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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
GROUND 1: Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0071710 to Gazdzinkski.
In regard to claim 1, Gazdzinkski discloses a capsule endoscope, comprising:
an enclosure, comprising a main body portion and end portions located at both ends of the main body portion (see Figs. 3-5); a hardware component 2530 disposed within an accommodating space enclosed by the enclosure, wherein the hardware component comprises a battery component, the battery component is disposed in a space corresponding to the main body portion (see para 0321); a first thermal insulation material layer 2717 disposed between the enclosure and the battery component; and
a sealing layer 2712 disposed between the hardware component and the first thermal insulation material layer (See Figs. 27a-d and paras 0339-0358).
In regard to claim 2, Gazdzinkski discloses a capsule endoscope, wherein the hardware component further comprises a circuit control component 520, and the first thermal insulation material layer is disposed between the enclosure and the circuit control component (See Fig. 5 and paras 0166).
In regard to claim 3, Gazdzinkski discloses a capsule endoscope, wherein the thickness of the sealing layer is between 0.01 mm-0.02mm (See Figs. 27a-d and paras 0339-0358).
In regard to claim 4, Gazdzinkski discloses a capsule endoscope, wherein the accommodating space enclosed by the enclosure is a vacuum space (See Figs. 3-5 and paras 0339-0358).
In regard to claim 5, Gazdzinkski discloses a capsule endoscope, wherein the first thermal insulation material layer comprises insulating glue, aerogel material, or solid insulating material (See Figs. 27a-d and paras 0339-0358).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
GROUND 2: Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0071710 to Gazdzinkski.
In regard to claims 6-8, Gazdzinkski discloses a capsule endoscope compriing a first thermal insulation material layer and sealing layer but are silent with respect to the specific thickness, hardness and/or shape thereof (See Figs. 27a-d and paras 0339-0358). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to vary the size of the insulating layer, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Likewise, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have multiple protrusions along the insulting layer of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
GROUND 3: Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0071710 to Gazdzinkski in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0208539 to Blunier et al.
In regard to claims 9-10, Gazdzinkski discloses a capsule endoscope comprising an image acquisition component and a second thermal insulation material layer (See Figs. 27a-d and paras 0339-0358) but is silent with respect to wherein the second thermal insulation material layer is disposed on the inner wall at the end portion of the main body portion, and the transparent thermal insulation material layer comprises metal organic ester aerogel. Blunier et al. teach of an analogous capsule endoscope wherein insulation 14 may be disposed in front of the camera 4, if it has an opening for the lens of the camera 4 or is transparent in this region (See Fig. 9 and para 0142). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the insulation of Gazdzinkski to extend in front of the camera to provide more complete safety and battery utilization as taught by Blunier et al. and is well known in the art.
GROUND 4: Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. CN 211432795 to Wang in view of JP 2002025519 to Hayashi.
In regard to claims 1-3 and 5, Wang discloses a capsule endoscope, comprising: an enclosure, comprising a main body portion and end portions located at both ends of the main body portion (see Figs. 1-3); a hardware component 13 disposed within an accommodating space enclosed by the enclosure, wherein the hardware component comprises a battery component, the battery component is disposed in a space corresponding to the main body portion; a first thermal insulation material layer 17 (see para 0018-022) but are silent with respect to the insulation layer being disposed between the enclosure and the battery component and a sealing layer disposed between the hardware component and the first thermal insulation material layer. Hayashi teaches of an analogous device comprising a a battery storage container (see para 0008-0010 and 0077). A heat insulator (i.e., the first heat insulation material layer) is formed on part or all of the inner side of the described battery storage container, thereby solving the technical problems that "the heat generated inside a battery cannot be utilized, the promotion of the reaction in the battery is hindered, and the sufficient discharge time cannot be obtained". The battery may be an alkaline battery such as a silver oxide battery, a nickel-zinc battery, a nickel-cadmium battery, and a nickel-hydrogen battery. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the insulation of Wang to extend to discharge time of the
storage component so as to prolong the discharge time and provide more complete safety and battery utilization as taught by Hayashi.
In regard to claim 4, Wang discloses a capsule endoscope, wherein the accommodating space enclosed by the enclosure is a vacuum space (See Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J KASZTEJNA whose telephone number is (571)272-6086. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7AM--3PM.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571-272-6928. 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.
/MATTHEW J KASZTEJNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993