DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 10 December 2025. Claims 1-20 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-20.
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 Objections
Claims 1, 2, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 1 recites “the trap for” in line 4. Examiner recommends amending to –the trap is configured for—
-Claim 2 recites “the main body” in line 3. Examiner recommends amending to “the main tubular body.”
-Claim 11 recites “the analysis” in line 6. Examiner recommends amending to –the analysis of the image data—
-Claim 15 recites “the analysis” in line 19. Examiner recommends amending to –the analysis of the image data—
-Claims 16, 17, 18 recite “the matter”. Examiner recommends amending to –the biological matter—
-Claim 16 recites “smaller or equal than” in line 3. Examiner recommends amending to –smaller than or equal to—
-Claim 16 recites “while in the longitudinal direction” in line 5. Examiner recommends amending to –and while in the longitudinal direction,—
-Claim 17 recites “smaller or equal than” in lines 2-3. Examiner recommends amending to –smaller than or equal to—
-Claim 18 recites “the magnetic force” in lines 1-2. Examiner recommends amending to –the radial magnetic force—
-Claim 20 recites “the mechanical device for performing” in line 4. Examiner recommends amending to –the mechanical device to perform—
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
-Claims 1 and 13 recites “a mechanical device” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is for providing a relative movement between the receptable zone and the microscopic device. According to the specification the mechanical device includes [Pg. 14, lines 4-6; “An example of a mechanical device is shown as a mechanical stage 200. The mechanical stage 200 may comprise a lower linear stage 210 and an upper linear stage 220 that bears a platform 230.”] and equivalents thereof.
-Claim 11 recites “a controller” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is for controlling the mechanical device for performing the relative movement between the receptable zone and the microscopic device. According to the specification the controller includes a computer system, image recognition software, input-output device, gamepad [Pgs. 20-21, lines 26-3] and equivalents thereof.
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 § 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 6, 15 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.
-Claim 6 recites “optimal trapping magnetic fields” in line 3. It is unclear what optimal trapping magnetic fields encompasses. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 15 recites “operating the mechanical device” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 2, 5, 10-16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawano (U.S. 20100001592).
Regarding Claim 1, Kawano teaches a magnetic trap system comprising: a microscopic device, comprising a principal axis extending in a longitudinal direction [Fig. 54, element 401 (capsule endoscope)] and [Fig. 54, element 401] and [0248]; a trap comprising one or more magnets [Fig. 54, element 403 (capsule guiding device), 402 (position detection coil)]—where the coils are interpreted to be the electromagnets responsible for providing electromagnetic fields to the capsule, the trap for magnetically confining the microscopic device in a confinement region by an interaction of the one or more magnets of the trap and one or more respective magnets of the microscopic device [0189; “The needle 427 is connected to a lower end of the rotationally-moving magnet 6, …the magnetic-field generating unit 403 that generates a magnetic field allowing the rotationally-moving magnet 6 to rotate is placed outside of the subject swallowing the capsule endoscope 401 …”] ; a receptable zone within the trap for receiving biological matter [Fig. 75(4), elements 2a (guiding area), 611 (cutting blade) and 612 (living-body tissue)], the receptable zone comprising the confinement region [Fig. 75(4), element 2a (guiding area)] and [0112; “As an inner space of the housing 2, a guiding area 2a is provided in the housing 2.”]; and a mechanical device for providing a relative movement between the receptable zone and the microscopic device [0112; “The length in the axial direction of the guiding area 2a is set such that the right end of the moving member 5 does not protrude when the moving member 5 is retracted toward the inside of the magnetic actuator 1.”]; wherein the trap is hollow about a longitudinal axis and comprises the receptable zone [0189; “The rotationally-moving magnet 6 is rotatable in a radial direction of the local injection mechanism 430, and is movable in a vertical direction inside a guiding area 2a, which is a hollow area provided in the local injection mechanism 430.”]; wherein the trap is configured to provide a magnetic field gradient configured to confine the microscopic device to the confinement region of the trap [0187; “a magnetic-field generating unit 403 provided around the subject and capable of generating a three-dimensional rotating magnetic field;”]; and wherein an orientation of a magnetic field in the confinement region of the trap is configured to align the principal axis of the microscopic device in the confinement region with the longitudinal axis or with an axis that does not deviate more than 30° from the longitudinal axis [Fig. 3, elements 2 and θ] and [0115; “Furthermore, with the angle θ formed by the coils 3, 4 and the straight line lg indicative of the magnetization direction being equal to or greater than 5 degrees and equal to or smaller than 30 degrees, the rotationally-moving magnet 6 can be stably rotated with a relatively small magnetic field strength, on the order of "G1", of the magnetic field applied by the coils 3, 4.”].
Regarding Claim 2, Kawano teaches wherein the microscopic device has a tubular, main body [Fig. 74, element 601] and a tip, that extends from the main body [Fig. 74, element 427].
Regarding Claim 5, Kawano teaches wherein the microscopic device is configured as a robot for medical or surgical treatment or diagnosis [0307]—discusses controlling the capsule externally via the wireless control unit to inject a medicine and use a treatment mechanism or collect a sample for biopsy/diagnosis on the inside of a living body.
Regarding Claim 10, Kawano teaches further comprising a medical imaging device adapted for monitoring the microscopic device in the confinement region [Fig. 55, element 422 (imaging system)].
Regarding Claim 11, Kawano teaches including a controller for controlling the mechanical device for performing the relative movement between the receptable zone and the microscopic device, wherein the controller is configured to receive image data of images taken by the imaging device, to analyze the image data, and to control the mechanical device in dependence of the image data and a result of the analysis [0187]—discusses use of control unit to control the guiding system and receive image data to make decisions and adjustments on magnetic field and position parameters.
Regarding Claim 12, Kawano teaches wherein the relative movement provided by the mechanical device is any one of a longitudinal motion, a radial motion and a rotation with respect to the longitudinal axis of the trap [0112] and [Fig. 3 and 5]—which describe and depict a rotation about a central axis of the magnetic actuator with [0248]—further describing the rotation being about a longitudinal axis of the capsule endoscope.
Regarding Claim 13, Kawano teaches a method of navigating a microscopic device in biological matter [0008] and [0187], the method comprising: providing a magnetic trap system [Fig. 54], the magnetic trap system comprising: a microscopic device, comprising a principal axis extending in a longitudinal direction [Fig. 54, element 401] and [0248]; a trap comprising one or more magnets [Fig. 54, element 403 (capsule guiding device), 402 (position detection coil)]—where the coils are interpreted to be the electromagnets responsible for providing electromagnetic fields to the capsule, the trap for magnetically confining the microscopic device in a confinement region by an interaction of the one or more magnets of the trap and one or more respective magnets of the microscopic device [0189; “The needle 427 is connected to a lower end of the rotationally-moving magnet 6, …the magnetic-field generating unit 403 that generates a magnetic field allowing the rotationally-moving magnet 6 to rotate is placed outside of the subject swallowing the capsule endoscope 401 …”] ; a receptable zone for receiving biological matter [Fig. 75(4), elements 2a (guiding area), 611 (cutting blade) and 612 (living-body tissue)], the receptable zone comprising the confinement region [Fig. 75(4), element 2a (guiding area)] and [0112]; and a mechanical device for providing a relative movement between the receptable zone and the microscopic device [0112]; wherein the trap is hollow about a longitudinal axis and comprises the receptable zone [0189]; wherein the trap is configured to provide a magnetic field gradient configured to confine the microscopic device to the confinement region of the trap [0187]; and wherein an orientation of a magnetic field in the confinement region of the trap is configured to align the principal axis of the microscopic device in the confinement region with the longitudinal axis or with an axis that does not deviate more than 30° from the longitudinal axis [0115].
Regarding Claim 14, Kawano teaches the method further comprising: positioning the biological matter with the microscopic device inserted therein in the receptable zone [0241]; and performing the relative movement between the receptable zone and the microscopic device by operating the mechanical device, thus causing the microscopic device to undergo navigation in the biological matter [0241].
Regarding Claim 15, Kawano teaches further comprising providing an imaging device [Fig. 55, element 422 (imaging system)], adapted for monitoring the microscopic device in the confinement region [0178], the method further comprising: receiving a navigation path, the navigation path describing a desired relative movement of the microscopic device relative to the biological matter [0211], wherein operating the mechanical device for performing the relative movement between the receptable zone and the microscopic device is performed in order to cause the microscopic device to undergo navigation in accordance with the navigation path in the biological matter [0211], the method further comprising during the navigation: receiving image data of images taken by the imaging device from the confinement region [0266], receiving a desired spatial location of the microscopic device relative to the biological matter in accordance with the navigation path [0211], and analyzing the image data for obtaining an actual spatial location of the microscopic device relative to the biological matter, and in case of a mismatch between the actual spatial location and the desired spatial location, operating the mechanical device in dependence of the image data and a result of the analysis for correcting the actual spatial location of the microscopic device, the correcting resulting in a matching of the actual spatial location of the microscopic device with the desired spatial location [Fig. 44, elements P1, P2, P3] and [0168].
Regarding Claim 16, Kawano teaches the magnetic field of the trap and the microscopic device being adapted to the biological matter such that in the confinement region a radial magnetic force acting onto the microscopic device is smaller or equal than a friction force acting between the matter and the microscopic device in a radial direction [0254]—reference to the repulsive and attractive forces action in coordination with the high friction member to generate a magnetization direction with the friction and restraining force caused by the friction member, while in the longitudinal direction a magnetic force acting onto the microscopic device has a value in between zero and a value which is larger than the friction force acting between the matter and the microscopic device [0260]—describes switching the magnetization direction from the radial direction to the longitudinal axis direction.
Regarding Claim 20, Kawano teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium, carrying computer executable instructions executable by a processor controlling the magnetic trap system of claim 1 [0187], wherein an execution of the instructions causes the processor to control the mechanical device for performing the relative movement between the receptable zone and the microscopic device [0187].
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.
Claim(s) 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawano (U.S. 20100001592) in view of Shalon (U.S. 20200138416).
Regarding Claim 3, Kawano is silent on wherein the microscopic device has an aspect ratio of an overall length of the microscopic device to a diameter of the main body of between 0.1 and 1000. Shalon teaches wherein the microscopic device has an aspect ratio of an overall length of the microscopic device to a diameter of the main body of between 0.1 and 1000 [0007].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select this range in diameter as taught by Shalon considering protrusion and retraction dimensions as suggested by Kawano as Kawano discusses the guiding area having a diameter corresponding to diameter of the magnets to avoid protrusion when the device is actuated [0112] with Shalon because Shalon teaches navigating the capsule within the intestines and small lumens inside the body [0260].
Regarding Claim 4, Kawano is silent on wherein the microscopic device has a length of between 0.1 and 100 mm and one of a width and a diameter of between 0.001 and 5.0 mm. Shalon teaches wherein the microscopic device has a length of between 0.1 and 100 mm and one of a width and a diameter of between 0.001 and 5.0 mm [0255].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider overall capsule size as taught by Shalon considering anatomical and GI tract shape/size as suggested by Kawano as Kawano discusses capsule size and shape [0112] with Shalon because Shalon teaches reduction in capsule size to avoid GI tract obstructions [0254].
Claim(s) 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawano (U.S. 20100001592) in view of Sitti (U.S. 20130303847).
Regarding Claim 6, Kawano is silent on wherein the one or more magnets of the trap are a plurality of permanent magnets adapted for providing optimal trapping magnetic fields. Sitti teaches wherein the one or more magnets of the trap are a plurality of permanent magnets adapted for providing optimal trapping magnetic fields [Figs. 5A-B, element B (Spherical EPM)] and [0107].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use permanent magnets as taught by Sitti to allow for propulsion and direction tuning of the capsule as suggested by Kawano as Kawano discusses sophisticated and efficient guiding of the capsule endoscope [0263] with Sitti because Sitti teaches covering surface location in a given limited 3D working space inside the stomach to allow for controllability [0107].
Regarding Claim 7, Kawano is silent on wherein the trap is configured to provide the magnetic field within the trap, the magnetic field having at least one of the following properties: a) the magnetic field vectors in a center of the confinement region being parallel to the longitudinal axis or being parallel to the axis that does not deviate more than 30°, from the longitudinal axis. Sitti teaches wherein the trap is configured to provide the magnetic field within the trap [0114]—describes the MASCE being within the magnetic field, the magnetic field having at least one of the following properties: a) the magnetic field vectors in a center of the confinement region being parallel to the longitudinal axis or being parallel to the axis that does not deviate more than 30° [0117], from the longitudinal axis [Fig. 20]—depicting results between surface slopes of 0 and 30°.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to account for magnetic field vectors and field degree variance as taught by Sitti to generate a desired magnetic field as suggested by Kawano as Kawano discusses generating a three-dimensional rotating magnetic field [0187] with Sitti because Sitti teaches the use of such device in a 3D region of the GI tract [0005].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawano (U.S. 20100001592) in view of Shimizu (WO 2020106754).
Regarding Claim 8, Kawano teaches wherein the trap is configured to provide the magnetic field gradient using a first magnetic field and wherein the microscopic device is configured to provide a second magnetic field, [0117]—describing radial magnetic fields and attraction/repulsion forces exhibited when the device is in use. Kawano is silent on wherein the first and second magnetic fields comprise at least one of the following properties an absolute value of a radial force magnetically exerted onto the microscopic device in the confinement region being less than 10 mN. Shimizu teaches wherein the first and second magnetic fields comprise at least one of the following properties an absolute value of a radial force magnetically exerted onto the microscopic device in the confinement region being less than 10 mN [Pg. 130-131, lines 29-6].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the forces delivered in relation to epithelial delivery as taught by Shimizu to generate magnetic fields in plural directions as suggested by Kawano as Kawano discusses generating a three-dimensional rotating magnetic fields [0189] with Shimizu because Shimizu teaches the use of these specific forces to deliver therapeutic substances to the GI tract of the subject [Pg. 265, lines 1-11].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawano (U.S. 20100001592) in view of Pittiglio et al. Magnetic Levitation for Soft-Tethered Capsule Colonoscopy Actuated with a Single Permanent Magnet: A Dynamic Control Approach, 4(2): 1224-1231, 2019.
Regarding Claim 9, Kawano is silent on wherein the trap and the microscopic device are matched to each other in that the confinement region has at least one of a length of between 1 time to 500 times, a microscopic device length along the principal axis and a width of between 1 time and 500 times, a microscopic device width perpendicular to the principal axis. Pittiglio teaches wherein the trap and the microscopic device are matched to each other in that the confinement region has at least one of a length of between 1 time to 500 times, a microscopic device length along the principal axis and a width of between 1 time and 500 times, a microscopic device width perpendicular to the principal axis [Fig. 3, (IPM vs. EPM)]-showing the principal axis and [Pg. 8, Paragraph 3; “The IPM (axially magnetized, 21 mm diameter, 19 mm length, 15 g mass) is actuated using an EPM (axially magnetized, 101.6 mm diameter and length, 1.48T, N52) at the End Effector (EE) of a serial manipulator (KUKA LBR Med R8202). Localization [24] and control loop both run at approximately 100 Hz. The error in the dipole models were computed by considering [27] and the conditions during experiments.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select dimensional ratios as taught by Pittiglio to accommodate colon, stomach and GI complexities as suggested by Kawano as Kawano discusses sophisticated and efficient guiding of the capsule endoscope [0263] with Pittiglio because Pittiglio teaches facilitating effective locomotion in the presence of obstacles and complex colon geometries [Pg. 8, Paragraph 1].
Claim(s) 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawano (U.S. 20100001592) in view of Wang et al. Study of Frictional Properties of the Small Intestine for Design of Active Capsule Endoscope, Pgs. 1-6., Department of Electronics Engineering Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2006.
Regarding Claim 17, Kawano is silent on wherein the radial magnetic force acting onto the microscopic device is to a factor of between 0.25 and 0.9 smaller or equal than the friction force acting between the matter and the microscopic device in the radial direction. Wang et al. teaches wherein the radial magnetic force acting onto the microscopic device is to a factor of between 0.25 and 0.9, smaller or equal than the friction force acting between the matter and the microscopic device in the radial direction [Pg. 4, “Discussion”]—references friction coefficients and considerations given contact areas interpreted to be the small intestine along with Figs. 7 and 8 which shows friction values within factors of 0.25-0.9 in reference to one another.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include factors of friction coefficients as taught by Wang to improve sliding properties of the magnets and actuators as suggested by Kawano as Kawano discusses the use of the high friction member to achieve energy efficiency of the device [0153] with Wang because Wang teaches the drag associated with the small intestines and mucous substances on the colon surface [Pg. 5, “Discussion”].
Regarding Claim 18, Kawano is silent on wherein the magnetic force acting onto the microscopic device in the longitudinal direction is to a factor of between 1.1 and 1.8, larger than the friction force acting between the matter and the microscopic device. Wang et al. teaches wherein the magnetic force acting onto the microscopic device in the longitudinal direction is to a factor of between 1.1 and 1.8, larger than the friction force acting between the matter and the microscopic device [Pg. 4, “Discussion”]—references friction coefficients and considerations given contact areas interpreted to be the small intestine along with Fig 8 which shows friction values within factors of 1.1-1.8 in reference to one another.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include factors of friction coefficients as taught by Wang to improve sliding properties of the magnets and actuators as suggested by Kawano as Kawano discusses the use of the high friction member to achieve energy efficiency of the device [0153] with Wang because Wang teaches the drag associated with the small intestines and mucous substances on the colon surface and friction increasing with speed of the capsule [Pg. 4, “Effect of Moving Speed”].
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawano (U.S. 20100001592) in view of Palti (U.S. 20140275967).
Regarding Claim 19, Kawano teaches wherein the method further comprises providing the trap, the one or more magnets of the trap being a plurality of magnets [Fig. 54, element 403 (capsule guiding device), 402 (position detection coil)]—where the coils are interpreted to be the electromagnets responsible for providing electromagnetic fields to the capsule, wherein the providing comprises determining a relative arrangement of the plurality of magnets to each other [Fig. 54], the determining being performed employing a numerical nonlinear optimization solver employing a magnetic dipole model [0066] and [0067]—which reference the use of a conventional triangulation algorithm to determine the position and coordinates of the dipole in space.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include software to calculate magnetic characteristics as taught by Palti to calculate position of the capsule endoscope as suggested by Kawano as Kawano discusses the use of a position calculating unit to detect position and posture of the capsule [0187] with Palti because Palti teaches the system being capable of matching location of the Dipole relative to the coordinates in the anatomical image [0067].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 December 2025 with respect to the specification, drawing, and abstract objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 10 December 2025 with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive however, new rejections are
presented in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 10 December 2025 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive however, new rejections are
presented in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 10 December 2025 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 10 December 2025 with respect to the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 13, 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.102 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1 and 13, Applicant contends that claim 1 and 13 have been amended to include magnets and magnetic components of the trap and microscopic device. In response to such, the device disclosed in Kawano does include interactions between the magnets of the capsule and the guiding system. Identification of the receptable zone, confinement region, with the guiding area is plausible because the guiding area is related to movement and actuation of the capsule endoscope in relation to this guiding area. These zones and regions as defined by the claims appear to point towards similar if not exact subject matter. The moving member does provide a sliding relative movement between the receptable zone as [0187] describes that the actuator is a main body/casing applied to a capsule endoscope. Therefore, the moving member sliding axially along the actuator would provide for a movement between the capsule and the receptable zone. In view of the foregoing, the rejection of claims 1, 2, 13, 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) citing Kawano has been maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/B.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791