DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges the receipt of the Applicant’s Amendment dated March 19, 2026. Applicant amended claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-16, and 19-23. Applicant canceled claims 3, 5, and 7. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, and 8-28 are pending.
Examiner initially notes that claim 15 was indicated as currently amended however no amendments appear present.
Applicant's arguments with respect have been considered and are persuasive as previously discussed during the interview conducted on February 13, 2026. Upon further search and consideration, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed below in view of the new grounds of rejection over Kim et al. (U.S. Publication 2013/0018224, now U.S. Issued Patent 8,702,593) and Homan et al. (U.S. Publication 2007/0242132, now U.S. Issued Patent 8,179,429) as necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As to Claim 16, typographical error “second propulsor a propeller” in Line 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 14 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the output thrust axis" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Applicant amended the claims and the previous rejections are withdrawn.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-18, and 20-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moyer et al. (U.S. Publication 2020/0405131, hereinafter “Moyer”) and in further views of Kim et al. (U.S. Publication 2013/0018224, now U.S. Issued Patent 8,702,593, hereinafter “Kim”).
As to Claim 1, Moyer discloses an ingestible imaging device (100) in [0034] and Fig. 1 comprising:
a housing (104) in [0034] and Fig. 1 that has a central axis as shown in Fig. 1 defined through a cylindrical body that is interconnected between a first end and a second end;
an imaging device (110) in [0035] and Fig. 1 disposed within the housing;
a first motor “motors” in [0054] and Fig. 4 that is configured to drive a first propulsor "propeller” in [0058]-[0060] and [0065]-[0069] and Figs. 6A-6C,
wherein the first motor and the first propulsor have a first output with a first thrust axis that is defined axially along the central axis of the housing (the thrust axes along three perpendicular axes being generated depending on coordination of motor rotations as described in [0058]-[0060] and [0065]-[0069] and Figs. 6A-6C); and
a second motor “motors” in [0054] and Fig. 4 that is configured to drive a second propulsor "propeller” in [0058]-[0060] and [0065]-[0069] and Figs. 6A-6C,
wherein the second motor and the second propulsor have a second output with a second thrust axis that is defined radially to the central axis of the housing (the thrust axes along three perpendicular axes being generated depending on coordination of motor rotations as described in [0058]-[0060] and [0065]-[0069] and Figs. 6A-6C).
As to Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8-28, although the thrust axis and second thrust axis of Moyer are variable depending on motor activation, Kim is applied as a secondary to evidence the level of ordinary skill in the art. Kim teaches in the analogous field of endeavor of capsule endoscopes wherein motors with propulsors (20) in [0050] as shown in Fig. 1 can be provided in additional configurations axially relative to a central longitudinal axis of a capsule body (10) in [0045] and Fig. 1. This evidences the level of ordinary mechanical skill in recognizing providing additional motors with propulsors in varying configurations relative to the capsule body as equivalent alternatives for providing the same predictable result of navigation function. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the ingestible imaging device and motors and propulsors of Moyer with additional motors and propulsors in orientations taught by Kim in order to fulfill the same function of navigation with predictable results.
As to Claim 2, Moyer discloses the ingestible imaging device of claim 1, further comprising:
a third motor “motors” in [0054] and Fig. 4 that is configured to drive a third propulsor,
wherein the third motor and the third propulsor have a third output with a third thrust axis that is defined axially along the central axis of the housing (the thrust axes along three perpendicular axes being generated depending on coordination of motor rotations as described in [0058]-[0060] and [0065]-[0069] and Figs. 6A-6C).
As to Claim 4, Moyer discloses the ingestible imaging device of claim 1, wherein the second motor is mounted at a center of mass of the ingestible imaging device as shown in Figs. 6A-6C.
As to Claim 6, Moyer discloses the ingestible imaging device of claim 1, wherein the second motor is operable to provide buoyance trim via “coating” in [0035] for the ingestible imaging device when the ingestible imaging device is submersed in a fluid environment within a living body.
As to Claim 8, Moyer discloses the ingestible imaging device of claim 1, wherein the first motor and the second motor are reversible so as each to provide bidirectional thrust capability as described in [0058]-[0060] and [0065]-[0069] and Figs. 6A-6C.
As to Claim 9, Moyer discloses the ingestible imaging device of claim 1, further comprising a stator located at a fluid outlet (506) in [0060] and Figs. 5A-5B associated with the second motor.
As to Claim 10, Moyer discloses the ingestible imaging device of claim 1, wherein the first propulsor has an axis of rotation that is perpendicular to the first thrust axis.
As to Claim 11, Moyer discloses the ingestible imaging device of claim 10, wherein the second propulsor has an axis of rotation that is perpendicular to the first second axis.
As to Claim 12, Moyer discloses the ingestible imaging device of claim 1, wherein the first propulsor and the second propulsor each comprise a propeller configured to rotate about an axis of rotation, the propeller having a plurality of blades “blades” in [0060] and [0062], each of the plurality of blades having a drive surface that remains parallel to the axis of rotation of a corresponding motor during rotation of the propeller as described in [0058]-[0060] and [0065]-[0069] and Figs. 6A-6C.
As to Claim 13, Moyer discloses the ingestible imaging device of claim 1, wherein each of the first motor and second motor provides bidirectional thrust as described in [0058]-[0060] and [0065]-[0069] and Figs. 6A-6C.
As to Claim 14, Moyer discloses the ingestible imaging device of claim 1, wherein each of the first propulsor and the second propulsor is a propeller "propeller” in [0058]-[0060] and [0065]-[0069] and Figs. 6A-6C mounted within a channel “channels” in [0060]-[0062] and Figs. 5A-5B for carrying fluid, the propeller having an axis of rotation that is perpendicular to the output thrust axis of the corresponding motor, the propeller being spatially offset relative to a geometric center of the channel in a cross-sectional plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation.
As to Claim 15, Moyer discloses the ingestible imaging device of claim 14, wherein the propeller has an axis of rotation, and wherein the channel has a curved path in a cross-sectional plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation as shown in Fig. 6A.
As to Claim 16, Moyer discloses the ingestible imaging device of claim 1, wherein each of the first propulsor and the second propulsor a propeller "propeller” in [0058]-[0060] and [0065]-[0069] and Figs. 6A-6C mounted within a channel “channels” in [0060]-[0062] and Figs. 5A-5B for carrying fluid, the propeller having at least one blade “blades” in [0060] and [0062] and an axis of rotation that is perpendicular to a thrust axis of the motor, and wherein:
in a cross-sectional plane perpendicular to the thrust axis, a minimum amount of clearance “clearances” in [0073] as shown in Figs. 5A-5B being variable due to design choice between the at least one blade and a lower inner surface of the channel is greater than a minimum amount of clearance “clearances” in [0073] as shown in Figs. 5A-5B being variable due to design choice between the at least one blade and an upper inner surface of the channel.
As to Claim 17, Moyer discloses the ingestible imaging device of claim 16, wherein, in the cross-sectional plane perpendicular to the thrust axis, the minimum amount of clearance between the at least one blade “blades” in [0060] and [0062] and the lower inner surface of the channel is approximately three times the minimum amount of clearance between the at least one blade “blades” in [0060] and [0062] and the upper inner surface of the channel as described in [0073].
As to Claim 18, Moyer discloses the ingestible imaging device of claim 16, wherein the channel is shaped so that during operation of the motor, fluid moving through the channel takes a curved path past the motor in a cross-sectional plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation as shown in Fig. 6A.
As to Claim 20, Moyer discloses an ingestible imaging device (100) in [0034] and Fig. 1 comprising:
a housing (104) in [0034] that has an elongate capsule shape and that has a central axis defined therethrough as shown in Fig. 1;
a light source (212) in [0040]-[0041] and Fig, 2A disposed within the housing;
an imaging device (110) in [0035] and Fig. 1 disposed within the housing; and
a first motor, a second motor and a third motor “motors” in [0054] and Fig. 4:
are disposed within the housing to provide propulsion to the ingestible imaging device when the ingestible imaging device is submersed in a fluid environment within a living body, and
have a propeller "propeller” in [0058]-[0060] and [0065]-[0069] and Figs. 6A-6C with an axis of rotation and a thrust axis perpendicular to the axis of rotation, wherein a thrust axis of the first motor is parallel to the central axis of the housing and a thrust axis of the second motor is perpendicular to the central axis of the housing (the thrust axes along three perpendicular axes being generated depending on coordination of motor rotations as described in [0058]-[0060] and [0065]-[0069] and Figs. 6A-6C).
As to Claim 21, Moyer discloses the ingestible imaging device of claim 20, wherein a thrust axis of the third motor is perpendicular to the central axis of the housing and the thrust axis of the second motor as shown in Figs. 6A-6C.
As to Claim 22, Moyer discloses the ingestible imaging device of claim 20, wherein a propeller of each of the first motor, the second motor, and the third motor has at least one blade “blades” in [0060] and [0062], a drive surface of which remains parallel to the axis of rotation of the motor during rotation of the propeller as shown in Figs. 6A-6C.
As to Claim 23, Moyer discloses the ingestible imaging device of claim 20, wherein each of the first motor, the second motor, and the third motor includes a propeller mounted within a channel “channels” in [0060]-[0062] and Figs. 5A-5B for carrying fluid, the propeller having at least one blade “blades” in [0060] and [0062] and an axis of rotation that is perpendicular to a thrust axis of the motor, and wherein:
in a cross-sectional plane perpendicular to the thrust axis, a minimum amount of clearance “clearances” in [0073] as shown in Figs. 5A-5B being variable due to design choice between the at least one blade and a lower inner surface of the channel is greater than a minimum amount of clearance “clearances” in [0073] as shown in Figs. 5A-5B being variable due to design choice between the at least one blade and an upper inner surface of the channel.
As to Claim 24, Moyer discloses an ingestible imaging device (100) in [0034] and Fig. 1 comprising:
a housing (104) in [0034] that has an elongate capsule shape and that has a longitudinal central axis that defines a longest dimension of the housing as shown in Fig. 1;
a light source (212) in [0040]-[0041] and Fig, 2A disposed within the housing;
an imaging device (110) in [0035] and Fig. 1 disposed within the housing; and
a first motor, a second motor and a third motor “motors” in [0054] and Fig. 4, disposed within the housing, to provide propulsion to the ingestible imaging device when the ingestible imaging device is submersed in a fluid environment within a living body, wherein a thrust axis of the first motor is parallel to the longitudinal central axis of the housing and a thrust axis of the second motor is perpendicular to the longitudinal central axis of the housing (the thrust axes along three perpendicular axes being generated depending on coordination of motor rotations as described in [0058]-[0060] and [0065]-[0069] and Figs. 6A-6C).
As to Claim 25, Moyer discloses the ingestible imaging device of claim 24, wherein each of the first motor, the second motor and the third motor has a propeller "propeller” in [0058]-[0060] and [0065]-[0069] and Figs. 6A-6C with an axis of rotation and a thrust axis perpendicular to the axis of rotation as shown in Figs. 6A-6C.
As to Claim 26, Moyer discloses the ingestible imaging device of claim 24, wherein a thrust axis of the third motor is perpendicular to the longitudinal central axis of the housing and the thrust axis of the second motor as shown in Figs. 6A-6C.
As to Claim 27, Moyer discloses the ingestible imaging device of claim 24, wherein a propeller of each of the first motor, the second motor and the third motor has at least one blade “blades” in [0060] and [0062], a drive surface of which remains parallel to the axis of rotation of the motor during rotation of the propeller as shown in Figs. 6A-6C.
As to Claim 28, Moyer discloses the ingestible imaging device of claim 27, wherein each of the first motor, the second motor and the third motor includes a propeller "propeller” in [0058]-[0060] and [0065]-[0069] and Figs. 6A-6C mounted within a channel “channels” in [0060]-[0062] and Figs. 5A-5B for carrying fluid, the propeller having at least one blade “blades” in [0060] and [0062] and an axis of rotation that is perpendicular to a thrust axis of the motor, and wherein:
in a cross-sectional plane perpendicular to the thrust axis, a minimum amount of clearance “clearances” in [0073] as shown in Figs. 5A-5B being variable due to design choice between the at least one blade and a lower inner surface of the channel is greater than a minimum amount of clearance “clearances” in [0073] as shown in Figs. 5A-5B being variable due to design choice between the at least one blade and an upper inner surface of the channel.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moyer and Kim and in further views of Homan et al. (U.S. Publication 2007/0242132, now U.S. Issued Patent 8,179,429, hereinafter “Homan”).
As to Claim 19, Moyer in view of Kim discloses the ingestible imaging device of claim 16, wherein Kim further teaches further comprising:
a third motor that is configured to drive a third propulsor;
wherein the third propulsor is an additional propeller mounted within an additional channel (80, 81) in [0056] and Fig. 2 for carrying fluid, the additional propeller having at least one blade and an axis of rotation that is perpendicular to a thrust axis of the third motor,
wherein in a cross-sectional plane perpendicular to the thrust axis, a minimum amount of clearance between the at least one blade of the additional propellor and a lower inner surface of the additional channel is greater than a minimum amount of clearance between the at least one blade of the additional propellor and an upper inner surface of the additional channel (the clearance being variable as shown in Figs. 3-5 and 7-9), and
the first motor, the second motor, and the third motor have mutually perpendicular output thrust axes.
In order to expedite prosecution, Homan teaches in the analogous field of capsule endoscopy wherein channels in [0214]-[0217] as shown in Fig. 17 are simultaneously provided all three axes. It would have been obvious that the combination of Moyer and Kim as to the third motor and propulsor could be provided simultaneously along three axes as further taught by Homan in order to fulfill the same function of navigation with predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the enclosed 892 form. 8764639, 7643865, 20030214579 is cited to show similar propulsion means.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM B CHOU whose telephone number is (571) 270-3367. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 am - 6 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, Michael Carey can be reached on (571) 270-7235. 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.
/WILLIAM CHOU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights