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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7, filed 03 Feb 2026, with respect to the drawing objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objection of 14 Nov 2025 has been withdrawn in view of the amended claim and specification.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7-8, filed 03 Feb 2026, with respect to the specification objections, including abstract objection, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification objections of 14 Nov 2025 have been withdrawn in view of the amended specification.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed 03 Feb 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of 14 Nov 2025 have been withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9-11, filed 03 Feb 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are currently under examination. No claim has been added, cancelled, nor withdrawn since the Non-Final Office Action of 14 Nov 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shachar (US PG Pub No. 2007/0016006, previously noted as pertinent prior art in the Non-Final Office Action of 14 Nov 2025) – hereinafter referred to as Shachar (‘006).
Regarding claim 1, Shachar (‘006) discloses a magnetic actuation system for generating a magnetic field or magnetic force through current supplied thereto to control a magnetic catheter ([0009]-[0010]: generate a desired magnetic field to control and track a catheter), the magnetic actuation system comprising:
an electromagnet array including a plurality of electromagnets (Fig. 1, 1A-B: at least coil assemblies/electromagnets 115, 116) aligned in an arrangement space (Fig. 1: coil assemblies/electromagnets 115, 116 aligned relative to rails 102), wherein each electromagnet includes:
an electromagnet body linearly extending along a longitudinal axis of the electromagnet (Fig. 1A-B: coil assemblies/electromagnets 115, 116 extending from arcs 108, 107, respectively) and including a magnetic core and a coil wound around the magnetic core (Fig. 2, 17 and [0247]: coils are constructed with inner core made of 1010 steel), and
a magnetic core front end portion (Fig. 1, 1A-B: extension rods 112) coupled to the magnetic core and extending forward from the magnetic core to protrude from the electromagnet body (Fig. 1A-B and [0252]: conical coils have extension rods of 1010 steel screwed onto their ends 112),
wherein the magnetic core front end portion is bent relative to the longitudinal axis and extends toward a target position (Fig. 1A-B and [0252]: conical coils have extension rods screwed onto their ends 112 made of 1010 steel and their ends are cut at an angle).
While Shachar (‘006) does not explicitly disclose its magnetic core front end portion integrally formed as a single piece with the magnetic core, Shachar (‘006), as noted above, discloses its magnetic core front end portion (Fig. 1, 1A-B: extension rods 112) threaded to its magnetic core (Fig. 1A-B and [0252]: conical coils have extension rods of 1010 steel screwed onto their ends 112) and its magnetic core front end portion and magnetic core are of same material ([0252]: extension rods of 1010 steel; [0247]: inner core made of 1010 steel). 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 Shachar (‘006)’s magnetic core front end portion to be integrally formed as a single piece with its magnetic core, since making two separate parts integral is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.V.B. The combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success, since Shachar (‘006)’s magnetic core front end portion and magnetic core are of same material and are configured to be threaded together. The motivation for the combination would have been to simplify the process of assembling Shacar’s system by having the magnetic core front end portion integrally formed as a single piece with the magnetic core.
Additionally, it is noted that the preamble “to control a therapeutic magnetic actuation robot” and the limitation “for movement of the therapeutic magnetic actuation robot” in the claim both recite an intended use. However, the claim does not require the therapeutic magnetic actuation robot.
Regarding claim 2, Shachar (‘006) discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Shachar (‘006) further discloses:
wherein the plurality of electromagnets of the electromagnet array are arranged in two rows facing each other with a separation space formed therebetween (Fig. 1, 14: 4 coil assemblies/electromagnets at the base, 2 along each of 2 rails 102 with a separation space between adjacent coil assemblies/electromagnets, including central space towards which extension rods 112 extend towards), and
each of the magnetic core front end portions protrude toward the separation space (Fig. 1, 14: extension rods at ends 112 extending towards central space).
Regarding claim 3, Shachar (‘006) discloses all limitations of claim 2, as discussed above, and Shachar (‘006) further discloses:
wherein the plurality of electromagnets are arranged on a plane in the electromagnet array (Fig. 1, 14: coil assemblies/electromagnets 115, 116 on plane of rails 102).
Regarding claim 4, Shachar (‘006) discloses all limitations of claim 3, as discussed above, and Shachar (‘006) further discloses:
wherein the electromagnet array has a free space between the plurality of electromagnets in each row to form a crossing separation space crossing the separation space (Fig. 1, 14: coil assemblies/electromagnets 115, 116 with ends 112 extending towards central space, where one of 2 coil assemblies/electromagnets along one rail 102 oppose another one of 2 coil assemblies/electromagnets along another rail 102).
Regarding claim 5, Shachar (‘006) discloses all limitations of claim 3, as discussed above, and Shachar (‘006) further discloses:
wherein the electromagnet array includes a magnetic yoke made of a magnetic material and configured to connect at least some of rear ends of the magnetic cores facing away from the magnetic core front end portions of the electromagnets (Fig. 1, 1A-B and [0178]-[0179]: arcs 108, 107 made of 1010 steel (magnetic) with a connection for attachment of coil assemblies 115, 116, respectively).
Regarding claim 6, Shachar (‘006) discloses all limitations of claim 5, as discussed above, and Shachar (‘006) further discloses:
wherein the magnetic yoke has a closed frame shape formed to surround the electromagnet array, and configured to connect all of the plurality of electromagnets (Fig. 14A, 15: arcs 108, 107 at the base enclose coil assemblies at the base).
Regarding claim 7, Shachar (‘006) discloses all limitations of claim 5, as discussed above, and Shachar (‘006) further discloses:
wherein the magnetic yoke has a plurality of magnetic yoke portions configured to respectively connect the plurality of electromagnets in the two rows of the electromagnet array (Fig. 1, 1A-B: each coil assembly at base connected to each respective arc (i.e, coil assembly 115 connected to arc 108, coil assembly 116 connected to arc 107)), and
the plurality of magnetic yoke portions are separated from each other (Fig. 1, 14, 15: arcs at base are separated from each other at the ends where coil assemblies are attached and can be separated from each other when apparatus is in open mode).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shachar (‘006), as evidenced by Shachar et al. (US PG Pub No. 2010/0305429) – hereinafter referred to as Shachar (‘429).
Regarding claim 8, Shachar (‘006) discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and the limitation “wherein the arrangement space is a lower surface of a bed on which a photographing target of a medical imaging device is placed” in claim 8 recites an intended use, and the claim does not require a bed nor a medical imaging device. While Shachar (‘006) does not explicitly disclose its arrangement space (Fig. 1: space at which coil assemblies/electromagnets 115, 116 are aligned relative to rails 102) being configured to be at least a lower surface of a bed, it is well known in the art, as evidenced by Shachar (‘429), to arrange a patient bed above electromagnets at the base (See Figure 7C of Shachar (‘429)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shachar (‘006) and further in view of Kim et al. (US PG Pub No. 2022/0199309, priority date of 27 Oct 2020, provided by the Applicant in the IDS of 18 Dec 2024) – hereinafter referred to as Kim.
Regarding claim 9, Shachar (‘006) discloses all limitations of claim 8, as discussed above, and Shachar (‘006) does not disclose:
wherein the medical imaging device is a C-arm imaging device having an arc including a C-shaped arc body, a reception unit provided at one end of the arc body, and a transmission unit provided at the other end of the arc body, and the arrangement space is located between the reception unit and the transmission unit.
In the same field of magnetic actuation system, Kim, however, teaches:
wherein the medical imaging device (Fig. 9 and [0120]-[0121]: X-ray device 1100) is a C-arm imaging device having an arc including a C-shaped arc body, a reception unit provided at one end of the arc body, and a transmission unit provided at the other end of the arc body (Fig. 9: C-arm of X-ray device 1100), and
the arrangement space is located between the reception unit and the transmission unit (Fig. 9 and [0120]-[0121]: bed-integrated electromagnetic field apparatus 1000 within C-arm of X-ray device 1100).
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 Shachar (‘006)’s system to include Kim’s medical imaging device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., arranging medical imaging device relative to a patient bed, as disclosed by Kim, by opening Shachar (‘006)’s system), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Shachar (‘006) and Kim are directed to the field of a magnetic actuation system comprising a plurality of electromagnets. The motivation for the combination would have been to utilize imaging of the target area of a patient during the procedure (Fig. 9 and [0120]-[0121] of Kim).
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 Younhee Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-7013. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM 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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-4963. 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.
/Y.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
05/04/26
Prosecution Insights