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 .
Response to Amendments
The amendments to the claims filed on 01/23/2026 have been acknowledged, accepted, and entered. Previously claims 185 – 189 were pending. Claims 185 – 189 and 191-198 have been amended and claim 199 has been added. Claims 185 – 199 are now still currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 185 and 198 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 claim rejections of claims 185 and its dependent claims, and claim 198 have been herein withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 191 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 191 – 197 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 191, the claim uses the term “the reticle” in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is the first time the term is used and has no previous explanation or structure associated with it. Therefore, the claim is rejected for lack of antecedent basis and for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the claimed invention.
Claims 192 – 197 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 191.
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.
Claims 191 - 195 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodor; Zoltan et al. (US 8382657 B1; hereinafter simply referred to as Bodor) in view of Roth; Herman et al. (ES 2867895 T3; translated via Espacenet; hereinafter simply referred to as Roth) further in view of Mori; Toshihide et al. (US 20230085953 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Mori) and further in view of Farr; Mina (US 20160073855 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Farr)
Regarding independent claim 191, Bodor teaches:
A disposable assembly comprising a frame and an endoscope coupled to the frame wherein the frame comprises the reticle (See Col 4 Lines 1 – 19, Col 2 Lines 7 – 28 and claim 4 wherein a disposable assembly/portable kit comprises a frame endoscopic support stand coupled to an endoscope coupled to a reticle/optical test target)
Bodor does not explicitly disclose wherein the reticle configured as a three-dimensional target to provide a spatial and color measurement reference within an image field.
However, Roth teaches of the reticle configured as a three-dimensional target to provide a color measurement reference within an image field (See ¶ 63, 64, 117 wherein the color reference object/reticle provides a color measurement reference within an image field wherein the color reference object is three-dimensional);
and wherein the three-dimensional target is configured to enable quantitative measurement of rectal effluent parameters from captured images. (See ¶ 63, 64, 117 wherein the color reference object/three-dimensional target provides quantitative measurement of rectal effluent parameters being the color and brightness values of the effluent/excrement compared to the brightness and color values of the color reference object/three-dimensional target).
As taught by Roth having a reticle configured to provide a color measurement reference of rectal effluent within an image field allows for analysis of physiological states of the gastrointestinal tract of animals using the comparison of the reticle to the excrement. (See ¶ 117 wherein the comparison of the reticle to the excrement of the animal allows for analysis to be conducted on the physiological state of the gastrointestinal tract of the animal). As both the teachings of Roth and Bodor deal with the technical field of image processing 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 Bodor with Roth to teach of the reticle configured as a three-dimensional target to provide a spatial and color measurement reference within an image field and wherein the three-dimensional target is configured to enable quantitative measurement of rectal effluent parameters from captured images in order for the analysis of excrement and the physiological state of the gastrointestinal tract of an animal to be conducted.
Bodor in view of Roth does not explicitly disclose the reticle is configured as a three-dimensional target to provide a spatial measurement reference within an image field.
However, Mori teaches of the reticle is configured as a three-dimensional target to provide a spatial measurement reference within an image field.(See ¶ 107, 100, 111 wherein the marker (reticle) ‘M1’ (as seen in figure 12) defines known spatial measurement reference, being the calibration of positions of objects in a toilet, in an image field wherein the marker is there-dimensional).
As taught by Mori having a marker/reticle providing spatial measurement reference allows for a detection area to be obtained through calibration from the marker. (See ¶ 90 wherein calibration is performed using the reference background mark). As both the teachings of Bodor in view of Roth deal with the technical field of image processing of excrement/effluent, 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 Bodor in view of Roth with Mori to teach of the reticle is configured as a three-dimensional target to provide a spatial measurement reference within an image field in order for calibration and detection of a detection area to be performed.
Bodor in view of Roth and Mori does not explicitly disclose a reusable assembly comprising a detachable Universal Serial Bus (USB) port cable configured to connect the endoscope with an external computing device.
However, Farr teaches of a reusable assembly comprising a detachable Universal Serial Bus (USB) port cable configured to connect the endoscope with an external computing device. (See ¶ 62, 100 wherein a computer/computing device is connected to an endoscope via the use of a USB (universal serial bus) cable).
As taught by Farr the use of a USB cable allows for the endoscope to be connected to a computer and displayed. (See ¶ wherein the connection of the endoscope to a computing device via a USB cable allows for displaying of the video from the endoscope). As both the teachings of Bodor in view of Roth and Mori and Farr deal with the technical field of image processing using an endoscope, 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 Bodor in view of Roth and Mori with Farr to teach of a reusable assembly comprising a detachable Universal Serial Bus (USB) port cable configured to connect the endoscope with an external computing device in order for the video from the endoscope to be displayed.
Regarding dependent claim 193, Bodor in view of Roth, Mori, and Farr teaches:
The frame maintains a fixed optical distance between the endoscope and the reticle (See Bodor Col 5 Lines 49 – 67 wherein the frame maintains affixed optical distance between the endoscope and the reticle being the maintained position once the test target is centered in the field of view of the endoscope)
Regarding dependent claim 194, Bodor in view of Roth, Mori, and Farr teaches:
The Reticle is printed on a matte surface to reduce glare and specular reflection. (See Roth ¶ 64 wherein the reticle is printed on a matte surface being paper)
Regarding dependent claim 195, Bodor in view of Roth, Mori, and Farr teaches:
The reticle acts as a reference point for measuring color measurement. (See Roth ¶ 63, 64, 117 wherein the color reference object/three-dimensional target provides quantitative measurement of rectal effluent parameters being the color and brightness values of the effluent/excrement compared to the brightness and color values of the color reference object/three-dimensional target).
Claims 196 and 197 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodor; Zoltan et al. (US 8382657 B1; hereinafter simply referred to as Bodor) in view of Roth; Herman et al. (ES 2867895 T3; translated via Espacenet; hereinafter simply referred to as Roth) further in view of Mori; Toshihide et al. (US 20230085953 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Mori) further in view of Farr; Mina (US 20160073855 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Farr) and further in view of Kim; Eun Soo et al. (US 20240020832 A1; hereinafter simply referred to as Kim)
Regarding dependent claim 196, Bodor in view of Roth, Mori, and Farr does not teach:
The endoscope is configured to capture an image of a suspension of the rectal effluent.
However, Kim teaches of the endoscope is configured to capture an image of a suspension of the rectal effluent. (See Kim ¶ 73 wherein images are captured of stool/rectal effluent suspended in water via an endoscope).
As taught by Kim taking the suspended rectal effluent/stool images allows for the image data to be used in training models that can measure the state of the large intestine. (See ¶74 wherein the image data of the suspended stool taken with an endoscope is used in a learning model to output information on the state of a large intestine). As both the teachings of Bodor in view of Roth, Mori and Farr deal with the technical field of image processing using an endoscope 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 Bodor in view of Roth, Mori and Farr with Kim to teach of the endoscope is configured to capture an image of a suspension of the rectal effluent in order for the image data to be used in learning models that can output information on the state of the large intestine based on the image data captured.
Regarding dependent claim 197, Bodor in view of Roth, Mori, Farr and Kim teaches:
The endoscope comprises a light emitting diode configured to illuminate the reticle and the rectal effluent simultaneously (See Farr ¶ 72 – 74 wherein the endoscope comprises a light emitting diode and Kim ¶ 73 wherein an endoscope captures pictures of effluent/stool in a toilet and Mori ¶ 44, 45 and 90 wherein the mark/reticle is present in the images captured alongside the effluent/excrement).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 192 is 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.
Claims 185 - 190, 198 and 199 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indications of allowable subject matter.
Regarding independent claim 185, the reason of allowable subject matter is that the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest a method comprising providing a reference background including a reticle on a frame, the reticle defining known spatial and color reference features within an image field for measuring a plurality of parameters; capturing, by an image capturing device, an pre-bowel image and a post-bowel image of rectal effluent along with the reference background; generating digital representations of the pre-bowel image and the post-bowel image; subtracting the pre-bowel image from the post-bowel image to generate a subtracted image isolating effluent content; measuring, relative to the reticle, a plurality of rectal effluent parameters comprising at least two of color, turbidity, particulate concentration, particle size distribution, viscosity, and stickiness from the subtracted image; estimating a readiness level of bowel preparation based on the measured plurality of parameters, wherein the readiness level corresponds to a standardized score; and providing an assessment indicating whether a gastrointestinal medical procedure should proceed.
Regarding independent claim 198, the reason of allowable subject matter is that the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest a system comprising an image capturing device comprising a reference background comprising a reticle defining known spatial and color reference features within an image field, on a frame, a communication module, a processor and a non-transitory storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed, causes the processor to perform the steps of: capturing, by an image capturing device, a pre-bowel image and a post-bowel image of the rectal effluent along with the reference background; generating digital representations of the pre-bowel image and the post-bowel image; subtracting the pre-bowel image from the post-bowel image to generate a subtracted image isolating effluent content; measuring, relative to the reticle, a plurality of rectal effluent parameters comprising at least two of color, turbidity, particulate concentration, particle size distribution, viscosity, and stickiness from the subtracted image; estimating a readiness level of bowel preparation based on the measured plurality of parameters, wherein the readiness level corresponds to a standardized score; and providing an assessment indicating whether a gastrointestinal medical procedure should proceed.
Regarding dependent claim 192, the reason of allowable subject matter is that the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest the reticle provides a reference for calibration, alignment, particle sizing, and color normalization.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
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
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights