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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for domestic benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12185906 in view of Shimizu USPN Shimizu USPN 2009/0203964.
Instant Application
Pat. # 12185906
Comments
1. A swallowable capsule apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memory storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the swallowable capsule apparatus at least to perform: capturing in-vivo images over time of at least a portion of a gastrointestinal tract (GIT) of a person;
1. A system for a capsule endoscopy procedure, comprising: a capsule device configured to capture in-vivo images over time of at least a portion of a gastrointestinal tract (GIT) of a person; a wearable device configured to be secured to the person, the wearable device configured to receive at least some of the in-vivo images from the capsule device, to store the received images,
Substantially same as instant recitation.
pruning, over time, at least a portion of the in-vivo images; and
and to communicate at least some of the received images to a communication device at a same location as the wearable device; and a storage medium storing machine-executable instructions configured to execute on a computing system remote from the location of the wearable device, the instructions, when executed, cause the computing system to: receive communicated images from the communication device during the capsule endoscopy procedure, during the capsule endoscopy procedure, perform online processing of the communicated images received from the communication device, and
Pruning is obvious over Shimizu. See art rejection below.
communicating images of the in-vivo images, which were not pruned, to a receiver device external to the person.
communicate, during the capsule endoscopy procedure, a result of the online processing with at least one healthcare provider device.
Communication of images is disclosed. Pruning is obvious over Shimizu. See art rejection below.
Instant Application
Pat. # 12185906
Comments
8. A processor-implemented method in a swallowable capsule apparatus, the method comprising: capturing, by the swallowable capsule apparatus, in-vivo images over time of at least a portion of a gastrointestinal tract (GIT) of a person;
5. A method for a capsule endoscopy procedure, comprising: capturing in-vivo images over time, by a capsule device, of at least a portion of a gastrointestinal tract (GIT) of a person; receiving and storing, by a wearable device configured to be secured to the person, at least some of the in-vivo images from the capsule device; communicating, by the wearable device, at least some of the received images to a communication device at a same location as the wearable device; receiving during the capsule endoscopy procedure, by a computing system remote from the location of the wearable device,
Substantially same as instant recitation.
pruning, by the swallowable capsule apparatus over time, at least a portion of the in-vivo images; and
Pruning is obvious over Shimizu. See art rejection below.
communicating, by the swallowable capsule apparatus, images of the in-vivo images, which were not pruned, to a receiver device external to the person.
communicated images from the communication device; performing, by the computing system during the capsule endoscopy procedure, online processing of the communicated images received from the communication device; and communicating, by the computing system during the capsule endoscopy procedure, a result of the online processing with at least one healthcare provider device.
Communication of images is disclosed. Pruning is obvious over Shimizu. See art rejection below.
Instant Application
Pat. # 12185906
Comments
15. A non-transitory processor-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors in a swallowable capsule apparatus, cause the swallowable capsule apparatus at least to perform: capturing in-vivo images over time of at least a portion of a gastrointestinal tract (GIT) of a person;
5. A method for a capsule endoscopy procedure, comprising: capturing in-vivo images over time, by a capsule device, of at least a portion of a gastrointestinal tract (GIT) of a person; receiving and storing, by a wearable device configured to be secured to the person, at least some of the in-vivo images from the capsule device;
Substantially same as instant recitation.
pruning, over time, at least a portion of the in-vivo images; and
Pruning is obvious over Shimizu. See art rejection below.
communicating images of the in-vivo images, which were not pruned, to a receiver device external to the person.
communicating, by the wearable device, at least some of the received images to a communication device at a same location as the wearable device; receiving during the capsule endoscopy procedure, by a computing system remote from the location of the wearable device, communicated images from the communication device; performing, by the computing system during the capsule endoscopy procedure, online processing of the communicated images received from the communication device; and communicating, by the computing system during the capsule endoscopy procedure, a result of the online processing with at least one healthcare provider device.
Communication of images is disclosed. Pruning is obvious over Shimizu. See art rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagase USPN 2010/0094104 in view of Shimizu USPN 2009/0203964.
Consider claim 1, Nagase discloses a swallowable capsule apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memory storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the swallowable capsule apparatus at least to perform (see fig. 1): capturing in-vivo images over time of at least a portion of a gastrointestinal tract (GIT) of a person (see fig. 4: S205); “…capsule endoscope 2 is introduced into organs of the subject and sequentially captures in-vivo images of the subject at predetermined intervals (intervals of, for example, 0.25 second) while moving in the organs by a peristaltic movement and the like. Then, the capsule endoscope 2 wirelessly transmits the in-vivo images to the receiving device 10 sequentially…”).
However, Nagase does not explicitly disclose pruning, over time, at least a portion of the in-vivo images and communicating the images which were not pruned.
In the related field of endeavor, Shimizu disclose pruning, over time, at least a portion of the in-vivo images and communicating the images which were not pruned (see [0049]: “… receiver 12 wirelessly transmits selected image data to the processor 20, namely image data of necessary frame images other than unnecessary frame images useless in the diagnosis, the selected image data being selected by removing part of image data of a substantially common body part…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter to combine capsule endoscopy of Nagase and the removing of unnecessary frame images of Shimizu to arrive at the instant recitation in order to reduce data storage.
Examiner Note: See detailed rejection analysis of independent claim 1 for the remaining independent claim rejections.
Consider claim 8, Nagase discloses a processor-implemented method in a swallowable capsule apparatus, the method comprising: capturing, by the swallowable capsule apparatus, in-vivo images over time of at least a portion of a gastrointestinal tract (GIT) of a person (see figs. 1 and 4);
However, Nagase does not explicitly disclose pruning, over time, at least a portion of the in-vivo images and communicating the images which were not pruned.
In the related field of endeavor, Shimizu disclose pruning, over time, at least a portion of the in-vivo images and communicating the images which were not pruned (see [0049]: “… receiver 12 wirelessly transmits selected image data to the processor 20, namely image data of necessary frame images other than unnecessary frame images useless in the diagnosis, the selected image data being selected by removing part of image data of a substantially common body part…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter to combine capsule endoscopy of Nagase and the removing of unnecessary frame images of Shimizu to arrive at the instant recitation in order to reduce data storage.
Consider claim 15, Nagase discloses a non-transitory processor-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors in a swallowable capsule apparatus, cause the swallowable capsule apparatus at least to perform: capturing in-vivo images over time of at least a portion of a gastrointestinal tract (GIT) of a person (see figs. 1 and 4);
However, Nagase does not explicitly disclose pruning, over time, at least a portion of the in-vivo images and communicating the images which were not pruned.
In the related field of endeavor, Shimizu disclose pruning, over time, at least a portion of the in-vivo images and communicating the images which were not pruned (see [0049]: “… receiver 12 wirelessly transmits selected image data to the processor 20, namely image data of necessary frame images other than unnecessary frame images useless in the diagnosis, the selected image data being selected by removing part of image data of a substantially common body part…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter to combine capsule endoscopy of Nagase and the removing of unnecessary frame images of Shimizu to arrive at the instant recitation in order to reduce data storage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: See respective claimed recitations.
Conclusion
Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
Examiner should be directed to Fayyaz Alam whose telephone number is (571) 270-1102. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:30am to 7:00pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Oneal Mistry can be reached on (313) 446-4912. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) or 703-305-3028.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
Fayyaz Alam
February 20, 2026
/FAYYAZ ALAM/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674