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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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) 1, 2, 5-9, 20-25, 27, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi WO2020100321 and further in view of Iddan US20030214579.
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 cylindrical body that is interconnected between a pair of rounded ends (0032 describes a cylindrical shape) and 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 that is located in a first rounded end of the pair of rounded ends (outlets housing the flying means 120; of the cylindrical design described at 0032, providing for the outlet to traverse the body to the rounded end) through which the fluid is discharged by the corresponding rotor, and a fluid path between the inlet and the outlet that is distinct from fluid paths of each other channel (each channel with the rotors are distinct as depicted in fig 2, fig 3, and fig 5 and described at 0060 “The endoscope airframe 100c is formed so that four penetrated spaces 20, specifically four circular through holes 21a, 21b, 22a, and 22b from the top surface side to the bottom surface side, are positioned at equidistance around the center of the endoscope airframe 100c”)”.
Nakanishi does not disclose wherein each channel includes an inlet “that is located in the cylindrical body of the capsule”. Iddan teaches in the same field of endeavor, a propulsion channel in a capsule where a duct inlet (212A) is configured on the side of the cylindrical body (fig 6). [0092-0097] also describes the inlet can be configured as a single inlet, i.e. not requiring a dual inlet per propulsion channel/propeller. 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 Iddan into the invention of Nakanishi in order to configure the capsule e.g. as claimed, in particular providing the inlet of each of the propeller channels on the cylindrical side body because it allows for a more compact propulsion design creating space within the capsule for other systems and components (see anterior space of the capsule in fig 6).
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)”.
Nakanishi discloses for claim 20 (as provided in claim 1), “An ingestible device comprising:
a cylindrical body (100; figs 1-5; [0052] along w/ described variants, in particular the overall shapes described in [0032]) having a pair of rounded ends and a central axis defined therethrough (0032 describes a cylindrical shape);
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
wherein the first pair of propulsors are each disposed within a different channel defined through the cylindrical body and a first rounded end of the pair of rounded ends, each of the different channels comprising (i) an inlet that is located in the cylindrical body (Iddan: propulsion channel in a capsule where a duct inlet (212A) is configured on the side of the cylindrical body (fig 6). [0092-0097] also describes the inlet can be configured as a single inlet, i.e. not requiring a dual inlet per propulsion channel/propeller), (ii) an outlet that is located in the first rounded end, and (iii) a fluid path between the inlet and the outlet that is distinct from the fluid paths of the other channel (each channel with the rotors are distinct as depicted in fig 2, fig 3, and fig 5 and described at 0060 “The endoscope airframe 100c is formed so that four penetrated spaces 20, specifically four circular through holes 21a, 21b, 22a, and 22b from the top surface side to the bottom surface side, are positioned at equidistance around the center of the endoscope airframe 100c”);
at least one motor (121a, b, 122a, b; [0062]) configured to supply motive power to the first pair of propulsors to propel the cylindrical body (0032 describes a cylindrical shape) 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 (each channel with the rotors are distinct as depicted in fig 2, fig 3, and fig 5 and described at 0060 “The endoscope airframe 100c is formed so that four penetrated spaces 20, specifically four circular through holes 21a, 21b, 22a, and 22b from the top surface side to the bottom surface side, are positioned at equidistance around the center of the endoscope airframe 100c”) defined through the cylindrical (0032 describes a cylindrical shape) 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; each channel with the rotors are distinct as depicted in fig 2, fig 3, and fig 5 and described at 0060 “The endoscope airframe 100c is formed so that four penetrated spaces 20, specifically four circular through holes 21a, 21b, 22a, and 22b from the top surface side to the bottom surface side, are positioned at equidistance around the center of the endoscope airframe 100c”)”.
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(s) 3, 4, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi and Iddan 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 and Iddan 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 and Iddan 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 and Iddan 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 cylindrical body that is interconnected between a pair of rounded ends (0032 describes a cylindrical shape) and 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 that is located in the cylindrical body (Iddan: propulsion channel in a capsule where a duct inlet (212A) is configured on the side of the cylindrical body (fig 6). [0092-0097] also describes the inlet can be configured as a single inlet, i.e. not requiring a dual inlet per propulsion channel/propeller) through which fluid is drawn by a corresponding rotor, the inlet having a first diameter (through holes 21a, b and 22a, b; fig 5; [0060]),
an outlet that is located in a first rounded end of the pair of rounded ends and (outlets housing the flying means 120; 0032 describes a cylindrical shape) 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, Iddan, 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, Iddan, 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, Iddan, 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference 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 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
/ANHTUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
7/16/26
Prosecution Insights