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 Amendment
This Office Action is in response to an amendment filed on 3/23/2026. As directed by the amendment, claims 7, 15 and 21 were canceled, claims 1, 10, and 18 were amended, and no new claims were added. Thus, claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-20 and 22 are pending for this application.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-14, 16-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenecker (WO 2007028512) in view of Roth (Roth, E. J., et al. "An experimental design for the control and assembly of magnetic microwheels." Review of Scientific Instruments 91.9 (2020)), Dames (Dames, P., Gleich, B., Flemmer, A. et al. Targeted delivery of magnetic aerosol droplets to the lung. Nature Nanotech 2, 495–499 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2007.217) and Finlay (US 2010/0303916).
Regarding claim 1, Rosenecker discloses (Fig. 1-10) a method for delivering microrobots (paragraph [0002]), comprising:
(a) providing a liquid suspension comprising superparamagnetic particles (paragraph [0034]);
(b) aerosolizing the liquid suspension to form aerosolized droplets (paragraph [0057]);
(c) administering the aerosolized droplets into a target volume (paragraph [0041]); and
(d) applying a first magnetic field to the aerosolized droplets (paragraph [0036]).
Rosenecker discloses applying a magnetic field to drive movement of the superparamagnetic particles (paragraph [0036]), but does not disclose the superparamagnetic particles are of at least one microrobot building block; and the step of (d) applying a first magnetic field to cause the superparamagnetic particles to aggregate into microrobots in the form of microwheels.
However, Roth teaches a method comprising superparamagnetic particles of at least one microrobot building block (Abstract); and the step of (d) applying a first magnetic field to cause the superparamagnetic particles to aggregate into microrobots in the form of microwheels (paragraph 1 of “C. Magnetic field generation: Hardware”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Rosenecker such that the superparamagnetic particles of at least one microrobot building block; and the step of (d) applying a first magnetic field to cause the superparamagnetic particles to aggregate into microrobots in the form of microwheels, as taught by Roth, for the purpose of allowing for improved user control of the superparamagnetic particles within 3D environments (Abstract Roth).
Modified Rosenecker does not disclose the step (e) directing the microwheels to a preselected sub-volume of the target volume by applying a second magnetic field, wherein the second magnetic field is a rotating magnetic field.
However, Dames teaches a method comprising a first magnetic field (“targeting field”, paragraph 2 page 4 and paragraph 1 page 5) and a second magnetic field (“bypass field”, paragraph 2 page 4 and paragraph 1 page 5) and the step of directing the microwheels to a preselected sub-volume of the target volume by applying a second magnetic field (Dames discloses uses a bypass magnetic field to direct magnetic particles into one section when a bifurcation occurs, see paragraph 2 of page 4). Dames does not disclose this magnetic field is a rotating magnetic field, however Finlay teaches (Fig. 1) an aerosol delivery system comprising a magnetic field that is a rotating magnetic field (paragraph [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Rosenecker such directing the microwheels to a preselected sub-volume of the target volume by applying a second magnetic field, as taught by Dames, for the purpose of optimizing delivery of therapy to a user by preventing a portion of the medicament from entering an unwanted area (paragraph 2 of page 4 Dames), and to further modify the second magnetic field of modified Rosenecker to be a rotating magnetic field, as taught by Finlay, for the purpose of allowing for improved navigation and deposition of the particles (paragraph [0021] Finlay).
Regarding claim 2, modified Rosenecker discloses wherein the target volume is within a body of an animal subject (lung of animal, paragraph [0025] Rosenecker) and the microrobots are medical microrobots capable of performing a medical intervention within the target volume (paragraph 2 of “I. Introduction” of Roth).
Regarding claim 3, modified Rosenecker discloses wherein the animal subject is a human (“human”, paragraph [0041] Rosenecker).
Regarding claim 4, modified Rosenecker discloses wherein the target volume comprises a pathway or space within a pulmonary or respiratory system of the animal subject (lung, paragraph [0025] Rosenecker).
Regarding claim 5, modified Rosenecker discloses wherein the target volume comprises alveolar spaces of the animal subject (paragraph [0097] Rosenecker).
Regarding claim 6, modified Rosenecker discloses wherein the medical intervention comprises delivering an active pharmaceutical ingredient to the target volume (paragraphs [0042] and [0095] Roseneceker).
Regarding claim 8, modified Rosenecker discloses wherein the liquid suspension is aerosolized (“aerosolized”, paragraph [0145]), and the aerosolized droplets are administered, using a nebulizer (“nebulizer”, paragraph [0059] Rosenecker).
Regarding claim 9, modified Rosenecker does not disclose wherein a mean or median particle size of the superparamagnetic particles is between about 1 micron and about 5 micron.
However, Roth teaches a mean or median particle size of the superparamagnetic particles is between about 1 micron and about 5 micron (4.5 micron, see paragraph 1 of C. Magnetic Field generation: Hardware).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mean/median particle size of the superparamagnetic particles of modified Rosenecker to be between 1-5 micron, as further taught by Roth, for the purpose of providing a sufficient size of the particles for being formable into micro wheels without being too big to become stuck within a user.
Regarding claim 10, Rosenecker discloses (Fig. 1-10) a method for performing a medical intervention within a body of an animal subject (paragraph [0002]), comprising:
(a) providing a liquid suspension comprising superparamagnetic particles (paragraph [0034]);
(b) aerosolizing the liquid suspension to form aerosolized droplets (paragraph [0057]);
(c) administering the aerosolized droplets into a target volume within the body of the subject (paragraph [0041]); and
(d) applying a first magnetic field to the aerosolized droplets (paragraph [0036]).
Rosenecker discloses applying a magnetic field to drive movement of the superparamagnetic particles (paragraph [0036]), but does not disclose the superparamagnetic particles are of at least one microrobot building block, and the step of (d) applying a first magnetic field to the aerosolized droplets to cause the superparamagnetic particles within the target volume to aggregate into microrobots in the form of microwheels, wherein the microrobots are medical microrobots capable of performing a medical intervention within the target volume.
However, Roth teaches a method comprising superparamagnetic particles of at least one microrobot building block (Abstract); and the step of (d) applying a first magnetic field to cause the superparamagnetic particles to aggregate into microrobots in the form of microwheels (paragraph 1 of “C. Magnetic field generation: Hardware”), wherein the microrobots are medical microrobots capable of performing a medical intervention within the target volume (paragraph 2 of “I. Introduction” of Roth).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Rosenecker such that the superparamagnetic particles of at least one microrobot building block; and the step of (d) applying a first magnetic field to cause the superparamagnetic particles to aggregate into microrobots in the form of microwheels, wherein the microrobots are medical microrobots capable of performing a medical intervention within the target volume , as taught by Roth, for the purpose of allowing for improved user control of the superparamagnetic particles within 3D environments (Abstract Roth).
Modified Rosenecker does not disclose the step (e) directing the microwheels to a preselected sub-volume of the target volume by applying a second magnetic field, wherein the second magnetic field is a rotating magnetic field.
However, Dames teaches a method comprising a first magnetic field (“targeting field”, paragraph 2 page 4 and paragraph 1 page 5) and a second magnetic field (“bypass field”, paragraph 2 page 4 and paragraph 1 page 5) and the step of directing the microwheels to a preselected sub-volume of the target volume by applying a second magnetic field (Dames discloses uses a bypass magnetic field to direct magnetic particles into one section when a bifurcation occurs, see paragraph 2 of page 4). Dames does not disclose this magnetic field is a rotating magnetic field, however Finlay teaches (Fig. 1) an aerosol delivery system comprising a magnetic field that is a rotating magnetic field (paragraph [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Rosenecker such directing the microwheels to a preselected sub-volume of the target volume by applying a second magnetic field, as taught by Dames, for the purpose of optimizing delivery of therapy to a user by preventing a portion of the medicament from entering an unwanted area (paragraph 2 of page 4 Dames), and to further modify the second magnetic field of modified Rosenecker to be a rotating magnetic field, as taught by Finlay, for the purpose of allowing for improved navigation and deposition of the particles (paragraph [0021] Finlay).
Regarding claim 11, modified Rosenecker discloses wherein the animal subject is a human(“human”, paragraph [0041] Rosenecker). .
Regarding claim 12, modified Rosenecker discloses wherein the target volume comprises a pathway or space within a pulmonary or respiratory system of the animal subject (lung, paragraph [0025] Rosenecker).
Regarding claim 13, modified Rosenecker discloses wherein the target volume comprises alveolar spaces of the animal subject (paragraph [0097] Rosenecker).
Regarding claim 14, modified Rosenecker discloses wherein the medical intervention comprises delivering an active pharmaceutical ingredient to the target volume (paragraphs [0042] and [0095] Rosenecker).
Regarding claim 16, modified Rosenecker discloses wherein the liquid suspension is aerosolized (“aerosolized”, paragraph [0145]), and the aerosolized droplets are administered, using a nebulizer (“nebulizer”, paragraph [0059] Rosenecker).
Regarding claim 17, modified Rosenecker does not disclose wherein a mean or median particle size of the superparamagnetic particles is between about 1 micron and about 5 micron.
However, Roth teaches a mean or median particle size of the superparamagnetic particles is between about 1 micron and about 5 micron (4.5 micron, see paragraph 1 of C. Magnetic Field generation: Hardware).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mean/median particle size of the superparamagnetic particles of modified Rosenecker to be between 1-5 micron, as further taught by Roth, for the purpose of providing a sufficient size of the particles for being formable into micro wheels without being too big to become stuck within a user.
Regarding claim 18, Rosenecker discloses (Fig. 1-10) a system for delivering microrobots (paragraph [0002]), comprising:
a liquid suspension comprising superparamagnetic particles (paragraphs [0034] and [0057]);
a nebulizer (nebulizer shown in Fig. 7 and described in paragraph [0059]), configured to aerosolize the liquid suspension to form aerosolized droplets (paragraph [0057]) and administer the aerosolized droplets into a target volume (paragraph [0041] and [0109]); and
a magnetic actuation device (electromagnets, paragraph [0036]), configured to apply a first magnetic field to the aerosolized droplets (paragraph [0036]).
Rosenecker discloses applying a magnetic field to drive movement of the superparamagnetic particles (paragraph [0036]), but does not disclose the superparamagnetic particles are of at least one microrobot building block; and the magnetic actuation device applies a first magnetic field to cause the superparamagnetic particles to aggregate into microrobots in the form of microwheels.
However, Roth teaches a system comprising superparamagnetic particles of at least one microrobot building block (Abstract); and a magnetic actuation device (“five coils”, paragraph 1 of “C. Magnetic field generation: Hardware”) that applies a first magnetic field to cause the superparamagnetic particles to aggregate into microrobots in the form of microwheels (paragraph 1 of “C. Magnetic field generation: Hardware”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Rosenecker such that the superparamagnetic particles of at least one microrobot building block; and the magnetic actuation device applies a first magnetic field to cause the superparamagnetic particles to aggregate into microrobots in the form of microwheels, as taught by Roth, for the purpose of allowing for improved user control of the superparamagnetic particles within 3D environments (Abstract Roth).
Modified Rosenecker does not disclose the step (e) directing the microwheels to a preselected sub-volume of the target volume by applying a second magnetic field, wherein the second magnetic field is a rotating magnetic field.
However, Dames teaches a method comprising a first magnetic field (“targeting field”, paragraph 2 page 4 and paragraph 1 page 5) and a second magnetic field (“bypass field”, paragraph 2 page 4 and paragraph 1 page 5) and the step of directing the microwheels to a preselected sub-volume of the target volume by applying a second magnetic field (Dames discloses uses a bypass magnetic field to direct magnetic particles into one section when a bifurcation occurs, see paragraph 2 of page 4). Dames does not disclose this magnetic field is a rotating magnetic field, however Finlay teaches (Fig. 1) an aerosol delivery system comprising a magnetic field that is a rotating magnetic field (paragraph [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Rosenecker such directing the microwheels to a preselected sub-volume of the target volume by applying a second magnetic field, as taught by Dames, for the purpose of optimizing delivery of therapy to a user by preventing a portion of the medicament from entering an unwanted area (paragraph 2 of page 4 Dames), and to further modify the second magnetic field of modified Rosenecker to be a rotating magnetic field, as taught by Finlay, for the purpose of allowing for improved navigation and deposition of the particles (paragraph [0021] Finlay).
Regarding claim 19, modified Rosenecker discloses wherein the target volume is within a body of an animal subject (lung of animal, paragraph [0025] Rosenecker) and the microrobots are medical microrobots capable of performing a medical intervention within the target volume (paragraph 2 of “I. Introduction” of Roth).
Regarding claim 20, modified Rosenecker discloses wherein the medical intervention comprises delivering an active pharmaceutical ingredient to the target volume (paragraphs [0042] and [0095] Rosenecker).
Regarding claim 22, modified Rosenecker does not disclose wherein a mean or median particle size of the superparamagnetic particles is between about 1 micron and about 5 micron.
However, Roth teaches a mean or median particle size of the superparamagnetic particles is between about 1 micron and about 5 micron (4.5 micron, see paragraph 1 of C. Magnetic Field generation: Hardware).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mean/median particle size of the superparamagnetic particles of modified Rosenecker to be between 1-5 micron, as further taught by Roth, for the purpose of providing a sufficient size of the particles for being formable into micro wheels without being too big to become stuck within a user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/23/2026 have been fully considered
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on one or more new references not applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MATTHEW R MOON whose telephone number is (571)272-2554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/MATTHEW R MOON/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights