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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/24/2026 has been entered.
Preliminary Concerns
Applicant seems to have indicated claims 185 – 199 as having a status of “Withdrawn” as they have set forward a new set of claims. However, applicant has deleted the claim language of claims 185 – 199. It appears that the applicant has actually cancelled the claims, not withdrawn the claims, since the language of the claims has been deleted, however it is unclear what is intended as no status identifiers have been provided for claims 185 – 199. For the purpose of examination, it will be assumed that the status of claims 185 – 199 are “Cancelled”. Applicant is requested to clarify the status of claims 185 – 199 in any subsequent amendment and to use the status identifier of “Cancelled” if the claims are cancelled. See MPEP section 714 for further information. Furthermore, any future amendments to the claim should be made in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121.
Response to Amendments
The amendments to the claims filed on 06/24/2026 have been acknowledged accepted and entered. Previously claims 185 – 191 and 193 – 199 had been indicated as allowable and are assumed to be canceled (see claim objection section above). Claims 200 – 219 have been submitted as a new claim set, and now claims 200 – 219 are still currently pending. Furthermore, the amendments to the drawings have been accepted and entered.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“a communication module; … wherein the communication module is positioned within or external to the camera, … wherein the communication module is configured to transfer image data captured by the camera to a computing device” in claim 1. Furthermore, the examiner notes that as per paragraph [0070] in the specification, the communication module is understood to comprise any system, hardware, software, protocol or format for exchanging information being wireless or wired connection.
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 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 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) 200, 205 – 207, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roth; Hermann et al, (ES2867895T3; Translated via Espacenet; hereinafter simply referred to as Roth).
Regarding independent claim 200; Roth teaches:
A system comprising: a frame, a reticle, a camera, and a communication module, wherein the communication module is positioned within or external to the camera, and wherein the reticle is coupled to the frame (See ¶ 32, 63, 64, 139 wherein a computer system which receives metadata such as image data over a network (communication module) comprises a reticle (color reference object), a frame (paper or plastic with which the color reference object is placed on/coupled) and a camera, ‘140’ in figure 2, wherein the network is external to the camera).
wherein the communication module is configured to transfer image data captured by the camera to a computing device, wherein the reticle is configured to provide an imaging reference within an image field (See ¶ 139, 63, 64 wherein the mobile computer system (computing device) receives image data from a camera via a network (communication module) and wherein the reticle is configured to provide an imaging reference within an image field being the color references on the color reference object)
wherein the reticle is configured to provide the imaging reference for one or more imaging parameter standardization operations comprising calibration, spatial alignment, dimensional analysis, particle sizing, color normalization, or image correction (See ¶ 63, 195 wherein the reticle (color reference object) provides an imaging reference for imaging parameter standardization operations comprising the normalization of colors (color normalization), wherein only one of the image parameter standardization operations is required to be taught by the prior art).
and wherein the reticle is configured to enable measurement of rectal effluent parameters. (See ¶ 63, 47, 64, 117, 72 wherein the reticle (color reference object) is used to enable measurement of rectal effluent (excrement) parameters).
Regarding dependent claim 205; Roth teaches:
The camera is configured to capture an image comprising the reticle. (See ¶ 63, 64 wherein the camera captures an image comprising the color reference object (reticle)).
Regarding dependent claim 206; Roth teaches:
The camera comprises an illumination source. (See ¶ 178 wherein the camera comprises an illumination source (light sources)).
Regarding dependent claim 207; Roth teaches:
The illumination source is configured to illuminate the reticle. (See ¶ 178, 202, 63 wherein the illumination source (light sources) are used to illuminate the reticle (color reference object)).
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 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 of this title, 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 201 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth; Hermann et al. (ES2867895T3; Translated via Espacenet; hereinafter simply referred to as Roth) in view of Bodor; Zoltan et al. (US 8382657 B1; hereinafter simply referred to as Bodor).
Regarding dependent claim 201; Roth teaches:
The frame is configured to support the reticle such that the reticle remains in a fixed relative position during image acquisition. (See ¶ 64 wherein the color reference object frame being the paper or plastic strip, has the color reference object (reticle) placed on it, keeping the reticle in a fixed relative position (positioned in frame, besides the feces)).
Roth does not explicitly disclose the frame is configured to support the camera such that the camera remains in a fixed relative position during image acquisition.
However, Bodor teaches of the frame is configured to support the camera such that the camera remains in a fixed relative position during image acquisition. (See Col 4, Lines 1 – 19, Col 1 Lines 13 – 37, Figure 1, wherein the frame (endoscope support stand ‘20’ in figure 1) is configured to support the camera to keep the camera in a fixed relative position during image capture).
As taught by Bodor the frame keeping the camera in a fixed relative position allows for different relative positions to be chosen for the image capture. (See figure 3 and Col 4, Lines 38 – 48 wherein the endoscope support stand allows for the camera to be in a fixed relative position being pivoted away from angled position ‘96’ in figure 3 during image capture). As both the teachings of Roth and Bodor deal with the technical field of image processing regarding the use of color references, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Roth with Bodor to teach of the frame is configured to support the camera such that the camera remains in a fixed relative position during image acquisition in order for different relative positions to be chosen for the image capture.
Claims 202 – 204 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth; Hermann et al. (ES2867895T3; Translated via Espacenet; hereinafter simply referred to as Roth) in view of Hylen; Steven et al. (US 6167206 A; hereinafter simply referred to as Hylen).
Regarding dependent claim 202; Roth does not explicitly disclose:
The reticle is disposed on a low-reflectance surface.
However, Hylen teaches of the reticle is disposed on a low-reflectance surface. (See Col 32, Lines 28 – 56 wherein the reticle (focusing reticle) is disposed on a low-reflectance surface (anti-reflection coating surface)).
As taught by Hylen the imaging apparatus comprising a reticle disposed on a low-reflectance surface allows for the projected image to be observed through an eyepiece. (See Col 32, Lines 28 – 56, wherein a photographer is able to see the projected image through an eyepiece via the imaging system comprising a reticle disposed on a low-reflectance surface). As both the teachings of Roth and Hylen deal with the technical field of image processing regarding the use of reticles for image capture, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Roth with Hylen to teach of the reticle is disposed on a low-reflectance surface in order for the image to be seen via an eyepiece by the user.
Regarding dependent claim 203; Roth in view of Hylen teaches:
The low-reflectance surface is configured to reduce glare and camera-angle dependence during imaging (See Hylen Col 32, Lines 28 – 56 wherein the glare is reduced (anti reflection coating reducing glare) and the angle dependence is reduced due to the reduction in glare).
Regarding dependent claim 204; Roth in view of Hylen teaches:
The low-reflectance surface comprises a matte background (See Hylen Col 32, Lines 28 – 56 wherein the low-reflectance background is a matte background surface).
Claim 208 – 211, 213 – 216, and 218 - 219 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth; Hermann et al. (ES2867895T3; Translated via Espacenet; hereinafter simply referred to as Roth) in view of Bachwich; Dale et al. (JP-2023510582A; Translated via Espacenet; hereinafter simply referred to as Bachwich).
Regarding dependent claim 208; Roth teaches:
A system comprising: an imaging device, a target, a frame, a reticle, a communication module, a processor and a non-transitory storage medium comprising instructions executable by the processor (See ¶ 32, 63, 64, 139, 165, 163, 243, Figure 1 wherein a computer system which receives metadata such as image data over a network (communication module) comprises a reticle (color reference object), a frame (paper or plastic with which the color reference object is placed on/coupled), a target (same as reticle as per ¶ 14 of the applicant’s specification and figure 2B) and a camera (imaging device), and a processor, ‘106’ in figure 1, that executes the analysis software (instructions), ‘108’ in figure 1, stored in the non-transitory storage medium (ROM)).
wherein the reticle is positioned within or coupled to the target, wherein the target is positioned within an image field of the imaging device (See ¶ 64 wherein the color reference object (reticle/target) is positioned within an image field of the imaging device).
wherein the reticle defines one or more imaging reference features within the image field, (See ¶ 63, 64, 195 wherein the reticle (color reference object) provides an imaging reference feature within in the image field being the color features)
wherein the processor is communicatively coupled to the imaging device, the communication module, and the non-transitory storage medium, and wherein the non-transitory storage medium stores instruction executable by the processor (See ¶ 165, 163, 243, 139, Figures 1 and 2, wherein the processor. ‘106’, in Figure 1, is communicatively coupled to the imaging device (camera/sensors, ‘140’ in figure 2) the communication module (network) and the non-transitory storage medium (memory in form of ROM) stores instructions, analysis software ‘108’ In figure 1, executable by the processor).
wherein the imaging device is configured to capture sequential images of a rectal effluent together with the target (See ¶ 178, 63, 64, wherein sequential images (moving images/video) are captured of the rectal effluent (excrement) together with the color reference object (target/reticle))
wherein the processor is configured to generate digital representations of the sequential images (See ¶ 178 and 180 wherein digital representation of the sequential images are configured (images stored as digital image data))
wherein the processor is configured to generate a processed image from the sequential images, (See ¶ 195 wherein the processor is configured to generate a processed image from the sequential images (processed received digital image created from the sequential images))
wherein the processor is configured to measure, relative to the reticle, a plurality of sample characteristics from the processed image, wherein the plurality of sample characteristics comprises optical characteristics, (See ¶ 63 and 64, 195, 120, 72 wherein relative to the reticle a sample characteristic comprising an optical characteristic (being the optical characteristic of color) is configured from the processed image).
Roth does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to estimate a preparation readiness metric based on the plurality of sample characteristics, wherein the preparation readiness metric corresponds to a standardized score, and wherein the system is configured to provide an assessment indicating whether a medical procedure should proceed.
However, Bachwich teaches of wherein the processor is configured to estimate a preparation readiness metric based on the plurality of sample characteristics, wherein the preparation readiness metric corresponds to a standardized score, and wherein the system is configured to provide an assessment indicating whether a medical procedure should proceed. (See Bachwich ¶ 57 – 63, 30, 45 wherein the processor is configured to estimate a preparation readiness metric (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS)) based on the plurality of sample characteristics (optical characteristics of color, visual texture, and turbidity) wherein the BBPS provides a standardized score, and wherein the assessment on whether a medical procedure (colonic procedure) should proceed is based on the score given by BBPS or other standardized metric such as the Ottawa Bowel Preparation scale, and Harefield Cleaning Scale).
As taught by Bachwich a threshold for the standardized metric that assesses whether a medical procedure should proceed can be adjusted and customized for individual patients and for different procedures. (See ¶ 60 wherein the threshold determining the readiness of the patient may be adjusted for each individual patient and for each procedure). As both the teachings of Roth and Bachwich deal with the technical field of image processing regarding the assessment of excrement, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Roth with Bachwich to teach of wherein the processor is configured to estimate a preparation readiness metric based on the plurality of sample characteristics, wherein the preparation readiness metric corresponds to a standardized score, and wherein the system is configured to provide an assessment indicating whether a medical procedure should proceed in order for the threshold assessing readiness to be adjusted for each individual patient and for each procedure.
Regarding dependent claim 209; Roth in view of Bachwich teaches:
The standardized score is based on Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). (See Bachwich ¶ 57, 60, 61, and 63 wherein the standardized score is based on Boston Bowel Preparation scale (BBPS)).
Regarding dependent claim 210; Roth in view of Bachwich teaches:
The sequential images comprise a pre-bowel image and a post-bowel image. (See Bachwich ¶ 34 wherein the sequential images comprises pre bowel and post bowel images (images captured before during and after formation of intestinal waste)).
Regarding dependent claim 211; Roth in view of Bachwich teaches:
The plurality of sample characteristics includes the particulate characteristics, and wherein the particulate characteristics comprise a particle size distribution. (See Bachwich ¶ 55, 56, 58, 59 wherein the plurality of sample characteristics includes the particulate characteristics comprising particle size distribution (size and uniformity of textons)).
Regarding dependent claim 213; Roth in view of Bachwich teaches:
The plurality of sample characteristics includes the optical characteristics, and wherein the optical characteristics comprise color and turbidity. (See Bachwich ¶ 58, wherein the plurality of sample characteristics includes optical/visual characteristics comprising color and turbidity).
Regarding independent claim 214; claim 214 is a method claim corresponding to claim 208. Please see the discussion of claim 208 above.
Regarding dependent claim 215; Roth in view of Bachwich teaches:
The target comprises a three-dimensional target, the three-dimensional target including a reticle disposed on a low-reflectance background. (See Roth ¶ 63, 64 wherein the target (Color reference object) is a three-dimensional target including a reticle disposed on a low-reflectance background (color reference object comprising three dimensional paper with color points applied on the paper, the paper being a low-reflectance background as it is matte)).
Regarding dependent claim 216; Roth in view of Bachwich teaches:
Measuring the plurality of sample characteristics comprises pixel-intensity analysis normalized using a reference feature defined by the reticle. (See Roth ¶ 195 – 198, 63 and 64, wherein a color normalization procedure occurs using the pixel intensity values of the pixels, comprising the use of color features (reference feature) defined using the color reference object (reticle)).
Regarding dependent claim 218; Roth in view of Bachwich teaches:
The plurality of sample characteristics includes the rheological characteristics, and wherein the rheological characteristics are determined based on particle movement behavior across frames of the sequential images. (See Bachwich ¶ 56 wherein the plurality of characteristics includes rheological characteristics comprising the particle movement behavior across frames of sequential images, being the analyzation of gradual changes in the form of the particles and size/uniformity across subsequent images (across frames)).
Regarding dependent claim 219; Roth in view of Bachwich teaches:
The preparation readiness metric comprises a preparation classification comprising one of unacceptable, poor, fair, or good. (See Bachwich ¶ 63 wherein the preparation readiness metric comprises a numbered scale, wherein each of these numbers or range or numbers correlate to unacceptable, poor, fair, or good).
Claim 212 and 217 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth; Hermann et al. (ES2867895T3; Translated via Espacenet; hereinafter simply referred to as Roth) in view of Bachwich; Dale et al. (JP-2023510582A; Translated via Espacenet; hereinafter simply referred to as Bachwich) further in view of Liu; James et al. (CN 102660988 A; translated via Espacenet; hereinafter simply referred to as Liu).
Regarding dependent claim 212, Roth in view of Bachwich does not explicitly disclose:
The plurality of sample characteristics includes the rheological characteristics, and wherein the rheological characteristics comprise at least one of viscosity and stickiness.
However, Liu teaches of the plurality of sample characteristics includes the rheological characteristics, and wherein the rheological characteristics comprise at least one of viscosity and stickiness. (See ¶ 59 and 77 wherein the plurality of sample characteristics includes the rheological characteristics comprising viscosity (Density of Human excrement which can be used to calculate the viscosity)).
As taught by Liu having one of the plurality of sample characteristics include viscosity allows for check to be done on people’s health based on the analysis of the excrement (including checking the viscosity) allowing for quick and accurate health results. (See ¶ 8 wherein a quick and accurate health detection results are provided based on the assessment of Human Excrement). As both the teachings of Roth in view of Bachwich deal with the technical field of image processing regarding the image capture of Human excrement, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Roth in view of Bachwich with Liu to teach of the plurality of sample characteristics includes the rheological characteristics, and wherein the rheological characteristics comprise at least one of viscosity and stickiness in order for quick and accurate health results to be provided.
Regarding independent claim 217; claim 217 is a method claim corresponding to claim 212. Please see the discussion of claim 212 above.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and is as follows:
U.S. Patent Application No. US 11532396 B2 (Karlin) discloses the examination of images of human stool, via the assessment of color of the patients stool and determining the state of the patient based on the images taken. (Karlin; Col 14, Lines 16 - 60)
Furthermore please See attached PTO-892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm ET.
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, John M Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/AARON W CARTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
