DETAILED ACTION
Claims 75-94 are hereby under examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/22/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The claims are generally replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Numerous objections are listed below. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of.
Claims 75, 77-82, 85, 87-92, and 94 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 75, line 3 recites “an ingestible capsule”, however it appears it should read --the ingestible capsule-- (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 75, line 3 recites “a subject mammal”, however it appears it should read --the subject mammal-- (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 75, line 4 recites “a TCD gas sensor”, however it appears it should read --a Thermal Conductivity Detector (TCD) gas sensor-- (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 75, line 4 recites “a VOC gas sensor”, however it appears it should read --a Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) gas sensor-- (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 75, line 5 recites “means to record the readings”, however it appears it should read --means to record readings--.
Regarding claim 77, line 4 recites “the environmental temperature value was within”, however it appears it should read along the lines of --the environmental temperature sensor readings is within-- (emphasis added) to maintain consistent claim language.
Regarding claim 77, line 5 recites “a baseline environmental temperature value”, however it appears it should read --the baseline environmental temperature value-- (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 78, line 7 recites “the reflected signal”, however it appears it should read --a reflected signal-- (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 78, line 9 recites “the gas sensor capsule”, however it appears it should read --the ingestible capsule-- (emphasis added) to maintain consistent claim language.
Regarding claim 78, lines 12-13 recite “the quadrature demodulator”, however it appears it should read --a quadrature demodulator-- (emphasis added) to ensure proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 78, line 14 recites “the antenna impedance control signal”, however it appears it should read --an antenna impedance control signal-- (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 79, line 9 recites “a first a gastric-duodenal”, however it appears it should read --a first gastric-duodenal--.
Regarding claim 79, line 9 recites the second recitation of “a gastric-duodenal transition”, however the second recitation appears it should read --the gastric-duodenal transition-- (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 79, line 11 recites the second recitation of “a gastric-duodenal transition”, however the second recitation appears it should read --the gastric-duodenal transition-- (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 79, line 15 recites “a timing thereof”, however it appears it should read --the timing thereof-- (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 80, line 3 recites “accelerometer readings”, however it appears it should read --the accelerometer readings-- (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 81, line 5 recites “a timing thereof”, however it appears it should read --the timing thereof-- (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 82, line 8 recites “a timing thereof”, however it appears it should read --the timing thereof-- (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 85, line 4 recites “a TCD gas sensor”, however it appears it should read --a Thermal Conductivity Detector (TCD) gas sensor-- (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 85, line 4 recites “a VOC gas sensor”, however it appears it should read --a Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) gas sensor-- (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 87, lines 4-5 recites “the environmental temperature value was within”, however it appears it should read along the lines of --the environmental temperature sensor readings is within-- (emphasis added) to maintain consistent claim language.
Regarding claim 87, lines 5-6 recites “a baseline environmental temperature value”, however it appears it should read --the baseline environmental temperature value-- (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 88, line 7 recites “the reflected signal”, however it appears it should read --a reflected signal-- (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 88, line 9 recites “the gas sensor capsule”, however it appears it should read --the ingestible capsule-- (emphasis added) to maintain consistent claim language.
Regarding claim 88, lines 12-13 recite “the quadrature demodulator”, however it appears it should read --a quadrature demodulator-- (emphasis added) to ensure proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 88, line 14 recites “the antenna impedance control signal”, however it appears it should read --an antenna impedance control signal-- (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 89, line 9 recites “a first a gastric-duodenal”, however it appears it should read --a first gastric-duodenal--.
Regarding claim 89, line 9 recites the second recitation of “a gastric-duodenal transition”, however the second recitation appears it should read --the gastric-duodenal transition-- (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 89, line 11 recites the second recitation of “a gastric-duodenal transition”, however the second recitation appears it should read --the gastric-duodenal transition-- (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 89, line 15 recites “a timing thereof”, however it appears it should read --the timing thereof-- (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 90, line 3 recites “accelerometer readings”, however it appears it should read --the accelerometer readings-- (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 91, line 5 recites “a timing thereof”, however it appears it should read --the timing thereof-- (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 92, line 8 recites “a timing thereof”, however it appears it should read --the timing thereof-- (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 94, line 3 recites “a subject mammal”, however it appears it should read --the subject mammal-- (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 94, line 4 recites “a TCD gas sensor”, however it appears it should read --a Thermal Conductivity Detector (TCD) gas sensor-- (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 94, line 4 recites “a VOC gas sensor”, however it appears it should read --a Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) gas sensor-- (emphasis added).
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 76-79, 82, 83-84, 86-89, and 92-93 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.
Regarding claim 76, line 5 recites the limitation "the environmental temperature sensor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In light of the specification, it is currently unclear if “the environmental temperature sensor” is the same as, related to, or different from “an environmental sensor”. For the purposes of examination, “the environmental temperature sensor” is being interpreted as further defining “an environmental sensor” as being a temperature sensor. It is recommended to the Applicant to amend the claims to clearly recite the environmental sensor includes the temperature sensor.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claim are rejected due to their dependency.
Regarding claim 76, the term “around” in line 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “around” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The instant specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree for what “around” encompasses. Is “around” related to a certain time frame? If so, is the certain time frame a certain amount of seconds or minutes? For the purposes of examination “around” is being interpreted as being within a ten minute time frame around a timing of a detected gastric duodenal transition indicator.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claim are rejected due to their dependency.
Regarding claim 76, the claim recites “a timing of a detected gastric-duodenal transition indicator”. However, claim 75 recites “determining a first transition event timing, the first transition event timing being a timing of a gastric-duodenal transition … detecting a gastric-duodenal transition indicator …”. In light of the specification, it is currently unclear if “a timing of a detected gastric-duodenal transition indicator” recited in claim 76 is the same as, related to, or different from the event timing recited in claim 75. For the purposes of examination, “a timing of a detected gastric-duodenal transition indicator” is being interpreted as being related to the event timing recited in claim 75. It is recommended to the Applicant to amend the claims to read along the lines of --the timing of the detected gastric-duodenal transition indicator-- (emphasis added).
The dependent claims of the above rejected claim are rejected due to their dependency.
Regarding claim 76, the claim recites the limitation "the respective contemporaneous environmental temperature sensor readings" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the respective contemporaneous environmental temperature sensor readings” is being interpreted as being any temperature sensor readings.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claim are rejected due to their dependency.
Regarding claim 82, the claim recites numerous instances of “gastric-duodenal junction indicator”, “gastric-duodenal transition indicator”, and “the first and second gastric-duodenal transition indicators”. Claim 81 further recites “gastric-duodenal transition indicator”. In light of the specification, it is currently unclear if the instances of “gastric-duodenal junction indicator” and “gastric-duodenal transition indicator” are the same, related, or different. For the purposes of examination, “gastric-duodenal junction indicator” and “gastric-duodenal transition indicator” are being interpreted as being the same. It is recommended to the Applicant to amend the claims to 1) maintain consistent claim language and/or recite clearly different claim language, and 2) maintain proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 83, the claim recites the limitation "the antenna reflectance related readings" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In light of the specification, it is currently unclear if “the antenna reflectance related readings” are the same as, related to, or different from the antenna reflectance related readings of claim 78. For the purposes of examination, “the antenna reflectance related readings” is being interpreted as any antenna reflectance related readings.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claim are rejected due to their dependency.
Regarding claim 83, the claim recites “the second subset includes the antenna reflectance related readings”. However, the claim further recites “the antenna reflectance related readings from the first subset”. In light of the specification, it is currently unclear if lines 6-7 are intended to read “the antenna reflectance related readings from the second subset”, or if the claim is further defining the first subset includes antenna reflectance related readings. It is then further unclear if the antenna reflectance related readings of the first subset and the second subset are the same, related, or different. For the purposes of examination, “the antenna reflectance related readings from the first subset” is being interpreted as being the same as “the second subset includes the antenna reflectance related readings”.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claim are rejected due to their dependency.
Regarding claim 86, lines 4-5 recite the limitation "the environmental temperature sensor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In light of the specification, it is currently unclear if “the environmental temperature sensor” is the same as, related to, or different from “an environmental sensor”. For the purposes of examination, “the environmental temperature sensor” is being interpreted as further defining “an environmental sensor” as being a temperature sensor. It is recommended to the Applicant to amend the claims to clearly recite the environmental sensor includes the temperature sensor.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claim are rejected due to their dependency.
Regarding claim 86, the term “around” in line 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “around” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The instant specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree for what “around” encompasses. Is “around” related to a certain time frame? If so, is the certain time frame a certain amount of seconds or minutes? For the purposes of examination “around” is being interpreted as being within a ten minute time frame around a timing of a detected gastric duodenal transition indicator.
Regarding claim 86, the claim recites “a timing of a detected gastric-duodenal transition indicator”. However, claim 85 recites “determining a first transition event timing, the first transition event timing being a timing of a gastric-duodenal transition … detecting a gastric-duodenal transition indicator …”. In light of the specification, it is currently unclear if “a timing of a detected gastric-duodenal transition indicator” recited in claim 86 is the same as, related to, or different from the event timing recited in claim 85. For the purposes of examination, “a timing of a detected gastric-duodenal transition indicator” is being interpreted as being related to the event timing recited in claim 85. It is recommended to the Applicant to amend the claims to read along the lines of --the timing of the detected gastric-duodenal transition indicator-- (emphasis added).
The dependent claims of the above rejected claim are rejected due to their dependency.
Regarding claim 86, the claim recites the limitation "the respective contemporaneous environmental temperature sensor readings" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the respective contemporaneous environmental temperature sensor readings” is being interpreted as being any temperature sensor readings.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claim are rejected due to their dependency.
Regarding claim 92, the claim recites numerous instances of “gastric-duodenal junction indicator”, “gastric-duodenal transition indicator”, and “the first and second gastric-duodenal transition indicators”. Claim 91 further recites “gastric-duodenal transition indicator”. In light of the specification, it is currently unclear if the instances of “gastric-duodenal junction indicator” and “gastric-duodenal transition indicator” are the same, related, or different. For the purposes of examination, “gastric-duodenal junction indicator” and “gastric-duodenal transition indicator” are being interpreted as being the same. It is recommended to the Applicant to amend the claims to 1) maintain consistent claim language and/or recite clearly different claim language, and 2) maintain proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 93, the claim recites the limitation "the antenna reflectance related readings" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In light of the specification, it is currently unclear if “the antenna reflectance related readings” are the same as, related to, or different from the antenna reflectance related readings of claim 88. For the purposes of examination, “the antenna reflectance related readings” is being interpreted as any antenna reflectance related readings.
Regarding claim 93, the claim recites “the second subset includes the antenna reflectance related readings”. However, the claim further recites “the antenna reflectance related readings from the first subset”. In light of the specification, it is currently unclear if lines 6-7 are intended to read “the antenna reflectance related readings from the second subset”, or if the claim is further defining the first subset includes antenna reflectance related readings. It is then further unclear if the antenna reflectance related readings of the first subset and the second subset are the same, related, or different. For the purposes of examination, “the antenna reflectance related readings from the first subset” is being interpreted as being the same as “the second subset includes the antenna reflectance related readings”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 75-94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Analysis of independent claims 75, 85, and 94:
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claim 75 is directed to an apparatus, which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a machine. Claim 85 is directed to a method, which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a process. Claim 94 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a machine. Therefore, further consideration is necessary.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One: Claims 75, 85, and 94 recite an abstract idea. In particular, the claim recites the following:
Determining a first transition event timing, the first transition event timing being a timing of a gastric-duodenal transition by the ingestible capsule, wherein determining the first transition event timing comprises detecting a gastric-duodenal transition indicator in a first subset of the recorded readings, the first subset including the recorded TCD gas sensor readings; and
Determining a second transition event timing, the second transition event timing being a timing of a transition across an ileocecal junction by the ingestible capsule, wherein determining the second transition event timing comprises detecting an ileocecal junction indicator in a second subset of the recorded readings, the second subset including the VOC gas sensor readings.
These elements recited in the claims are drawn to an abstract idea since (1) they involve a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and using pen and paper.
Determining the first transition event timing by detecting a gastric-duodenal transition indicator in recorded TCD gas sensor readings, and the second transition event timing by detecting an ileocecal junction indicator in recorded VOC gas sensor readings is a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind, with the aid of pen and paper. For example, a person with ordinary skill in the art can reasonably view TCD gas sensor readings and VOC gas sensor readings on a piece of paper and determine the indicators by visually observing the readings and/or using look-up tables. There is nothing to suggest and undue level of complexity in the determining steps.
Alternatively and/or additionally, these elements recited in the claims recite a law of nature and/or a natural phenomena since they involve naturally occurring principles. The gas sensor readings at the gastric-duodenal transition and the ileocecal junction are drawn to naturally occurring principles. See 2106.04(b), I.
Prong Two: Claims 75, 85, and 94 do not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are “directed to” the abstract idea. The additional elements merely:
Recite the words “apply it” or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g., “power source”, “means to record …”, “processing apparatus …”, “a processor …”), and
Add insignificant extra-solution activity (the pre-solution activity of: using generic data-gathering components (e.g. “a TCD gas sensor”, “a VOC gas sensor”); the post-solution activity of: (e.g. N/A); using generic data-outputting components (e.g. N/A)).
As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather information to be used by the abstract idea, while generically implementing it on a computer. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. The processing performed remains in the abstract realm, i.e., the result is not used for a treatment. No improvement to the technology is evident. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Per the Berkheimer requirement, the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
For example, a TCD gas sensor for measuring gas sensor readings is well-understood, routine, and conventional, as disclosed by Covington et al. (US 20130289368 A1) - para. [0015].
For example, a VOC gas sensor for measuring gas sensor readings is well-understood, routine, and conventional, as disclosed by Covington et al. (US 20130289368 A1) - para. [0015].
Further, “power source”, “means to record”, “processing apparatus”, “a processor …”, and “non-transitory computer-readable medium” does not qualify as significantly more because this limitation is simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claims 75, 85, and 94 do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an inventive concept) for the same reasons as described above. E.g., all elements are directed to pre-solution steps of necessary data gathering, which merely facilitate the abstract idea.
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Analysis of the dependent claims:
Claims 76-84 and 86-93 depend from the independent claim. The dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons: they merely
Further describe the abstract idea (“determining the first transition event timing further comprises comparing one or more of the environmental temperature sensor readings” (claim 76), “the gastric-duodenal transition indicator is a spike, step change, or inflection, in the TCD gas sensor readings …” (claim 77), “wherein the first subset of recorded readings, from which the first transition event timing is determined, comprises the antenna reflectance related readings …” (claim 78), “determining the first transition event timing further comprises: detecting a gastric-duodenal transition indicator in the antenna reflectance related readings from the first subset …” (claim 79), “determining the first transition event timing further comprises: detecting a gastric-duodenal transition indicator in the accelerometer readings from the first subset …” (claim 81), “detecting, as a first gastric-duodenal junction indicator, a gastric-duodenal junction indicator in the TCD gas sensor readings from the first subset …” (claim 82), “determining the second transition event timing further comprises: detecting an ileocecal junction transition indicator in the antenna reflectance related readings from the second subset …” (claim 83), “wherein the ileocecal junction transition indicator comprises an increase in sensor side VOC gas sensor readings with a contemporaneous increase in H2 concentration …” (claim 84) “determining the first transition event timing further comprises comparing one or more of the environmental temperature sensor readings”, (claim 86), “the gastric-duodenal transition indicator is a spike, step change, or inflection, in the TCD gas sensor readings …” (claim 87), “wherein the first subset of recorded readings, from which the first transition event timing is determined, comprises the antenna reflectance related readings …” (claim 88), “determining the first transition event timing further comprises: detecting a gastric-duodenal transition indicator in the antenna reflectance related readings from the first subset …” (claim 89), “determining the first transition event timing further comprises: detecting a gastric-duodenal transition indicator in the accelerometer readings from the first subset …” (claim 91), “detecting, as a first gastric-duodenal junction indicator, a gastric-duodenal junction indicator in the TCD gas sensor readings from the first subset …” (claim 92), “determining the second transition event timing further comprises: detecting an ileocecal junction transition indicator in the antenna reflectance related readings from the second subset …” (claim 93)),
Further describe the pre-solution activity (or the structure used for such activity) (“the ingestible capsule includes an environmental sensor …” (claim 76), “the ingestible capsule further comprises a primary transceiver comprising an antenna, a directional coupler in series with the antenna to form a reflectometer, and a diode detector forming part of the reflectometer …” (claim 78), “the ingestible capsule further comprises an accelerometer” (claim 80), “the ingestible capsule includes an environmental sensor …” (claim 86), “the ingestible capsule further comprises a primary transceiver comprising an antenna, a directional coupler in series with the antenna to form a reflectometer, and a diode detector forming part of the reflectometer …” (claim 88), “the ingestible capsule further comprises an accelerometer” (claim 90)),
Further describe the computer implementation (N/A), and
Further describe the post-solution activity (N/A) (recited at a high level of generality).
Per the Berkheimer requirement, the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
For example, “an environmental sensor …” is well-understood, routine, and conventional, as disclosed by Covington et al. (US 20130289368 A1) - para. [0034].
For example, “antennas … diode detectors …” are well-understood, routine, and conventional, as disclosed by Jones et al. (US 20210031012 A1) - para. [2509].
For example, “an accelerometer” is well-understood, routine, and conventional, as disclosed by Ben Yehuda et al. (US 20240115326 A1) - para. [0038-0039].
Further, “processing apparatus” and “a processor …” does not qualify as significantly more because this limitation is simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. The additional elements do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. The collective functions of the additional elements merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, output device, improves technology other than the technical field of the claimed invention, etc. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subjection matter. Claims 75-94 are rejected.
Prior Art Analysis
Claims 75-94 are rejected as recited above. However, there is no prior art rejection. The closest prior art made of record includes: Jones et al. (US 20210031012 A1), hereinafter referred to as Jones, Covington et al. (US 20130289368 A1), hereinafter referred to as Covington, Rohde et al. (US 20090318783 A1), hereinafter referred to as Rohde, and Ben Yehuda et al. (US 20240115326 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ben Yehuda.
Jones teaches an apparatus for determining a location of an ingestible capsule within a gastrointestinal, GI, tract of a subject mammal (Fig. 5, Fig. 12, para. [2051]), comprising: an ingestible capsule, being ingestible by a subject mammal, the ingestible capsule comprising a housing, a power source, and multiple sensors (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, para. [2051-2059]); means to record the readings of the ingestible capsule as a function of time including a period during which the ingestible capsules is within the gastrointestinal, GI, tract of the subject mammal, the said means being the ingestible capsule or a receive apparatus configured to receive, at a location external to the subject mammal, readings from the ingestible capsule at a location internal to the subject mammal (Fig. 7, Fig. 8, Fig. 10, para. [2051-2059]); a processing apparatus, the processing apparatus being configured determine a timing of a gastric-duodenal transition and a timing of a transition across an ileocecal junction (para. [1023], para. [2051], para. [2063-2066], para. [2082], para. [2089]). However, Jones teaches determining the first transition event timing and the second transition event timing based on optical data.
Covington teaches an apparatus for determining a location of an ingestible capsule within a gastrointestinal, GI, tract of a subject mammal (Abstract, para. [0018]), comprising: an ingestible capsule, being ingestible by a subject mammal, the ingestible capsule comprising a housing, a power source, a TCD gas sensor, and a VOC gas sensor (Fig. 1, para. [0041-0052). However, Covington teaches determining the location of the ingestible capsule using the Doppler effect or magnetic tracking devices (para. [0053]).
Rohde teaches an apparatus for determining a location of an ingestible capsule within a gastrointestinal, GI, tract of a subject mammal (Abstract), comprising: an ingestible capsule, being ingestible by a subject mammal, the ingestible capsule comprising a housing, a power source, and sensors (Fig. 2, para. [0007-0008]). Rohde further teaches the ingestible capsule includes a temperature sensor (para. [0007-0008]).
Ben Yehuda teaches an apparatus for determining a location of an ingestible capsule within a gastrointestinal, GI, tract of a subject mammal (Abstract, para. [0030]), comprising: an ingestible capsule, being ingestible by a subject mammal, the ingestible capsule comprising a housing, a power source and sensors (para. [0030]). However, Ben Yehuda teaches the location of the ingestible device is determined based on an acceleration sensor (para. [0050-0053]).
Ingestible capsules with sensors for determining a location within a gastrointestinal tract, specifically a gastric-duodenal transition and an ileocecal junction is well known within the art. Additionally, the use of TCD gas sensors, VOC gas sensors, temperature sensors, diode detectors, and accelerometers are well known within the art. However, the prior art made of record does not disclose, teach, or reasonably suggest, “determining the first transition event timing comprises detecting a gastric-duodenal transition indicator in a first subset of the recorded readings, the first subset including the recorded TCD gas sensor readings” and “determining the second transition event timing comprises detecting an ileocecal junction indicator in a second subset of the recorded readings, the second subset including the VOC gas sensor readings”, in combination with the other elements of the independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE W KRETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30 AM to 5:30 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, Jason M Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/K.W.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JASON M SIMS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights