the control step.
However, Duan ‘242 teaches receiving a detection command of the acceleration sensor before controlling the acceleration sensor to work, so that the capsule can be transitioned to a pre-working state based on the acceleration data, and an instruction to a user can be provided at an interface to allow the user to confirm that the capsule can be transitioned in the working state to avoid false positive or false negative activation (paragraph 14, lines 1-11; paragraph 30, lines 1-12, note the transition from “non-working” to “working” state of the capsule, and further instruction to take additional measurements by the acceleration sensor; paragraph 33, lines 1-8; paragraph 34, lines 1-7; paragraph 35, lines 1-22).
Given that Duan ‘428 explicitly states that the capsule can be transitioned to a working state based on an external command from an external device given by a user (paragraph 75, lines 4-7), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control method of Duan ‘428 to include the provision of receiving a detection command of the acceleration sensor before the control step, as taught by Duan ‘242, in order to transition the capsule into a working state based on reception of the detection command from the capsule and responsive to a user selection that a transition into a working mode is appropriate, in order to avoid false positive or false negative activation of the capsule and its components.
Regarding claim 3, Duan ‘428 in view of Duan ‘242 disclose the control method of claim 1, as discussed above.
Duan ‘428 further discloses wherein the step of obtaining the working acceleration data of the vibration capsule further comprises:
obtaining a working acceleration value detected by the acceleration sensor (paragraph 74, lines 1-4 for accelerometer; paragraph 75, lines 1-2; paragraph 76, lines 1-13, where the crude data is obtained); and
calculating the working acceleration value and generating the working acceleration data (paragraph 74, lines 1-4 for accelerometer; paragraph 75, lines 1-2; paragraph 76, lines 1-13, see “calculated”).
Regarding claim 5, Duan ‘428 in view of Duan ‘242 disclose the control method of claim 1, as discussed above.
Modified Duan ‘428 further discloses wherein before the step of receiving the detection command of the acceleration sensor comprises:
controlling a power supply of the vibration capsule to supply power to a working system of the vibration capsule (paragraph 54, lines 1-10, where the listed functional components other than the power supply unit constitute the working system; paragraph 64, lines 1-16; paragraph 65, lines 1-9; note that before collection of sensor data, the device is turned on per paragraph 75, lines 4-12; note that to carry out the steps relied on from Duan ‘242, power would be required to innervate the sensor for data collection and to transmit information to the external user interface); and
presetting the working system (paragraph 115, lines 1-12).
Regarding claim 6, Duan ‘428 in view of Duan ‘242 disclose the control method of claim 5, as discussed above.
As stated above with respect to claim 5, Duan ‘428 discloses the step of controlling a power supply of the vibration capsule to supply power to a working system of the vibration capsule (paragraph 54, lines 1-10, where the listed functional components other than the power supply unit constitute the working system; paragraph 64, lines 1-16; paragraph 65, lines 1-9; note that before collection of sensor data, the device is turned on per paragraph 75, lines 4-12; note that to carry out the steps relied on from Duan ‘242, power would be required to innervate the sensor for data collection and to transmit information to the external user interface).
As modified, Duan ‘428 further discloses:
receiving a startup acceleration value detected by the acceleration sensor (Duan ‘242: paragraph 30, lines 1-12, note the transition from “non-working” to “working” state of the capsule, and further instruction to take additional measurements by the acceleration sensor; paragraph 33, lines 1-8; paragraph 34, lines 1-7; paragraph 35, lines 1-22, note the threshold values, and in particular the acceleration when the capsule is known to be in a non-working state);
determining whether the startup acceleration data reaches a preset value (Duan ‘242: paragraph 30, lines 1-12, note the transition from “non-working” to “working” state of the capsule, and further instruction to take additional measurements by the acceleration sensor; paragraph 33, lines 1-8; paragraph 34, lines 1-7; paragraph 35, lines 1-22, note the threshold values, in particular the first threshold acceleration value); and
controlling the power supply to continuously supply power to the working system when the startup acceleration data reaches the preset value (Duan ‘242: paragraph 35, lines 1-22, note the change from non-working to pre-working state and see paragraph 39, lines 1-12 for the low power consumption mode started after the acceleration exceeds a second threshold for a period of time, and paragraph 61, lines 1-5 for microcontroller for controlling power; Duan ‘428: paragraph 75, lines 4-12, where the device is turned on).
Regarding claim 10, Duan ‘428 in view of Duan ‘242 disclose the control method of claim 1, as discussed above.
Duan ‘428 further discloses wherein the step of communicating with the external device and transmitting matching information (paragraph 67, lines 1-8) further comprises:
transmitting the matching information to the external device once every N seconds, and transmitting the matching information every a times is a cycle (paragraph 76, lines 1-13, note the cycle includes a first group of data collection, where a=the number of data points in the first group, and per paragraph 71, lines 1-4, the data should be sampled in real-time, i.e. data is obtained on a continuous basis, and thus the cycle of data will be determined every N seconds by transmitted group data);
wherein the matching information transmitted in each cycle comprises current vibration parameters and a working state of the motor (paragraph 76, lines 1-13; paragraph 77, lines 1-7, where the various motor parameters are bases for the vibration parameters, and thus the data implicitly includes information on the working state of the motor, at least because the motor is active to induce vibration, and also the motor parameters create the sensed vibration, see also paragraph 62, lines 1-14 for the different commands that relate to the motor derived from the operable instructions).
Regarding claim 12, Duan ‘428 discloses a control system (see paragraph 53, “vibration control unit”) executing a control method of a vibration capsule (“vibration capsule device” in paragraph 53, lines 1-2, and shown at least in Fig. 1) (paragraph 60, lines 8-19, see “control instructions” and “controllable protocol”), comprising:
controlling an acceleration sensor (“accelerometer”) of the vibration capsule (“vibration capsule device” in paragraph 53, lines 1-2, and shown at least in Fig. 1) to work (paragraph 74, lines 1-4; paragraph 75, lines 1-12, see any of “turned on automatically”, “receives an external instruction”, or “turned on when it arrives at a certain location” for the claimed language of “controlling the acceleration sensor to work”);
obtaining a working acceleration data of the vibration capsule (“vibration capsule device” in paragraph 53, lines 1-2, and shown at least in Fig. 1) (paragraph 74, lines 1-4 for accelerometer; paragraph 75, lines 1-2; paragraph 76, lines 1-13, where the crude data is obtained);
transmitting the working acceleration data to an external device (paragraph 74, lines 1-4 for accelerometer; paragraph 75, lines 1-2; paragraph 76, lines 1-13, see “sent out to the external device”); and
analyzing the working acceleration data (paragraph 76, lines 1-4, where crude data is taken by the sensor, and see the final four lines, where the external device determines commands based on the data; paragraph 78, lines 1-8, see “analyzed”) and determining the position of the vibration capsule by the external device (paragraph 68, lines 1-6 and 9-15; paragraph 91, lines 1-8 and 12-19; paragraph 112, lines 1-9);
communicating with the external device and transmitting matching information (paragraph 67, lines 1-8);
determining whether a reply data information corresponding to the matching information is received (paragraph 67, lines 4-8, where when command data is received by the wireless communication module, it processes the response from the external device into readable instructions, and thus the wireless communication module must determine/recognize that an instruction was received initially in order to process the data);
obtaining command information from the reply data information when the reply data information is received, and controlling a motor of the vibration capsule to work (paragraph 67, lines 1-8 for command information; paragraph 62, lines 1-7 for motor control; notably both excerpts refer to the movement control unit for ultimately passing commands to the motor from the external device and wireless communication module).
Duan ‘428 fails to disclose that the control system is operated in a microcontroller unit which executes the instructions of the claim, and further fails to disclose receiving a detection command of the acceleration sensor before the control step.
However, Duan ‘242 teaches a control system operated in a microcontroller unit configured to execute instructions to operate a vibration capsule (paragraph 14, lines 1-7; paragraph 30, lines 1-12; paragraph 34, lines 1-7; paragraph 52, lines 12-16; paragraph 63, lines 1-4; claim 2, lines 1-4), and further teaches receiving a detection command of the acceleration sensor before controlling the acceleration sensor to work, so that the capsule can be transitioned to a pre-working state based on the acceleration data, and an instruction to a user can be provided at an interface to allow the user to confirm that the capsule can be transitioned in the working state to avoid false positive or false negative activation (paragraph 14, lines 1-11; paragraph 30, lines 1-12, note the transition from “non-working” to “working” state of the capsule, and further instruction to take additional measurements by the acceleration sensor; paragraph 33, lines 1-8; paragraph 34, lines 1-7; paragraph 35, lines 1-22).
Given that Duan ‘428 describes the presence of a microprocessor (see paragraph 48), and further discusses the use of a processor for convert I/O data into control commands (paragraph 109, lines 15-22; Fig. 9), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control system of Duan ‘428 to be operated in a microcontroller unit, as taught by Duan ‘242, as a known type of controller used for a vibration capsule to reliably carry out control instructions/commands within the device and system.
Still further, given that Duan ‘428 explicitly states that the capsule can be transitioned to a working state based on an external command from an external device given by a user (paragraph 75, lines 4-7), it would have been rendered further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control method of Duan ‘428 to include the provision of receiving a detection command of the acceleration sensor before the control step, as taught by Duan ‘242, in order to transition the capsule into a working state based on reception of the detection command from the capsule and responsive to a user selection that a transition into a working mode is appropriate, in order to avoid false positive or false negative activation of the capsule and its components.
Regarding claim 13, Duan ‘428 in view of Duan ‘242 disclose the control system of claim 12, as discussed above.
Modified Duan ‘428 further discloses wherein before receiving the detection command from the acceleration sensor, the microcontroller unit executes instructions to:
control a power supply of the vibration capsule to supply power to a working system of the vibration capsule (paragraph 54, lines 1-10, where the listed functional components other than the power supply unit constitute the working system; paragraph 64, lines 1-16; paragraph 65, lines 1-9; note that before collection of sensor data, the device is turned on per paragraph 75, lines 4-12); and
preset the working system (paragraph 115, lines 1-12).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan (US 2017/0296428), hereinafter referred to as Duan ‘428, in view of Duan (US 2017/0340242), hereinafter referred to as Duan ‘242, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Blackburn (US 2023/0149256).
Regarding claim 2, Duan ‘428 in view of Duan ‘242 disclose the control method of claim 1, as discussed above.
Duan ‘428 further discloses wherein the step of analyzing the working acceleration data by the external device further comprises:
carrying out accumulated calculation on the working acceleration data every T time period by the external device (paragraph 76, lines 1-13, note the cycle includes a first group of data collection, and per paragraph 71, lines 1-4, the data should be sampled in real-time, i.e. data is obtained on a continuous basis, thereby “accumulating” data by the external device).
Duan ‘428 fails to disclose querying a preset acceleration data list of the vibration capsule, and comparing the working acceleration data after accumulated calculation with data of the preset acceleration data list.
However, Blackburn teaches a vibration device (100) (paragraph 27, lines 1-3; Fig. 1A) including the capability of querying a preset acceleration data list of the vibration device, and comparing the working acceleration data with data of the preset acceleration data list in order to minimize an error between a desired acceleration value and a measured acceleration value (paragraph 34, lines 1-9, where accelerometer data is provided to a controller as input and the controller generates a control signal to the device based on a determined error/difference between a desired acceleration and a measured acceleration; paragraph 47, lines 1-8 and paragraph 48, lines 1-12, note that the commanded acceleration and frequency is input from a user interface; because the desired acceleration is an input value, it is regarded as the preset data list since it is commanded before an error calculation is made; further note that the art-recognized definition of “querying” in the computer arts is to request/retrieve/manipulate data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of modified Duan ‘428 to include the step of querying a preset acceleration data list of the vibration capsule, and comparing the working acceleration data after accumulated calculation with data of the preset acceleration data list, as taught by Blackburn, in order to minimize an error between a desired acceleration value and a measured acceleration value.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan (US 2017/0296428), hereinafter referred to as Duan ‘428, in view of Duan (US 2017/0340242), hereinafter referred to as Duan ‘242, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Yanagidate (US 2017/0231470).
Regarding claim 4, Duan ‘428 in view of Duan ‘242 disclose the control method of claim 1, as discussed above.
Modified Duan ‘428 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the step of transmitting the working acceleration data to the external device comprises:
transmitting the working acceleration data to a configurator; and
controlling the configurator to transmit the working acceleration data to a vibration capsule control software.
However, Duan ‘242 further teaches an external device as an external configurator and/or an external device including a configurator (paragraph 29, lines 1-8; paragraph 64, lines 1-8; see Fig. 2, where “external configurator” is a device sued to describe the element capable of transmitting and receiving information to/from the wireless communication element).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and method of Duan ‘428 to either provide the external device as an external configurator or provide a configurator within the external device, as taught by Duan ‘242, since Duan ‘242 presents the external configurator as a device that has the art-recognized purpose of wirelessly communicating with the vibration capsule.
Further modified Duan ‘428 still fails to explicitly disclose controlling the configurator to transmit the working acceleration data to a vibration capsule control software, as each of Duan ‘428 and Duan ‘242 discuss the data transmission wirelessly with a device control, but do not outline the specific use of software.
However, Yanagidate teaches a capsule (see the capsule endoscope of Fig. 1), wherein software (“program”) is used to control/cause a computer of the capsule to wirelessly output acceleration data, transmit data, and receive working condition data for controlling the capsule (paragraph 13, lines 1-15; paragraph 43, lines 1-15, see “software”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and method of modified Duan ‘428 to further include vibration capsule software in communication wirelessly with the configurator for controlling the working parameters of the vibration capsule, as taught by Yanagidate, as a known method of providing executable instructions to a controllable capsule device.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan (US 2017/0296428), hereinafter referred to as Duan ‘428, in view of Duan (US 2017/0340242), hereinafter referred to as Duan ‘242, as applied to claim 5 above, in further view of On (US 2018/0098689).
Regarding claim 7, Duan ‘428 in view of Duan ‘242 disclose the control method of claim 5, as discussed above.
Duan ‘428 further discloses wherein the step of presetting the working system further comprises:
reading default parameters (paragraph 115, lines 1-12, where reception of the default portfolio is understood to include “reading” the parameters since the parameters ultimately are set and command the capsule); and
presetting the working system with the default parameters (paragraph 115, lines 1-12).
Duan ‘428 fails to disclose wherein the default parameters are read from an internal memory of the vibration capsule.
However, On teaches a capsule endoscope which includes an internal memory for storing information (paragraph 71, lines 1-7; paragraph 72, lines 18-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and method of modified Duan ‘428 to further include an internal memory contained in the vibration capsule, as taught by On, for creating the capability of storing information related to default parameters within the capsule itself.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While Blackburn (US 2023/0149256) teaches a vibration device (100) (paragraph 27, lines 1-3; Fig. 1A) including the capability of receiving a current acceleration value/datum, and comparing the working acceleration data with data of the preset acceleration data in order to minimize an error between a desired acceleration value and a measured acceleration value (paragraph 34, lines 1-9; paragraph 47, lines 1-8 and paragraph 48, lines 1-12), Blackburn does not contemplate this type of error-limiting control specific to a present position of the vibration capsule, and further does not instruct the skilled artisan to take the [received] acceleration value as an acceleration threshold of the capsule at the position and subsequently drive the motor in accordance with this newly set acceleration threshold specific to the position, as is required by claim 8. Blackburn’s method instead relies on a user input to command the vibration device to achieve the commanded/desired value. It does not teach using a currently measured value as the desired value. Neither Duan ‘428 nor Duan ‘242 contemplate controlling their vibration capsules after/responsive to determination of the capsule position, and certainly don’t contemplate using a currently measured acceleration value as the acceleration threshold by which the motor of the capsule is controlled to match. As both Yanagidate and On are directed to capsule endoscopes, and not vibrating capsules, neither can remedy the deficiencies of Duan ‘428, Duan ‘242, or Blackburn.
Similarly, with respect to claim 11, while Blackburn does contemplate the error-limiting control as outlined above, this is with respect to a user-defined value set at a user interface, not with respect to a default acceleration threshold stored in an internal memory of a capsule, and is also note responsive to/after the determination of a capsule position, as is required by claim 11. Neither Duan ‘428 note Duan ‘242 includes the specific control/commanding of the motor responsive to determination of a capsule position. Further, there is no mention in either reference of reading a stored default parameter following determination of a position of the capsule. Duan ‘428 only contemplates default-based control for a first commanded vibration (paragraph 115, lines 1-12), and further discloses that any further update to the motor control is based solely on acceleration data, and will be continuously monitored and changed based on the acceleration data (paragraph 76, lines 1-12 and final four lines; paragraph 71, lines 1-4). Thus, it is not clearly contemplated in Duan ‘428 that the default parameters are in any way read and used to command the motor of the capsule following position detection of the capsule, rather the best that Duan ‘428 sets forth is that an initial setting of the device motor can be default portfolio-based, but even with respect to these default parameters, the device is not controlled to maintain the default value, control is updated based on acceleration data. As both Yanagidate and On are directed to capsule endoscopes, and not vibrating capsules, neither can remedy the deficiencies of Duan ‘428, Duan ‘242, or Blackburn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAIGE BUGG whose telephone number is (571)272-8053. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/PAIGE KATHLEEN BUGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785