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.
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “computer device” in claims 5-8 and 10-17 and 15 defined as “industrial computer, laptop computer, or a tablet computer […] and includes a processor and a display device” in [0017] of the Specification and “display device” in claims 5-8 and 10-17 and 15 defined as part of the display device in [0017] of the Specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-7, 9-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (U.S. Publication 2012/0157769, hereinafter “Zhu”) and in further view of Chatenever et al. (U.S. Publication 2002/0161280, hereinafter “Chatenever”).
As to Claim 1, Zhu discloses a capsule endoscope (110) in [0015] and Figs. 1-4 comprising:
an image sensor (480) in [0022] and Fig. 4 coupled to a processor (500) in [0032] and Fig. 5 and obtaining a sensed image; and
a posture sensor (430) in [0022] and [0026] and (520) in [0032] and [0034] and Figs. 4-5 coupled to the processor and obtaining three-axis data “axes” in [0041]-[0043] and Figs. 2-3 and 7-11,
wherein the processor calculates a screen rotation angle “normalized rotation” in [0053]-[0054] according to the three-axis data and corrects the sensed image according to the screen rotation angle, wherein a first axis and a second axis of the corrected sensed image rotate toward an actual vertical axis during normal operation and an actual horizontal axis wherein the capsule changes direction relative to body and earth coordinate systems as described in [0047]-[0048] and calibrated in [0049]-[0052].
Although Zhu discloses a plurality of screen rotation angles (any relative rotation of posture relative to capsule, body, and earth axes correlated with images displayed on the screen), Chatenever is applied as a secondary teaching in the art to evidence a relative rotation of a displayed image in order to expedite prosecution. Chatenever teaches in the related field of endoscopy wherein a gyroscope detects an angular rotation angle about a sensor optical axis and providing a compensating signal (Claims 3, 22, 25, 36 and shown in Figs. 2A and 2B) for images displayed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the image processing means of Zhu with additional image processing means as taught by Chatenever in order to fulfill the same function of displaying images with posture information with predictable results.
As to Claim 2, Zhu discloses the capsule endoscope as claimed in claim 1, wherein a sensing axis of the image sensor is equal to a Z axis of the posture sensor as described in [0047]-[0048] and calibrated in [0049]-[0052].
As to Claim 3, Zhu discloses the capsule endoscope as claimed in claim 2, wherein the processor calculates sensing axis data of the capsule endoscope according to the three-axis data, and the processor determines whether an included angle between the sensing axis of the capsule endoscope and the actual vertical axis is greater than an angle threshold value (a default threshold value of zero) to determine whether to correct the sensed image.
As to Claim 4, Zhu discloses the capsule endoscope as claimed in claim 3, wherein when the processor determines that the included angle between the sensing axis and the actual vertical axis is smaller than or equal to the angle threshold value, the processor maintains the screen rotation angle of the sensed image (no change of image when no rotation has occurred during normal operation), wherein when the processor determines that the included angle between the sensing axis and the actual vertical axis is greater than the angle threshold value, the processor calculates a new screen rotation angle and rotates the sensed image according to the new screen rotation angle (a new image being rotated being displayed during normal operation when rotation of the sensor has occurred).
As to Claim 5, Zhu discloses the capsule endoscope as claimed in claim 1 (wherein power can be delivered wired or wirelessly in [0029]), the capsule endoscope is coupled to a computer device (510) in [0032] and Fig. 5 via a physical connection line between the external unit and the computer.
As to Claim 6, Zhu discloses the capsule endoscope as claimed in claim 1, wherein the processor outputs the corrected sensed image to a display device of (510) as shown in Fig. 5 of a computer device, so that the display device displays the corrected sensed image.
As to Claim 7, Zhu discloses the capsule endoscope as claimed in claim 1, wherein the processor is disposed in a computer device or the capsule endoscope as shown in Fig. 5.
As to Claim 9, Zhu discloses the capsule endoscope as claimed in claim 1, wherein the posture sensor comprises at least one of a gyroscope sensor and an accelerometer sensor as described in [0022], [0026], [0032], and [0034] and Figs. 4-5.
As to Claim 10, Zhu discloses an endoscope system comprising:
a computer device (500) in [0032] and Fig. 5 comprising a display device; and
a capsule endoscope (110) in [0015] and Figs. 1-4 coupled to the computer device and comprising:
an image sensor (480) in [0022] and Fig. 4 coupled to a processor and obtaining a sensed image; and
a posture sensor (430) in [0022] and [0026] and (520) in [0032] and [0034] and Figs. 4-5 coupled to the processor and obtaining three-axis data “axes” in [0041]-[0043] and Figs. 2-3 and 7-11, wherein the processor calculates a screen rotation angle “normalized rotation” in [0053]-[0054] according to the three-axis data and corrects the sensed image according to the screen rotation angle as described in [0047]-[0048] and calibrated in [0049]-[0052],
wherein a first axis and a second axis of the corrected sensed image rotate toward an actual vertical axis and an actual horizontal axis of the posture sensor during normal operation,
wherein the processor outputs the corrected sensed image to a display device of (510) as shown in Fig. 5 of the computer device, so that the display device displays the corrected sensed image during normal operation.
As to Claim 11, Zhu discloses the endoscope system as claimed in claim 10, wherein a sensing axis of the image sensor is equal to a Z axis of the posture sensor as described in [0047]-[0048] and calibrated in [0049]-[0052].
Although Zhu discloses a plurality of screen rotation angles (any relative rotation of posture relative to capsule, body, and earth axes correlated with images displayed on the screen), Chatenever is applied as a secondary teaching in the art to evidence a relative rotation of a displayed image in order to expedite prosecution. Chatenever teaches in the related field of endoscopy wherein a gyroscope detects an angular rotation angle about a sensor optical axis and providing a compensating signal (Claims 3, 22, 25, 36 and shown in Figs. 2A and 2B) for images displayed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the image processing means of Zhu with additional image processing means as taught by Chatenever in order to fulfill the same function of displaying images with posture information with predictable results.
As to Claim 12, Zhu discloses the endoscope system as claimed in claim 11, wherein the processor calculates sensing axis data of the capsule endoscope according to the three-axis data, and the processor determines whether an included angle between the sensing axis of the capsule endoscope and the actual vertical axis is greater than an angle threshold value (a default threshold value of zero) to determine whether to correct the sensed image.
As to Claim 13, Zhu discloses the endoscope system as claimed in claim 12, wherein when the processor determines that the included angle between the sensing axis and the actual vertical axis is smaller than or equal to the angle threshold value, the processor maintains the screen rotation angle of the sensed image (no change of image when no rotation has occurred during normal operation),
wherein when the processor determines that the included angle between the sensing axis and the actual vertical axis is greater than the angle threshold value, the processor calculates a new screen rotation angle and rotates the sensed image according to the new screen rotation angle (a new image being rotated being displayed during normal operation when rotation of the sensor has occurred).
As to Claim 14, Zhu discloses the endoscope system as claimed in claim 10 (wherein power can be delivered wired or wirelessly in [0029]), wherein the capsule endoscope is coupled to the computer device (510) in [0032] and Fig. 5 via a physical connection line between the external unit and the computer.
As to Claim 15, Zhu discloses the endoscope system as claimed in claim 10, wherein the processor is disposed in the computer device or the capsule endoscope as shown in Fig. 5.
As to Claim 17, Zhu discloses the endoscope system as claimed in claim 10, wherein the posture sensor comprises at least one of a gyroscope sensor and an accelerometer sensor as described in [0022], [0026], [0032], and [0034] and Figs. 4-5.
As to Claim 18, Zhu discloses an image correction method, suitable for a capsule endoscope (110) in [0015] and Figs. 1-4, wherein the capsule endoscope comprises an image sensor (480) in [0022] and Fig. 4 and a posture sensor (430) in [0022] and [0026] and (520) in [0032] and [0034] and Figs. 4-5, wherein the image correction method comprises:
obtaining a sensed image through the image sensor;
obtaining three-axis data “axes” in [0041]-[0043] and Figs. 2-3 and 7-11 through the posture sensor;
calculating via (500) in [0032] and Fig. 5 a screen rotation angle “normalized rotation” in [0053]-[0054] according to the three-axis data; and
correcting the sensed image according to the screen rotation angle, wherein a first axis and a second axis of the corrected sensed image rotate toward an actual vertical axis and an actual horizontal axis of the posture sensor as described in [0047]-[0048] and calibrated in [0049]-[0052].
Although Zhu discloses a plurality of screen rotation angles (any relative rotation of posture relative to capsule, body, and earth axes correlated with images displayed on the screen), Chatenever is applied as a secondary teaching in the art to evidence a relative rotation of a displayed image in order to expedite prosecution. Chatenever teaches in the related field of endoscopy wherein a gyroscope detects an angular rotation angle about a sensor optical axis and providing a compensating signal (Claims 3, 22, 25, 36 and shown in Figs. 2A and 2B) for images displayed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the image processing means of Zhu with additional image processing means as taught by Chatenever in order to fulfill the same function of displaying images with posture information with predictable results.
As to Claim 19, Zhu discloses the image correction method as claimed in claim 18, wherein correcting the sensed image comprises:
calculating sensing axis data of the capsule endoscope according to the three-axis data; and
determining whether an included angle between a sensing axis of the capsule endoscope and an actual vertical axis is greater than an angle threshold value (a default threshold value of zero) according to the sensing axis data to determine whether to correct the sensed image.
As to Claim 20, Zhu discloses the image correction method as claimed in claim 19, wherein correcting the sensed image further comprises:
maintaining the screen rotation angle of the sensed image when the included angle between the sensing axis and the actual vertical axis is smaller than or equal to the angle threshold value (no change of image when no rotation has occurred during normal operation); and calculating a new screen rotation angle and rotating the sensed image according to the new screen rotation angle when determining that the included angle between the sensing axis and the actual vertical axis is greater than the angle threshold value (a new image being rotated being displayed during normal operation when rotation of the sensor has occurred).
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu and Chatenever and in further view of Taniguchi (U.S. Publication 2011/0249952, hereinafter “Taniguchi”).
As to Claims 8 and 16, Zhu discloses the capsule endoscope as claimed in claims 1 and 10 respectively, however does not specifically disclose a UVC protocol. Taniguchi teaches in the related field of endoscopy, wherein a capsule endoscope can transmit information via wired or wireless communication including a USB interface in [0042]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the capsule endoscope of Zhu with UVC transmission means as taught by Taniguchi in order to fulfill the same function of transmitting image signals 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. 20130038711 is cited to show display of posture information in Fig. 2. The prior art should be considered to define the claims over the art of record.
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