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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I) reading on claims 1-12, 20-28, 31-39 in the reply filed on 1/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5-9, 20-25, 27, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Nakanishi WO2020100321.
For claim 1, Nakanishi discloses “An ingestible device comprising:
a capsule (100; figs 1-5; [0052] along w/ described variants, in particular the overall shapes described in [0032]) having a central axis defined therethrough; and
a plurality of rotors (rotor blades 11a, b, 12a, b; fig 3; [0060-0062]) that are spaced radially about the central axis,
wherein each rotor of the plurality of rotors is located in a different channel defined through the capsule (fig 2); and
wherein each channel includes
an inlet (through holes 21a, b and 22a, b; fig 5; [0060]) through which fluid is drawn by a corresponding rotor, and
an outlet (outlets housing the flying means 120; fig 2) through which the fluid is discharged by the corresponding rotor”.
For claim 2, Nakanishi discloses “The ingestible device of claim 1, wherein each rotor of the plurality of rotors is radially offset from the central axis by a same amount but the plurality of rotors are radially offset at different angular offsets about the central axis (fig 2, 3)”.
For claim 5, Nakanishi discloses “The ingestible device of claim 1, wherein the capsule includes a substantially cylindrical segment that is interconnected between a first rounded segment and a second rounded segment, wherein the inlet of each channel is located in the substantially cylindrical segment of the capsule, and wherein the outlet of each channel is located in the first rounded segment of the capsule ([0032])”.
For claim 6, Nakanishi discloses “The ingestible device of claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of motors (121a, b, 122a, b; [0062]) configured to supply motive power to the plurality of rotors, wherein each motor of the plurality of motors is responsible for independently driving a corresponding rotor of the plurality of rotors”.
For claim 7, Nakanishi discloses “The ingestible device of claim 1, wherein the inlet of each channel has a first diameter, and wherein the outlet of each channel has a second diameter different from the first diameter (fig 2-5)”.
For claim 8, Nakanishi discloses “The ingestible device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of rotors are arranged along a radial plane orthogonal to the central axis (fig 2, 3)”.
For claim 9, Nakanishi disclose “The ingestible device of claim 1, wherein each rotor of the plurality of rotors includes a single blade (fig 2, 3)”.
For claim 20, Nakanishi discloses “An ingestible device comprising:
an elongate structural body (100; figs 1-5; [0052] along w/ described variants, in particular the overall shapes described in [0032]) having a central axis therethrough;
a first pair of propulsors (any opposite pair of rotor blades 11a, b, 12a, b; fig 3; [0060-0062]) disposed at locations radially offset from the central axis and at different angular offsets about the central axis; and
at least one motor (121a, b, 122a, b; [0062]) configured to supply motive power to the first pair of propulsors to propel the elongate structural body through a fluid within a living body”.
For claim 21, Nakanishi discloses “The ingestible device of claim 20, wherein each propulsor of the first pair of propulsors is configured to generate thrust along a vector that is substantially parallel to the central axis (figs 2-5)”.
For claim 22, Nakanishi discloses “The ingestible device of claim 20, further comprising: a processor (system controlling means 150; fig 1; [0042-0043, 0072, 0073]) configured to: receive input indicative of a request to alter a position and/or an orientation of the ingestible device, and cause at least one propulsor of the first pair of propulsors to be driven in response to the input .
For claim 23, Nakanishi discloses “The ingestible device of claim 20, further comprising: a plurality of channels defined through the elongate structural body in a direction substantially parallel to the central axis, wherein each propulsor of the first pair of propulsors is located in a different channel of the plurality of channels (fig 2-5)”.
For claim 24, Nakanishi discloses “The ingestible device of claim 20, wherein the first pair of propulsors is arranged radially opposite each other relative to the central axis (figs 2-5)”.
For claim 25, Nakanishi discloses “The ingestible device of claim 24, further comprising: a second pair of propulsors (any of the other opposite pair of rotor blades 11a, b, 12a, b; fig 3; [0060-0062]) arranged radially about the elongate structural body orthogonal to the central axis, wherein the second pair of propulsors is arranged radially opposite each other relative to the central axis”.
For claim 27, Nakanishi discloses “The ingestible device of claim 25, further comprising: a processor (system controlling means 150; fig 1; [0042-0043, 0072, 0073]) configured to: receive input indicative of a request to position the ingestible device in a desired location and/or orientation, in response to the input indicative of the request to position the ingestible device in the desired location and/or orientation, generate (i) a first pair of signals for driving the first pair of propulsors, and (ii) a second pair of signals for driving the second pair of propulsors ([0062])”.
For claim 28, Nakanishi discloses “The ingestible device of claim 20, wherein each propulsor of the first pair of propulsors is independently driven by a different motor ([0062])”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McLarty US3,591,109.
For claim 3, Nakanishi does not disclose “The ingestible device of claim 1, wherein rotors that are radially opposite each other relative to the central axis share a common chirality”. McLarty teaches in a relevant related art area involving propeller propulsion, a system rotating adjacent propellers in opposite directions in producing thrust, the adjacent propellers having opposite chirality (12:25-34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of McLarty into the invention of Nakanishi in order to configure the ingestible device e.g. as claimed, in particular, rotating adjacent propellers in a circular four propeller system such that adjacent propellers rotate in opposite directions to produce forward thrust resulting in radially opposite rotors having the same chirality, because it provides for reactionary torque in rotation of one of a pair of rotors to exactly equal the reactionary torque in rotation of the other rotor of said pair (12:34-37).
For claim 4, Nakanishi does not disclose “The ingestible device of claim 1, wherein rotors that are adjacent to each other along an arc centered about the central axis have opposite chirality”. McLarty teaches in a relevant related art area involving propeller propulsion, a system rotating adjacent propellers in opposite directions in producing thrust, the adjacent propellers having opposite chirality (12:25-34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of McLarty into the invention of Nakanishi in order to configure the ingestible device e.g. as claimed, in particular, rotating adjacent propellers in a circular four propeller system such that adjacent propellers rotate in opposite directions to produce forward thrust resulting in radially opposite rotors having the same chirality, because it provides for reactionary torque in rotation of one of a pair of rotors to exactly equal the reactionary torque in rotation of the other rotor of said pair (12:34-37).
For claim 26, Nakanishi does not disclose “The ingestible device of claim 25, wherein the first pair of propulsors is configured to rotate in a clockwise direction in relation to the central axis, wherein the second pair of propulsors is configured to rotate in a counterclockwise direction in relation to the central axis, and wherein the first and second pairs of propulsors are arranged such that rotationally adjacent propulsors rotate in opposite directions”. McLarty teaches in a relevant related art area involving propeller propulsion, a system rotating adjacent propellers in opposite directions in producing thrust, the adjacent propellers having opposite chirality (12:25-34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of McLarty into the invention of Nakanishi in order to configure the ingestible device e.g. as claimed, in particular, rotating adjacent propellers in a circular four propeller system such that adjacent propellers rotate in opposite directions to produce forward thrust resulting in radially opposite rotors having the same chirality, because it provides for reactionary torque in rotation of one of a pair of rotors to exactly equal the reactionary torque in rotation of the other rotor of said pair (12:34-37).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abramov US2017/0316133.
For claim 10, Nakanishi does not disclose “The ingestible device of claim 1, wherein each rotor of the plurality of rotors has a hydrophobic coating or a hydrophilic coating”.
Abramov teaches in a relevant related art area involving propeller propulsion, providing a propeller with hydrophobic properties (fig 5h; [0481]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Abramov into the invention of Nakanishi in order to configure the ingestible device e.g. as claimed, in particular with hydrophobic properties, including a coating of such, because it helps to reduce distortions and micro-turbulences ([0481]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wallach US7,807,251.
For claim 11, Nakanishi does not disclose “The ingestible device of claim 1, wherein each rotor of the plurality of rotors has an antibacterial coating”. Wallach teaches in the same field of endeavor, coating rotor blades with an antibacterial (4:11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Wallach into the invention of Nakanishi in order to configure the ingestible device e.g. as claimed because it provides the added benefit of “medical antifouling” (4:11).
Claim(s) 12, 31, 32, 35-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ferren et al. US7,857,767.
For claim 12, Nakanishi does not disclose “The ingestible device of claim 1, wherein each channel further includes a filter through which the fluid drawn through the inlet by the corresponding rotor is passed to remove suspended objects that exceed a particular size”. Ferren teaches in the same field of endeavor, providing filters for capsules (fig 10E, 15:43-44). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Ferren into the invention of Nakanishi in order to configure the ingestible device e.g. as claimed because it provides a manner to selectively remove particles in a particular size range or affinity or binding (15:46-48).
Nakanishi discloses for claim 31, “An ingestible device comprising:
a capsule (100; figs 1-5; [0052] along w/ described variants, in particular the overall shapes described in [0032]) having a central axis defined therethrough;
a plurality of rotors (rotor blades 11a, b, 12a, b; fig 3; [0060-0062]) that are spaced radially about the central axis,
wherein each rotor of the plurality of rotors is located in a different channel defined through the capsule (fig 2); and
wherein each channel includes
an inlet (through holes 21a, b and 22a, b; fig 5; [0060]) through which fluid is drawn by a corresponding rotor, the inlet having a first diameter,
an outlet (outlets housing the flying means 120; fig 2) through which the fluid is discharged by the corresponding rotor, the outlet having a second diameter that differs from the first diameter (fig 2-5), and
a plurality of motors, each of the motors coupled to drive rotatably a separate one of the plurality of rotors (121a, b, 122a, b; [0062])”.
Nakanishi does not disclose “a filter through which the fluid drawn through the inlet by the corresponding rotor is passed to remove suspended objects that exceed a particular size”. Ferren teaches in the same field of endeavor, providing filters for capsules (fig 10E, 15:43-44). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Ferren into the invention of Nakanishi in order to configure the ingestible device e.g. as claimed because it provides a manner to selectively remove particles in a particular size range or affinity or binding (15:46-48).
Nakanishi discloses for claim 32, “The ingestible device of claim 31, wherein each rotor of the plurality of rotors is radially offset from the central axis by a same amount but the plurality of rotors are radially offset at different angular offsets about the central axis (fig 2, 3)”.
Nakanishi discloses for claim 35, “The ingestible device of claim 31,
wherein the capsule includes a substantially cylindrical segment that is interconnected between a first rounded segment and a second rounded segment (fig 2-5),
wherein the inlet of each channel is located in the substantially cylindrical segment of the capsule ([0032]), and
wherein the outlet of each channel is located in the first rounded segment of the capsule ([0032])”.
Nakanishi discloses for claim 36, “The ingestible device of claim 31, wherein the plurality of rotors are arranged along a radial plane orthogonal to the central axis (fig 2, 3).
Nakanishi discloses for claim 37, “The ingestible device of claim 31, wherein each rotor of the plurality of rotors includes a single blade (fig 2, 3).
Claim(s) 33, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi and Ferren as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of McLarty.
Nakanishi does not disclose for claim 33, “The ingestible device of claim 31, wherein rotors that are radially opposite each other relative to the central axis share a common chirality”. McLarty teaches in a relevant related art area involving propeller propulsion, a system rotating adjacent propellers in opposite directions in producing thrust, the adjacent propellers having opposite chirality (12:25-34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of McLarty into the invention of Nakanishi in order to configure the ingestible device e.g. as claimed, in particular, rotating adjacent propellers in a circular four propeller system such that adjacent propellers rotate in opposite directions to produce forward thrust resulting in radially opposite rotors having the same chirality, because it provides for reactionary torque in rotation of one of a pair of rotors to exactly equal the reactionary torque in rotation of the other rotor of said pair (12:34-37).
Nakanishi does not disclose for claim 34, “The ingestible device of claim 31, wherein rotors that are adjacent to each other along an arc centered about the central axis have opposite chirality”. McLarty teaches in a relevant related art area involving propeller propulsion, a system rotating adjacent propellers in opposite directions in producing thrust, the adjacent propellers having opposite chirality (12:25-34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of McLarty into the invention of Nakanishi in order to configure the ingestible device e.g. as claimed, in particular, rotating adjacent propellers in a circular four propeller system such that adjacent propellers rotate in opposite directions to produce forward thrust resulting in radially opposite rotors having the same chirality, because it provides for reactionary torque in rotation of one of a pair of rotors to exactly equal the reactionary torque in rotation of the other rotor of said pair (12:34-37).
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi and Ferren as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Abramov.
Nakanishi does not disclose for claim 38, “The ingestible device of claim 31, wherein each rotor of the plurality of rotors has a hydrophobic coating or a hydrophilic coating”. Abramov teaches in a relevant related art area involving propeller propulsion, providing a propeller with hydrophobic properties (fig 5h; [0481]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Abramov into the invention of Nakanishi in order to configure the ingestible device e.g. as claimed, in particular with hydrophobic properties, including a coating of such, because it helps to reduce distortions and micro-turbulences ([0481]).
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi and Ferren as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Wallach.
Nakanishi does not disclose for claim 39, “The ingestible device of claim 31, wherein each rotor of the plurality of rotors has an antibacterial coating”. Wallach teaches in the same field of endeavor, coating rotor blades with an antibacterial (4:11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Wallach into the invention of Nakanishi in order to configure the ingestible device e.g. as claimed because it provides the added benefit of “medical antifouling” (4:11).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE K WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-0837. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-2:30p, 6p-9p.
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.
/Jae Woo/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
3/18/26