DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The action is in response to the application filed on 06/25/2024. Claims 1-21 are pending and examined below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-11, 13-16, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(!) as being anticipated by US 20140296666 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Rabinovitz”).
Regarding claim 1, Rabinovitz teaches a biosensor system (abstract) comprising:
a capsule (4410; paragraph [0290]; Figures 44A-C) comprising:
a housing configured for ingesting in a mammal GI tract and having a longitudinal axis, at least some portions of the housing being transparent to radiation of a sensing wavelength (paragraph [0290]; as shown in Figures 44A-C), and wherein the housing is configured to form an external space which is open to access by fluids (4412; paragraph [0291]; as shown in Figures 44A-C),
a radiation emitter (4413; paragraphs [0291]-[0292]; as shown in Figures 44A-C) and a radiation detector (4414; paragraphs [0291]-[0292]; as shown in Figures 44A-C) arranged to emit radiation into said external space and to detect radiation from said external space, through said transparent portions of the housing (paragraphs [0291]-[0292]; as shown in Figures 44A-C),
a drive circuit for the radiation emitter (paragraphs [0291]-[0292]; as shown in Figures 44A-C) and a signal processing circuit linked to the detector (paragraph [0031]), and
an interface with an antenna for wireless transmission of data to an external device and/or a processor for locally processing and storing detection data (4121/4421; paragraph [0272], [0305]),
wherein the signal processing circuit is configured to determine a severity value for an indication of presence of a particular fluid according to detected signal amplitude for one or more radiation wavelengths (paragraph [0323]; as shown in Figure 49).
Regarding claim 2, Rabinovitz teaches wherein said severity value is an indicator of extent of internal bleeding (paragraph [0323]; as shown in Figure 49).
Regarding claim 3, Rabinovitz teaches wherein the signal processing circuit is configured to determine a proportion of fall in detected signal strength for one or more emitter wavelengths as a parameter in determining the severity value (paragraph [0323]; as shown in Figure 49).
Regarding claim 7, Rabinovitz teaches wherein the external space is formed by a plurality of walls forming an open space within an envelope of the housing; and wherein the housing comprises a base wall facing in a direction having a primarily radial component, and first and second walls substantially facing each other in the longitudinal direction, said walls forming said external space; and wherein the first and second walls are for passage of radiation in the longitudinal direction for absorption detection of material within the external space (as shown in Figure 46B).
Regarding claim 8, Rabinovitz teaches wherein the housing envelope shape is substantially cylindrical with domed ends (as shown in Figures 1-2); but does not explicitly teach wherein the housing forms said external space with a dimension in the longitudinal direction in the range of 2 mm to 7 mm; and wherein the length of the housing in the longitudinal direction is in the range of 15 mm to 30 mm, and its maximum width dimension is in the range of 5 mm to 12 mm.
However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention effectively filed to have the housing forms said external space with a dimension in the longitudinal direction in the range of 2 mm to 7 mm; and wherein the length of the housing in the longitudinal direction is in the range of 15 mm to 30 mm, and its maximum width dimension is in the range of 5 mm to 12 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, Rabinovitz teaches wherein the wireless interface includes an antenna which is mounted in a domed end of the housing; and wherein the antenna is in the form of a spiral with decreasing diameter in a direction towards an end of the housing (paragraph [0144]; Figure 8C).
Regarding claim 10, Rabinovitz teaches wherein the wireless interface includes an antenna which is mounted in a domed end of the housing (paragraph [0144]; Figure 8C); and wherein the antenna is in the form of a spiral with decreasing diameter in a direction towards an end of the housing (paragraph [0144]; Figure 8C); but does not explicitly teach wherein the antenna has a maximum radial dimension in the range of 7.5 mm to 9 mm and it narrows to form an apex with a radial dimension in the range of 2 mm to 4 mm.
However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention effectively filed to have the antenna has a maximum radial dimension in the range of 7.5 mm to 9 mm and it narrows to form an apex with a radial dimension in the range of 2 mm to 4 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11, Rabinovitz teaches wherein the wireless interface comprises RF circuits located physically adjacent the antenna, on a board extending longitudinally; and wherein the signal processing circuit comprises a processor mounted on a circuit board extending longitudinally; and wherein the capsule comprises a power management circuit board mounted transversely across the housing and defining a space for a battery compartment; and wherein the battery compartment is also bounded by a circuit board for the radiation emitter (Figure 8C and associated description).
Regarding claim 13, Rabinovitz teaches wherein the emitter comprises a plurality of emitter devices each adapted to emit at a particular wavelength (paragraph [0353]) and the drive circuit is configured to activate each emitter device according to a time multiplex scheme (paragraphs [0276]-[0277]).
Regarding claim 14, Rabinovitz teaches wherein the emitter comprises a plurality of emitter devices each adapted to emit at a particular wavelength and the drive circuit is configured to activate each emitter device according to a time multiplex scheme (paragraphs [0276]-[0277], [0353]); but does not explicitly teach wherein the time separation between activations is in the range of 2 ms to 5 ms (paragraph [0291]).
Regarding claim 15, Rabinovitz teaches wherein the signal processing circuit is configured to determine an indication of presence of a particular fluid according to a ratio of detected signal for one emitter wavelength to that of another emitter wavelength (paragraphs [0312]-[0313]); and wherein there is a particular ratio threshold for each of a plurality of combinations of radiation wavelengths (paragraphs [0312]-[0313]).
Regarding claim 16, Rabinovitz teaches wherein the signal processing circuit is configured to determine an indication of presence of a particular fluid according to a ratio of detected signal for one emitter wavelength to that of another emitter wavelength; and wherein there is a particular ratio threshold for each of a plurality of combinations of radiation wavelengths (paragraphs [0312]-[0314]); and wherein said combinations include one or more of: red:green, far red:green, red:blue, far red:blue, far red:red (paragraphs [0312]-[0314]).
Regarding claim 20, Rabinovitz teaches further comprising a receiver for receiving and processing radiation signals emitted by the controller of the capsule (paragraphs [0305]-[0306]; Figure 48).
Regarding claim 21, Rabinovitz teaches wherein said receiver includes some of said signal processing circuit (paragraphs [0305]-[0306], [0325]; Figure 48).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabinovitz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20130196443 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Aalders”).
Regarding claim 4, Rabinovitz teaches the capsule capable of emitting a number of different wavelengths (paragraph [0353]), but does not explicitly teach wherein the signal processing circuit is configured to use different light wavelengths to distinguish new blood from old blood.
However, Aalders teaches wherein the signal processing circuit is configured to use different light wavelengths to distinguish new blood from old blood (paragraphs [0073]-[0076]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Rabinovitz, to use different light wavelengths to distinguish new blood from old blood, as taught by Aalders, because doing so allows the user to determine old vs new blood.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabinovitz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20180223324 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Tonks”).
Regarding claim 12, Rabinovitz teaches wherein the radiation emitter comprises one or more LEDs and the detector comprises one or more photo-detectors; and wherein the signal processing circuit is configured to take a plurality of readings for a particular radiation wavelength (paragraphs [0324]-[0326]) but does not explicitly teach to eliminate outliers and to average non-outlier readings.
However, Tonks teaches to eliminate outliers and to average non-outlier readings (paragraphs [0004]-[0007], [0055], [0061]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Rabinovtiz, to eliminate outliers and average non outlier readings, as taught by Tonks, because doing so excludes aberrant readings.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabinovitz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20110208004 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Feingold”).
Regarding claim 18, Rabinovitz does not explicitly teach wherein the signal processing circuit is configured to set an intensity for the light source; and wherein the signal processing circuit is configured to set an intensity at a particular time, such as by limiting light emitter drive current.
However, Feingold teaches wherein the signal processing circuit is configured to set an intensity for the light source; and wherein the signal processing circuit is configured to set an intensity at a particular time, such as by limiting light emitter drive current (paragraphs [0048]-[0052], [0058]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Rabinovitz, to adjust intensity of the light sources, as taught by Feingold, because controlling optical output permits detector signal level to be mainted while limiting unnecessary battery consumption.
Regarding claim 19, Rabinovitz does not explicitly teach wherein the signal processing circuit is configured to set an intensity for the light source; and wherein the signal processing circuit is configured to control average light emission intensity over a period of time by controlling length of ON durations; and wherein the signal processing circuit comprises a light sensor and the processor is configured to process feedback signals from said sensor to adjust light emitter output.
However, Feingold teaches wherein the signal processing circuit is configured to set an intensity for the light source; and wherein the signal processing circuit is configured to control average light emission intensity over a period of time by controlling length of ON durations; and wherein the signal processing circuit comprises a light sensor and the processor is configured to process feedback signals from said sensor to adjust light emitter output (paragraphs [0048]-[0052], [0056]-[0058]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Rabinovitz, to optical feedback control, as taught by Feingold, because the feedback arrangement maintains detected optical intensity while reducing illumination and power consumption.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art does not teach or suggest “wherein the signal processing circuit is configured to use different light wavelengths to distinguish new blood from old blood; and wherein the signal processing circuit is configured to use a ratio of two wavelengths to indicate old blood and a ratio of different wavelengths to indicate fresh blood” in combination with the limitations of the claims upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art does not teach or suggest “wherein the signal processing circuit is configured to use different light wavelengths to distinguish new blood from old blood; and wherein the signal processing circuit is configured to use a ratio of two wavelengths to indicate old blood and a ratio of different wavelengths to indicate fresh blood; and wherein the signal processing circuit is configured to use a ratio of FR/R to indicate old blood and a ratio of FR/G for fresh blood” in combination with the limitations of the claims upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art does not teach or suggest “wherein the signal processing circuit is configured to determine an indication of presence of a particular fluid according to determining an angle as an arctan of a wavelength difference divided by a difference in detected signal, and comparing said determined angle with a threshold angle” in combination with the limitations of the claims upon which it depends.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABID A MUSTANSIR whose telephone number is (408)918-7647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 am to 6 pm Pacific Time.
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 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.
/ABID A MUSTANSIR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
