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 .
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:
coil cited in claim 17 and 29;
wherein the inertial measurement unit and the at least two magnetic sensors have a substantially same coordinate orientation in claim 18 and 28;
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112a
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11, 17, 20, 29, and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 11 and 20 recite “a spin angle”, “a preset attitude solving algorithm”, and “a driving magnetic field algorithm”, i.e. “the processing device calculates a spin angle of the capsule endoscope based on a preset attitude solving algorithm and the measurement value of the attitude” and “the processing device calculates an estimated position of the capsule endoscope relative to the second magnet based on a driving magnetic field algorithm”. It is deemed that the written description for spin angle and preset attitude solving algorithm is insufficient to define how the calculation is executed. 0043 mentions the processing device 30 may “use a preset attitude solving algorithm, such as a complementary filtering algorithm, to calculate the spin angle of capsule endoscope 10 relative to the world coordinate system. The spin angle may include precisely estimated Pitch angle, precisely estimated Roll angle and estimated Yaw angle”. This is not considered sufficient to enable one skilled in the art to perform the claimed calculation. An additional mention of spin angle at 0058 does not remedy the deficiency as it merely states that the spin angle may include precisely estimated pitch, roll, and yaw angles.
The disclosure for the preset attitude solution algorithm provides even less details in that it only mentions at 0058 it is an algorithm “such as a complementary filtering algorithm”.
Also, 0044 mentions “the driving field algorithm of second magnet 21 is described in detail in combination with the drawings”, but is considered insufficient. Applicant is required to specially cite how the specification supports the disclosure.
Claims 17 and 29 recite a coil matched with the second magnet to conduct magnetic control on the capsule endoscope. The specification does not provide details as to how this is performed or implemented. The only description of the coil is at 0042 which simply describes it as “assists second magnet 21 in magnetic control” and that “it mainly controls the jumping action of the capsule endoscope”, but does not detail how. Until proper disclosure and explanation is provided, it will simply be interpreted as a magnetic controlling device to control the motion of the capsule endoscope.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b
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 11, 20, and dependent claims are 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.
For claims 11 and 20, it is unclear how the processor calculates the spin angle, the preset attitude solving algorithm, and an estimated position based on a driving field algorithm. For this office action, it will be interpreted as provided in the prior art rejection below.
Claims 11 and 20 recite “respectively close”, i.e. “two of the at least two magnetic sensors being respectively close to two ends of the built-in space along a longitudinal direction”. This is deemed indefinite since it is unclear what would meet such a requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 11-13, 17-23, 25, 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Natali US20150342501 and further in view of Brister US20160029998.
Di Natali discloses for claim 11, “A capsule endoscope system comprising a capsule endoscope (magnetic capsule 105; fig 1B; 0023), a magnetic control device (driving magnet 103 with corresponding controllers; fig 1B; 0023), and a processing device (controller 701; fig 7; 0037), wherein:
the capsule endoscope comprises a built-in space (0026 describes a protective casing housing the capsule elements) and a first magnet (magnet 507; fig 5; 0031), an inertial measurement unit (inertial sensor as IMU; fig 2A; 0026), and at least two magnetic sensors (magnetic field sensors 403, 409; fig 4; 0029) arranged in the built-in space, two of the at least two magnetic sensors being respectively close to two ends of the built-in space along a longitudinal direction (fig 4);
the magnetic control device comprises a second magnet (driving magnet 103; fig 1B), and the magnetic control device conducts magnetic control on the capsule endoscope through an action of the second magnet on the first magnet (0023 describes the control of the capsule via the driving magnet 103);
the inertial measurement unit senses an attitude of the capsule endoscope and acquires a measurement value of the attitude (0028 describes the function of the IMU detecting the pose and orientation of the capsule), and the at least two magnetic sensors sense a magnetic field of the second magnet and acquire at least a measurement value of a first magnetic field and another measurement value of a second magnetic field (0028 0028 describes the function of the magnetic sensors 303 detecting the pose and orientation of the capsule); and
the processing device calculates a spin angle of the capsule endoscope based on a preset attitude solving algorithm and the measurement value of the attitude, wherein:
the spin angle comprises a precisely estimated pitch angle, a precisely estimated roll angle, and an estimated yaw angle (per the cited indefiniteness, the spin angle is interpreted as pitch, roll, and yaw, where precisely estimated and estimated is interpreted as determination thereof; 0029 describes the determination of yaw, pitch, and roll), and
the processing device calculates an estimated position of the capsule endoscope relative to the second magnet based on a driving magnetic field algorithm, the measurement value of the first magnetic field, the measurement value of the second magnetic field and the spin angle (per the cited indefiniteness, this is interpreted as determining the pose of the capsule; 0028, 0040-0041 describes determining the pose)”.
Di Natali does not disclose:
“optimizes the estimated position and the estimated yaw angle using an unscented Kalman filtering algorithm to obtain a precisely estimated position and a precisely estimated yaw angle of the capsule endoscope relative to the second magnet, and determines a position and the attitude of the capsule endoscope in a world coordinate system based on the position and the attitude of the second magnet”, but to this end, discloses using an iterative approach for determining the position and orientation of the capsule, which results in the determination being based on changes in the measured magnetic field instead of an absolute analysis of the magnetic field, thus reducing computational load (0041). Brister teaches in the same field of endeavor, using a Kalman filter to track the position of a magnetic dipole with respect to a detector array of magnetic sensors (0761). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Brister into the invention of Di Natali in order to configure the capsule endoscope e.g. as claimed because it allows the differences between the predicted and measured values to be required to match within a certain tolerance, allowing for a measure of accuracy (0761).
Di Natali discloses for claim 12, “The capsule endoscope system according to claim 11, wherein the at least two magnetic sensors comprise a triaxial measuring, digital output MEMS device (0028 describes a tri-axial measuring device)”.
Modified Di Natali discloses for claim 13, “The capsule endoscope system according to claim 12, wherein a magnetic sensor placed closer to the first magnet of the at least two magnetic sensors is a Hall sensor (Di Natali discloses multiple magnetic sensors with different proximity to the permanent magnet fig 2B and Brister 0721 discloses magnetic sensors as Hall-effect sensors).
Di Natali discloses for claim 17, “The capsule endoscope system according to claim 11, wherein: the magnetic control device comprises a coil matched with the second magnet to conduct magnetic control on the capsule endoscope; and when the magnetic control device conducts a magnetic positioning on the capsule endoscope, the coil is in a non-working state (per the indefiniteness interpretation, Di Natali discloses a control element for controlling the motion of the capsule endoscope via the driving magnet 103)”.
Di Natali discloses for claim 18, “The capsule endoscope system according to claim 17, wherein the inertial measurement unit and the at least two magnetic sensors have a substantially same coordinate orientation (the IMU and sensors are considered to have the same coordinate orientation since they are deemed to detect and determine a single coordinate measurement, the capsule position and orientation, i.e. see coordinate system provided in fig 2B)”.
Modified Di Natali discloses for claim 19, “The capsule endoscope system according to claim 11, wherein, in the driving magnetic field algorithm, the second magnet is equivalent to a magnetic dipole moment (per the indefiniteness interpretation, Brister discloses the magnetic dipole moment for capsule positioning and localization 0579)”.
Modified Di Natali (as in claim 11) discloses for claim 20, “A capsule endoscope magnetic positioning method, comprising:
obtaining a measurement value of an attitude of a capsule endoscope (Di Natali: magnetic field sensors 403, 409; fig 4; 0029);
sensing a magnetic field of a second magnet (Di Natali: driving magnet 103; fig 1B) and obtaining a measurement value of a first magnetic field and another measurement value of a second magnetic field at a first position and a second position of the capsule endoscope respectively (Di Natali: magnetic field sensors 403, 409; fig 4; 0029), wherein the first position and the second position are respectively close to two ends along a longitudinal direction of a built-in space of the capsule endoscope (Di Natali: fig 4 magnetic sensors 403, 409), and the second magnet is used in magnetic control for the capsule endoscope (Di Natali: driving magnet 103; 0023);
calculating a spin angle of the capsule endoscope based on a preset attitude solution algorithm and the measurement value of the attitude, wherein the spin angle comprises a precisely estimated pitch angle, a precisely estimated roll angle, and an estimated yaw angle (per the cited indefiniteness, the spin angle is interpreted as pitch, roll, and yaw, where precisely estimated and estimated is interpreted as determination thereof; Di Natali: 0029 describes the determination of yaw, pitch, and roll);
calculating an estimated position of the capsule endoscope relative to the second magnet based on a driving magnetic field algorithm and the measurement value of the first magnetic field, the measurement value of the second magnetic field, and the spin angle (per the cited indefiniteness, this is interpreted as determining the pose of the capsule; Di Natali: 0028, 0040-0041 describes determining the pose);
optimizing the estimated position and the estimated yaw angle using an unscented Kalman filter algorithm to obtain a precisely estimated position and a precisely estimated yaw angle of the capsule endoscope relative to the second magnet (Di Natali: 0041 describes using an iterative approach for determining the position and orientation of the capsule; Brister: 0761 describes the use of a Kalman filter to track the position of a magnetic dipole); and
determining a position and the attitude of the capsule endoscope in a world coordinate system based on a position and the attitude of the second magnet (Di Natali: fig 1C shows XYZ coordinates for the world)”.
Di Natali discloses for claim 21, “The capsule endoscope magnetic positioning method according to claim 20, wherein: the capsule endoscope comprises a built-in space (0026 describes a protective casing housing the capsule elements) and a first magnet (magnet 507; fig 5; 0031); and at least two magnetic sensors are provided at the first position and at the second position respectively (magnetic field sensors 403, 409; fig 4; 0029)”.
Di Natali discloses for claim 22, “The capsule endoscope magnetic positioning method according to claim 21, wherein the at least two magnetic sensors comprise a triaxial measuring, digital output MEMS device (0028 describes a tri-axial measuring device)”.
Di Natali discloses for claim 23, “The capsule endoscope magnetic positioning method according to claim 21, wherein a magnetic sensor placed closer to the first magnet of the at least two magnetic sensors is a Hall sensor (Di Natali discloses multiple magnetic sensors with different proximity to the permanent magnet fig 2B and Brister 0721 discloses magnetic sensors as Hall-effect sensors).
Di Natali discloses for claim 25, “The capsule endoscope magnetic positioning method according to claim 21, wherein an inertial measurement unit is used to obtain the measurement value of the attitude of the capsule endoscope (0028 describes the function of the IMU detecting the pose and orientation of the capsule)”.
Di Natali discloses for claim 28, “The capsule endoscope magnetic positioning method according to claim 25, wherein the inertial measurement unit and the at least two magnetic sensors have a substantially same coordinate orientation (the IMU and sensors are considered to have the same coordinate orientation since they are deemed to detect and determine a single coordinate measurement, the capsule position and orientation, i.e. see coordinate system provided in fig 2B)”.
Di Natali discloses for claim 29, “The capsule endoscope magnetic positioning method according to claim 20, further comprising using a coil matched with the second magnet to conduct magnetic control on the capsule endoscope, wherein, when magnetic positioning is conducted on the capsule endoscope, the coil is in a non-working state (per the indefiniteness interpretation, Di Natali discloses a control element for controlling the motion of the capsule endoscope via the driving magnet 103)”.
Modified Di Natali discloses for claim 30, “The capsule endoscope magnetic positioning method according to claim 20, wherein, in the driving magnetic field algorithm, the second magnet is equivalent to a magnetic dipole moment (per the indefiniteness interpretation, Brister discloses the magnetic dipole moment for capsule positioning and localization 0579)”.
Claim(s) 14 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Natali and Brister as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Hartwig US 20150008914.
Di Natali does not disclose for claim 14, “The capsule endoscope system according to claim 12, wherein a magnetic sensor placed farther away from the first magnet of the at least two magnetic sensors is an anisotropic magnetoresistance (AMR) sensor”, i.e. the use of a particular type of magnetic sensor, whereas Brister also teaches the magnetic sensors need not be the same type (0721). Hartwig teaches in the same field of endeavor, providing an AMR magnetic sensor (0013). Since Di Natali fails to disclose the nature of the magnetic sensor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any suitable magnetic sensor known in the art, including the one taught by Hartwig, to achieve the predictable result of implementing a magnetic sensor.
Di Natali does not disclose for claim 24, “The capsule endoscope magnetic positioning method according to claim 21, wherein a magnetic sensor placed farther away from the first magnet of the at least two magnetic sensors is an anisotropic magnetoresistance (AMR) sensor”, i.e. the use of a particular type of magnetic sensor, whereas Brister also teaches the magnetic sensors need not be the same type (0721). Hartwig teaches in the same field of endeavor, providing an AMR magnetic sensor (0013). Since Di Natali fails to disclose the nature of the magnetic sensor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any suitable magnetic sensor known in the art, including the one taught by Hartwig, to achieve the predictable result of implementing a magnetic sensor.
Claim(s) 15, 16, 26, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Natali and Brister as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Lu US 20190246873.
Di Natali does not disclose for claim 15, “The capsule endoscope system according to claim 11, wherein the inertial measurement unit is a six axis inertial measurement unit”, simply lacking the disclosure for the specific type of IMU. Lu teaches in the same field of endeavor, a specific six axis IMU (0042). Since Di Natali fails to disclose the nature of the IMU, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any suitable IMU known in the art, including the one taught by Lu, to achieve the predictable result of implementing a six axis IMU.
Di Natali discloses for claim 16, “The capsule endoscope system according to claim 15, wherein the inertial measurement unit comprises an accelerometer and a gyroscope (0026 describes such an IMU)”.
Di Natali does not disclose for claim 26, “The capsule endoscope magnetic positioning method according to claim 25, wherein the inertial measurement unit is a six axis inertial measurement unit”, simply lacking the disclosure for the specific type of IMU. Lu teaches in the same field of endeavor, a specific six axis IMU (0042). Since Di Natali fails to disclose the nature of the IMU, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any suitable IMU known in the art, including the one taught by Lu, to achieve the predictable result of implementing a six axis IMU.
Di Natali discloses for claim 27, “The capsule endoscope magnetic positioning method according to claim 26, wherein the inertial measurement unit comprises an accelerometer and a gyroscope (0026 describes such an IMU)”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE K WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-0837. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-2:30p, 6p-9p.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-4963. 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.
/Jae Woo/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
12/4/25