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 .
Election/Restrictions
After further consideration of the claims, the previous Restriction/Election Requirement has been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claims 1 and 19 include the language “first current and the second current have a different magnitude or duration causing the first electromagnet to exert a greater force on the capsule that a force exerted by the second electromagnet” (lines 23-25, claim 1). It is not clear what is meant by “different” magnitude or duration for the current with applied to the first electromagnet compared to the second electromagnet that would cause the first electromagnet to exert a greater force on the capsule. As per the specification, “automated program is applying a higher current to electromagnet 20 and less current to electromagnet 22, so that the electromagnet 20 exerts a higher force” [0053]. Therefore, it appear that electromagnet that is exerting a higher force is tied to the application of the higher current. The term “different” in the context of the claim is indefinite and it is suggested language be modified to clarify that the application of the higher current leads to the exertion of the higher force.
Claims 1 and 19 include the language movement in “Z direction” and “move horizontally” “rotate around a vertical axis”. It is suggested claim language clarify the direction of movements in the X, Y, or Z direction with respect to X, Y, and Z axes [0039, specification].
Claims 1 and 19 include the steps listed numerically as (1), (2), (3) in lines 17, 22, and 27. It is not clear if these steps are listed numerically because of the specific order that the steps have to follow where step (2) has to follow step (1) and step (3) has to follow step (2). It is suggested that the language provide further clarity with respect to this order listed in the claims.
Claims 1 and 19 include the language “sequence of commands to the motor, actuators, and electromagnets to perform a sequence of movements of the capsule to trace a path through the stomach”. It is not clear from the claim language what these “sequence of commands” are referring to. As per the specification, “these commands specify or adjust the current to the electromagnet”…”commands turn the currents off” [0084]…”command can activate actuator 20 to increase or decrease the Z direction of electromagnet” [0084] and “to display information to the person being screened” [0088]. It is suggested claim language clarify what is meant by the “sequence of commands” with respect to the motor, actuators, and electromagnets to perform “sequence of movements”.
Claim 14 includes the language “adjust the first current…adjust the second current” (lines 26-28). It is not clear from the claim language what is the outcome of the adjustment of the first current and the second current. As mentioned previously, increasing the current application leads to great force to move the capsule the desired amount or “may remain on to hold capsule 10 stationary once it reaches a location that balances the forces of electromagnets 20, 22” [0053]. It is suggested claim 14 language be modified with respect to the adjustment being increase to the current leading to increased force which leads to the capsule movement or being stationary once it reaches a location that balances the forces of electromagnets 20, 22.
Claim 14 also includes the language “movement line”. The specification does not explicitly refer to this term. Is it movement in the X direction, Z direction? It is suggested this language be modified to clarify the movement of the capsule with respect to this “movement line” in terms of the direction of the movement.
Claim 14 includes the language “doctorless endoscopy machine” and “wherein input by a medical doctor is not needed”. It is not clear from the negative limitation how the diagnostics steps are conducted without any specific human input. Even an automated system would require some operator/human input to screen and provide the diagnostics. Claim 3 also includes “move along the path through the stomach without human input to select the path”…“screening is automatic and does not require a doctor to control the automated magnetic endoscopy machine”. It is not clear from the negative limitation how the diagnostics steps are conducted without any specific human or operator input to assist with the screening/diagnostic process.
“The control program does not require human input. The control program maps the stomach wall and then adjusts the magnets to move capsule 10 through a sequence of locations within the confines of the stomach wall identified by the stomach wall map and captures images of the stomach wall from these various locations. The control program can screen these images for abnormalities, and take additional images when abnormalities are detected. Images with abnormalities can be flagged and sent to a medical doctor or technician for further evaluation, and the person can be referred to a doctor for a traditional endoscopy when such abnormalities are detected by the control program” [0113].
It is suggested claim 14 language be modified with respect to the automated screening/diagnostic process or specific algorithm/steps required that captures the images of the stomach wall from various locations, screens the images for abnormalities, and takes additional images when abnormalities are detected which are then flagged and sent to the doctor.
The dependent claims 2-18 and 20 do not provide additional clarity and therefore stand rejected under 112(b) as well.
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.
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: “first magnet current driver for generating a first current”, “second magnet current driver for generating a second current” in claim 14.
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 Objections
Claims 1 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Line 25 in claim 1 include the term “that” and should be instead modified to “than” such that it reads “causing the first electromagnet to exert a greater force on the capsule than a force exerted by the second electromagnet”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 includes the term “Light Emitting Diodes”. As this term is commonly written as “LED” or “light-emitting diode”, it is suggested the claim be modified to the commonly written format.
Relevant Prior Art
A prior art search was conducted resulting in the following related prior art:
Duan : (2023/0225583):
Directed to a capsule endoscope with control unit, movement unit, first/second magnet, image unit, and locating unit where the first magnet drives the capsule endoscope to move by force of interaction with an external magnet outside the capsule endoscope along the long axis of the capsule endoscope [0040]. Duan et al. teach of a second magnet where the traction force on the capsule endoscope is controlled by controlling the distance between the second magnet and the first magnet in the vertical direction or the current of the second magnet [0079]. But the reference does not teach or render obvious the claimed automated magnetic endoscopy machine with the portable standing disk for the patient that includes all the claimed features including the rotating ring, motor, and poles supporting the electromagnets as the electromagnets are movable by the actuators in the desired directions for the patient ingesting the capsule to capture images of the stomach and transmit the images to a receiver and a primary magnet. The prior art does not teach of the claimed control program causing the capsule to “(1) move vertically in the Z direction by commanding the first actuator to move the first electromagnet up or down while sending a first current to energize the first electromagnet, and by commanding the second actuator to move the second electromagnet up or down while sending a second current to energize the second electromagnet, (2) move horizontally by sending the first current to energize the first electromagnet and sending the second current to energize the second electromagnet, wherein the first current and the second current have a different magnitude or duration, causing the first electromagnet to exert a greater force on the capsule that a force exerted by the second electromagnet when horizontal movement is performed; and (3) rotate around a vertical axis, the vertical axis passing through a center of the stationary disk and through a head and part of the stomach of the person, the control program sending a command to the motor to rotate the rotating ring by a radial angle while the first current is sent to the first electromagnet and the second current is sent to the second electromagnet; wherein the control program sends a sequence of commands to the motor, actuators, and electromagnets to perform a sequence of movements of the capsule to trace a path through the stomach, wherein the control program receives images from the capsule as the capsule moves along the path through the stomach, whereby images of the stomach are automatically captured by the capsule as it is moved along the path by the control program controlling the motor, first electromagnet, second electromagnet, first actuator, and second actuator”.
Shachar et al. (2011/0310497):
Directed to a diagnostic and therapeutic magnetic propulsion capsule where the electromagnets enable the capsule to move in different directions to navigate the capsule along the body cavity with full six degrees of freedom [0204]. But does not teach or render obvious the claimed magnetic endoscopy machine that includes with the portable standing disk for the patient that includes all the claimed features including the rotating ring, motor, and poles supporting the electromagnets as the electromagnets are movable by the actuators in the desired directions for the patient ingesting the capsule to capture images of the stomach and transmit the images to a receiver and a primary magnet. The prior art does not teach of the claimed control program causing the capsule to “(1) move vertically in the Z direction by commanding the first actuator to move the first electromagnet up or down while sending a first current to energize the first electromagnet, and by commanding the second actuator to move the second electromagnet up or down while sending a second current to energize the second electromagnet, (2) move horizontally by sending the first current to energize the first electromagnet and sending the second current to energize the second electromagnet, wherein the first current and the second current have a different magnitude or duration, causing the first electromagnet to exert a greater force on the capsule that a force exerted by the second electromagnet when horizontal movement is performed; and (3) rotate around a vertical axis, the vertical axis passing through a center of the stationary disk and through a head and part of the stomach of the person, the control program sending a command to the motor to rotate the rotating ring by a radial angle while the first current is sent to the first electromagnet and the second current is sent to the second electromagnet; wherein the control program sends a sequence of commands to the motor, actuators, and electromagnets to perform a sequence of movements of the capsule to trace a path through the stomach, wherein the control program receives images from the capsule as the capsule moves along the path through the stomach, whereby images of the stomach are automatically captured by the capsule as it is moved along the path by the control program controlling the motor, first electromagnet, second electromagnet, first actuator, and second actuator”.
Belson (2011/0060189):
Directed to capsule endoscopy that include an electromagnet for positioning the capsule with respect to the patient’s anatomy where the external magnet 202 includes a track 204 configured to be positioned over the esophagus [0213]. Belson further teaches of a positioning system to include a position sensor for sensing the position of the external magnet along the track which will correlate with the position of the endoscopy capsule within the esophagus [0215]. But does not teach or render obvious the claimed magnetic endoscopy machine that includes with the portable standing disk for the patient that includes all the claimed features including the rotating ring, motor, and poles supporting the electromagnets as the electromagnets are movable by the actuators in the desired directions for the patient ingesting the capsule to capture images of the stomach and transmit the images to a receiver and a primary magnet. The prior art does not teach of the claimed control program causing the capsule to “(1) move vertically in the Z direction by commanding the first actuator to move the first electromagnet up or down while sending a first current to energize the first electromagnet, and by commanding the second actuator to move the second electromagnet up or down while sending a second current to energize the second electromagnet, (2) move horizontally by sending the first current to energize the first electromagnet and sending the second current to energize the second electromagnet, wherein the first current and the second current have a different magnitude or duration, causing the first electromagnet to exert a greater force on the capsule that a force exerted by the second electromagnet when horizontal movement is performed; and (3) rotate around a vertical axis, the vertical axis passing through a center of the stationary disk and through a head and part of the stomach of the person, the control program sending a command to the motor to rotate the rotating ring by a radial angle while the first current is sent to the first electromagnet and the second current is sent to the second electromagnet; wherein the control program sends a sequence of commands to the motor, actuators, and electromagnets to perform a sequence of movements of the capsule to trace a path through the stomach, wherein the control program receives images from the capsule as the capsule moves along the path through the stomach, whereby images of the stomach are automatically captured by the capsule as it is moved along the path by the control program controlling the motor, first electromagnet, second electromagnet, first actuator, and second actuator”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAISAKHI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-7139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 EST.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at 571-272-7230. 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.
BR
/BAISAKHI ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797