DETAILED ACTION
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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 June 2026 has been entered.
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 7, 8, 9, 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 7 recites “a center” in line 4. Examiner recommends amending to –the center—
-Claim 8 recites “a center” in line 8. Examiner recommends amending to –the center—
-Claim 9 recites “a microscopic device length” in line 3. Examiner recommends amending to –a length of the microscopic device—
-Claim 9 recites “a microscopic device width” in line 4. Examiner recommends amending to –a width of the microscopic device—
-Claim 19 recites “wherein the providing” in line 2. Examiner recommends amending to –and wherein the providing—
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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 1 recites “mechanical stage arrangement” in line 8. It is unclear what is required by the claim in terms of structure. Further clarification should be provided to identify whether this limitation requires a stage plus additional components to encompass an arrangement, whether an arrangement of parts make up a mechanical stage or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 7 recites “the axis” in line 5. It is unclear whether this limitation is referring to the principal axis originally recited in claim 1, line 2 or the longitudinal axis originally recited in claim 1, line 10. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 7 recites “a left-hand border” and “a right-hand border” in line 8. It is unclear what this limitation requires in terms of left-hand and right-hand borders. Further clarification should be provided to define which structures these are in reference to and what this limitation encompasses.
-Claim 7 recites “the value of the magnetic field strength” in line 10. It is unclear whether this limitation is referring to a value originally recited in claim 7, line 7 or claim 7, line 9. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 7 recites “immediate vicinity” in line 18. It is unclear what the term immediate requires per the claim. Further clarification should be provided to define whether immediate vicinity includes specific parameters and whether these include adjoining areas, areas close to the border, or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 8 recites “immediate vicinity” in line 9. It is unclear what the term immediate requires per the claim. Further clarification should be provided to define whether immediate vicinity includes specific parameters and whether these include adjoining areas, areas close to the border, or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 13 recites “mechanical stage arrangement” in line 13. It is unclear what is required by the claim in terms of structure. Further clarification should be provided to identify whether this limitations requires a stage plus additional components to encompass an arrangement, whether an arrangement of parts make up a mechanical stage or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 20 recites “mechanical stage arrangement” in lines 3-4. It is unclear what is required by the claim in terms of structure. Further clarification should be provided to identify whether this limitations requires a stage plus additional components to encompass an arrangement, whether an arrangement of parts make up a mechanical stage or a separate embodiment.
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) 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawano (U.S. 20100001592) in view of Uchiyama (U.S. 20090299142).
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 being configured 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 with the microscopic device inserted therein [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 stage arrangement for providing a relative movement between the receptable zone and the microscopic device [Fig. 54, element 400 (capsule guiding device), 413 (control unit)];
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],
Kawano is silent on 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 and the magnetic field gradient changing sign along the longitudinal axis on opposite sides of a center of the confinement region, thereby magnetically urging the microscopic device toward the center of the confinement region.
Uchiyama teaches 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 [0249]—which describes alignment of the microscopic device with the longitudinal axis (interpreted to be the principal axis of the microscopic device) with the magnetic field direction.
and the magnetic field gradient changing sign along the longitudinal axis on opposite sides of a center of the confinement region [Fig. 3 and 22, element Fx, Fy, and Fz] and [Fig. 19]—which indicates the sign as claimed to be the change in vector and parameter measurement which would include directional values in x, y, z direction shown in Fig. 19 as both positive and negative values; thereby magnetically urging the microscopic device toward the center of the confinement region [0050]—describing rotational centering of the capsule endoscope.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include gradient specifications of the magnetic field as taught by Uchiyama to align the microscopic device with longitudinal axis as suggested by Kawano which discusses aspects of positioning magnets at the center of the guiding area [0166] with Uchiyama because Uchiyama teaches that the center longitudinal axis defines rotational, and three-dimensional movement of the capsule endoscope to move the device along digestive organs [0007].
Regarding Claim 2, Kawano further teaches wherein the microscopic device has a tubular main body [Fig. 74, element 601] and a tip that extends from the tubular main body [Fig. 74, element 427].
Regarding Claim 5, Kawano further 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 6, Kawano further teaches wherein the one or more magnets of the trap are a plurality of permanent magnets having a relative arrangement [0192]—referring to the rotationally moving magnet and the fixed magnet in the capsule, with the relative arrangement depicted in Fig. 56 (1-3), determined by a numerical nonlinear optimization solver employing a magnetic dipole model to maximize an axial magnetic force exerted onto the microscopic device (not interpreted to be required by the claim).
Regarding Claim 10, Kawano further 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 12, Kawano further teaches wherein the relative movement provided by the mechanical stage arrangement 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 further 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 being configured 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];
a receptable zone within the trap for receiving biological matter with the microscopic device inserted therein [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.”],
a mechanical stage arrangement for providing a relative movement between the receptable zone and the microscopic device [Fig. 54, element 400 (capsule guiding device), 413 (control unit)];
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],
Kawano is silent on the magnetic field gradient changing sign along the longitudinal axis on opposite sides of a center of the confinement region, thereby magnetically urging the microscopic device toward the center of the confinement region; 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. Uchiyama teaches the magnetic field gradient changing sign along the longitudinal axis on opposite sides of a center of the confinement region [Fig. 3 and 22, element Fx, Fy, and Fz] and [Fig. 19]—which indicates the sign as claimed to be the change in vector and parameter measurement which would include directional values in x, y, z direction shown in Fig. 19 as both positive and negative values, thereby magnetically urging the microscopic device toward the center of the confinement region [0050]; 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 [0249]—which describes alignment of the microscopic device with the longitudinal axis (interpreted to be the principal axis of the microscopic device) with the magnetic field direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include gradient specifications of the magnetic field as taught by Uchiyama to align the microscopic device with longitudinal axis as suggested by Kawano which discusses aspects of positioning magnets at the center of the guiding area [0166] with Uchiyama because Uchiyama teaches that the center longitudinal axis defines rotational, and three-dimensional movement of the capsule endoscope to move the device along digestive organs [0007].
Regarding Claim 14, Kawano further 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 stage arrangement, thus causing the microscopic device to undergo navigation in the biological matter [0241].
Regarding Claim 15, Kawano further 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 in the biological matter [0211];
performing the relative movement between the receptable zone and the microscopic device by operating the mechanical stage arrangement in order to cause the microscopic device to undergo navigation in accordance with the navigation path in the biological matter [0211];
and 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 [0211]—specific reference to Fig. 62(4), and
in case of a mismatch between the actual spatial location and the desired spatial location, operating the mechanical stage arrangement in dependence of the image data and a result of the analysis of the image data 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 further 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 than or equal to a friction force acting between the biological 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, wherein a magnetic force acting onto the microscopic device in the longitudinal direction has a value in between zero and a value which is larger than the friction force acting between the biological matter and the microscopic device [0260]—describes switching the magnetization direction from the radial direction to the longitudinal axis direction.
Regarding Claim 20, Kawano further 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 stage arrangement to perform the relative movement between the receptable zone and the microscopic device [0187].
Claim(s) 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawano (U.S. 20100001592) in view of Uchiyama (U.S. 20090299142) and in further view of Shalon (U.S. 20200138416).
Regarding Claim 3, Kawano and Uchiyama are silent on wherein the microscopic device has an aspect ratio of an overall length of the microscopic device to a diameter of the tubular 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 tubular 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, and Uchiyama, as Kawano discusses the guiding area having a diameter corresponding to diameter of the magnets to avoid protrusion when the device is actuated [0112] and Uchiyama discloses that the shape of spiral protrusions supports the rotational magnetic field of the capsule device [0240] with Shalon because Shalon teaches navigating the capsule within the intestines and small lumens inside the body [0260].
Regarding Claim 4, Kawano and Uchiyama are 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 [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 and Uchiyama, as Kawano discusses capsule size and shape [0112] and Uchiyama discloses the capsule being a holdable size [Abstract] with Shalon because Shalon teaches reduction in capsule size to avoid GI tract obstructions [0254].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawano (U.S. 20100001592) in view of Uchiyama (U.S. 20090299142) and in further view of Acker (WO 9641119).
Regarding Claim 11, Kawano and Uchiyama are silent on including a computer system for controlling the mechanical stage arrangement for performing the relative movement between the receptable zone and the microscopic device, wherein the computer system is configured to receive image data of images taken by the imaging device, to analyze the image data, and to control the mechanical stage arrangement in dependence of the image data and a result of the analysis of the image data.
Acker teaches including a computer system for controlling the mechanical stage arrangement for performing the relative movement between the receptable zone and the microscopic device [Pg. 2, lines 5-9] and [Pg. 10, lines 19-24], wherein the computer system is configured to receive image data of images taken by the imaging device [Pg. 16, lines 14-35], to analyze the image data [Pg. 17, lines 9-12], and to control the mechanical stage arrangement in dependence of the image data and a result of the analysis of the image data [Pg. 18, lines 7-14].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use of a utilize imaging data as taught by Acker to control movement of the mechanical stage as suggested by Kawano and Uchiyama, as Kawano discusses imaging for position detection in the body cavity [0188] and Uchiyama discloses displaying imaging information together with in vivo images [0230] with Acker because Acker teaches imaging to show desired structure of the patient’s body and tags [Pg. 16, lines 15-18].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawano (U.S. 20100001592) in view of Uchiyama (U.S. 20090299142) and in further view of Sitti (U.S. 20130303847).
Regarding Claim 7, Kawano and Uchiyama are 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: 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 300 from the longitudinal axis. Sitti teaches wherein the trap is configured to provide the magnetic field within the trap [0114], the magnetic field having at least one of the following properties: 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 and Uchiyama, as Kawano discusses generating a three-dimensional rotating magnetic field [0187] and Uchiyama which discloses calculation of spatial coordinate and direction vectors of the capsule [0049] 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 Uchiyama (U.S. 20090299142) and in further 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],
Kawano and Uchiyama are 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, and an absolute value of an axial force magnetically exerted onto the microscopic device parallel to the longitudinal axis in the confinement region being in between 0 in a center of the confinement region and F in an immediate vicinity of a border of the confinement region, F being in between 4-24 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 and Uchiyama, as Kawano discusses generating a three-dimensional rotating magnetic fields [0189] and Uchiyama which discloses position and posture detection in three-dimensions [0049] 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 Uchiyama (U.S. 20090299142) and in further 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 and Uchiyama are 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 et al. 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 and Uchiyama, as Kawano discusses sophisticated and efficient guiding of the capsule endoscope [0263] and Uchiyama which discloses a desired 6-degrees of freedom motion [0229] 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 Uchiyama (U.S. 20090299142) and in further 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 and Uchiyama are silent on wherein the radial magnetic force acting onto the microscopic device is to a factor of between 0.25 and 0.9, smaller than or equal to the friction force acting between the biological 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 than or equal to the friction force acting between the biological 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 and Uchiyama, as Kawano discusses the use of the high friction member to achieve energy efficiency of the device [0153] and Uchiyama which discloses display of information related to friction between the capsule and wall of internal organs in the GI tract [0250] 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 biological 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 biological 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 and Uchiyama, as Kawano discusses the use of the high friction member to achieve energy efficiency of the device [0153] and Uchiyama which discloses using this method to generate friction of the movable parts [0121] 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 Uchiyama (U.S. 20090299142) and in further 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]. Kawano is silent on the determining being performed employing a numerical nonlinear optimization solver employing a magnetic dipole model. Palti teaches 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 and Uchiyama, as Kawano discusses the use of a position calculating unit to detect position and posture of the capsule [0187] and Uchiyama which discloses a control device calculating an input amount on 6 degrees of freedom motion [0190] 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 12 June 2026 with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 12 June 2026 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 12 June 2026 with respect to the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5, 10-16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.102 have been fully considered and are persuasive, however, new rejections are presented above in light of the amendments for claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, the applicant contends:
Kawano does not teach “a receptable zone within the trap for receiving biological matter with the microscopic device inserted therein."
Kawano does not teach "the magnetic field gradient chang[es] sign along the longitudinal axis on opposite sides of a center of the confinement region, thereby magnetically urging the microscopic device toward the center of the confinement region."
Kawano does not teach “a mechanical stage arrangement.”
Kawano does not teach “magnetic alignment of the principal axis.”
In response to argument 1: The examiner references the guiding area (2a) of Fig. 75(4) as the receptable zone which shows the microscopic device and capsule inserted within this guiding area as recited by the claim. In view of the foregoing, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection citing Kawano in view of Uchiyama is maintained.
In response to argument 2: The examiner agrees with this assertion and introduces new reference Uchiyama in support of teaching this limitation.
In response to argument 3: The examiner interprets the Fig. 54 element 400, the capsule guiding device as the mechanical stage. The Figure depicts a cube-like structure that includes a platform and stage like bottom with the mechanical aspect of the device considered the control unit which various components of the device. In view of the foregoing, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection citing Kawano in view of Uchiyama is maintained.
In response to argument 4: Further, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “magnetic alignment of the principal axis of a microscopic device with the longitudinal axis of a confinement region of a trap”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In view of the foregoing, the previously presented rejections citing Kawano in view of Uchiyama are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Shokrollahi et al. Blindly Controlled Magnetically Actuated Capsule for Noninvasive Sampling of the Gastrointestinal Microbiome. IEEE, Vol. 26, No. 5, 2021—includes blind control of a capsule robot,
-Kim et al. Localization and Actuation for MNPs Based on Magnetic Field-Free Point: Feasibility of Movable Electromagnetic Actuations, Micromechanics, 11, 1020, 2020—discusses quadrupole considerations of magnetic arrangements, and
-Reinschke (WO 2006087287)—includes wireless capsule systems with position determining capabilities in relation to the cavity.
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
Prosecution Insights