CTNF 18/939,349 CTNF 93875 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 the applicant’s communication filed 05/18/2026. Status of the claims: Claims 1 – 17 and 21 – 23 are pending in the application. Claims 21 – 23 are new. Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 05/18/2026 is acknowledged. 08-06 AIA Claim s 18 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/18/2026 . Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 4 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 recites “adjacent fins” in line 2, although the line does not rise to the level of being indefinite as the line is understood by the Examiner to mean “adjacent fins of the plurality of fins” since the disclosure makes it clear that the “adjacent fins” are encompassed within the “plurality of fins”, the Examiner suggests the line be amended to read “adjacent fins of the plurality of fins” for the purpose of maintaining consistent language throughout the claims; Claim 17 recites “a body lumen” twice in line 3, although the second instance of “a body lumen” is understood by the Examiner to mean “the body lumen” as the first instance gives antecedent basis for the “body lumen”, the Examiner suggests the second instance of the phrase be amended to read “the body lumen” for the purpose of maintaining consistent language throughout the claims; Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1 – 5, 13, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jang et al (US 2022/0280182 A1) . Regarding claims 1 and 2 , Jang discloses a device (magnetic robot 200) for performing an endovascular procedure (abstract, paragraphs [0002 – 0003], [0053 – 0062], and Figs. 11 – 14), comprising: a tubular body (body 210 – Fig. 13) sized for introduction into a body lumen of a subject (paragraph [0062]), the tubular body comprising first and second ends and a central lumen (grooves 213 and 124 – Fig. 12) extending axially along a long axis (in an axial direction of the tubular body) between the first and second ends (Examiner’s note: the claim as currently written do not require the lumen to extend from the first end to the second end ; only extend between the first and second end); [claims 1 and 2] a plurality of fins (legs 240) extending axially and circumferentially on an exterior surface of the tubular body between the first and second ends (paragraph [0059] and Figs. 12 – 14); and a magnet (magnet 230) or a magnet array on the tubular body (paragraphs [0058 – 0059] and Figs. 12 – 14) configured to cause the tubular body to spin around the long axis (the axial direction of the tubular body) when a magnetic field is generated around the tubular body (paragraphs [0038], [0062], and Fig. 14). Regarding claim 3 , Jang discloses further comprising one or more passages (opening 212 – Fig. 12) communicating between the exterior surface and the central lumen (Examiner’s note: the opening 212 communicates between the exterior surface of the proximal face of the body and the grooves 213 and 214). Regarding claim 4 , Jang discloses comprising one or more passages (opening 212 – Fig. 12) between adjacent fins (top and bottom legs 240 on the proximal end) communicating between the exterior surface and the central lumen (Examiner’s note: the opening 212 communicates between the exterior surface of the proximal face of the body and the grooves 213 and 214). Regarding claim 5 , Jang discloses wherein the one or more passages (opening 212 – Fig. 12) comprise substantially straight or helical slits between the adjacent fins (top and bottom legs 240 on the proximal end) (Examiner’s note: as shown in Fig. 12, the opening 212 is straight and is in between the top and bottom legs 240 on the proximal end (i.e., the adjacent fins)). Regarding claim 13 , Jang discloses a system (catheter system 110) for performing endovascular surgery (abstract, paragraphs [0002 – 0003], [0053 – 0062], and Figs. 11 – 14), comprising: a device (magnetic robot 200) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); and a magnetic field driver (magnetic field generator) for generating the magnetic field to control rotation of the device (paragraphs [0030], [0038], and [0044]). Regarding claim 21 , Jang discloses a system for performing an endovascular procedure within a body lumen, comprising: a device (magnetic robot 200) comprising a tubular body (body 210 – Fig. 13) sized for introduction into a body lumen of a subject (paragraph [0062]), the tubular body comprising first and second ends and a central lumen (grooves 213 and 124 – Fig. 12) extending axially along a long axis (in an axial direction of the tubular body) between the first and second ends (Examiner’s note: the claim as currently written do not require the lumen to extend from the first end to the second end ; only extend between the first and second end); a plurality of fins (legs 240) extending axially and circumferentially on an exterior surface of the tubular body between the first and second ends (paragraph [0059] and Figs. 12 – 14); and a magnet (magnet 230) or a magnet array on the tubular body (paragraphs [0058 – 0059] and Figs. 12 – 14) configured to cause the tubular body to spin around the long axis (the axial direction of the tubular body) when a magnetic field is generated around the tubular body (paragraphs [0038], [0062], and Fig. 14); a magnetic field driver (magnetic field generator) configured for generating the magnetic field to control rotation of the device to direct the device towards an object within the body lumen (paragraphs [0030], [0038], and [0044]) and to create a suction within the body lumen to pull the object toward the device (Examiner’s note: it should be understood that the preceding limitation is an intended use limitation which requires only that the structure of the prior art be capable of functioning in the manner claimed; with that said, because the microrobot has fins and is rotatable via the magnetic field, the microrobot is capable of creating at least some degree of suction withing the body lumen. Therefore, Jang discloses the system substantially as claimed). Regarding claim 23 , Jang discloses wherein the magnetic field driver (magnetic field generator) is configured for generating the magnetic field to move the device by spinning the device using the magnetic field to retract the object out of the body lumen (Examiner’s note: it should be understood that the preceding limitation is an intended use limitation which requires only that the structure of the prior art be capable of functioning in the manner claimed; with that said, because the microrobot has fins and is rotatable via the magnetic field the device is capable of capturing some amount of the clot and being retracted (reversed) out of the body lumen) . 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jang et al (US 2021/0137622 A1) (herein referred to as Jang 2021’) . Regarding claims 1 and 2 , Jang 2021’ discloses a device (magnetic robot) for performing an endovascular procedure (abstract, paragraphs [0002 – 0003], [0028], [0035 – 0037], and Figs. 1 – 4), comprising: a tubular body (body 100) sized for introduction into a body lumen of a subject (paragraph [0035] and Fig. 1), the tubular body comprising first and second ends and a central lumen (Fig. 2) extending axially along a long axis (in an axial direction of the tubular body) between the first and second ends (Figs. 1 – 2); [claims 1 and 2] a plurality of fins (helical protrusions on the top and bottom halves of the body 100 – Fig. 1) extending axially and circumferentially on an exterior surface of the tubular body between the first and second ends (Figs. 1 – 4); and a magnet or a magnet array (magnets 310, 320, 330, and 340) on the tubular body (paragraphs [0035 - 0037] and Figs. 1 – 6) configured to cause the tubular body to spin around the long axis (the axial direction of the tubular body) when a magnetic field is generated around the tubular body (paragraphs [0044], [0048 – 0056], and Figs. 1 – 6) (Examiner’s note: the claim as currently written does not require the magnets / magnet array to be on the exterior of the tubular body). Regarding claims 3, 4, and 5 , Jang 2021’ discloses further comprising one or more substantially straight slits / passages (grooves in the top and bottom halves of the body 100) communicating between the exterior surface and the central lumen and between adjacent fins (paragraph [0048] and Figs. 1, 2). Regarding claim 6 , Jang 2021’ discloses wherein the magnet array (magnets 310, 320, 330, and 340) comprises a plurality of magnets (magnets 310, 320, 330, and 340) spaced apart circumferentially from one another on each of the first and second ends (see annotated Fig. 2). Annotated Figure 2 of Jang PNG media_image1.png 506 700 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 7 , Jang 2021’ discloses wherein each of the magnets (magnets 310, 320, 330, and 340) has the same polarity relative to the long axis such that the magnets generate a rotational force in the same direction around the long axis when the magnetic field is generated (Fig. 6) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al (US 2021/0137622 A1) (herein referred to as Jang 2021’ ) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schaefer et al (US 2004/0006362 A1) and Olsen, JR et al (US 2003/0212426 A1) . Regarding claims 9 and 10 , as discussed above, Jang 2021’ discloses the device of claim 1. Additionally, Jang 2021’ discloses delivering one or more agents (drug) within the central lumen of the tubular body (paragraph [0038]). However, Jang 2021’ is silent regarding (i) [claims 9 and 10] wherein the drug is contained within a porous drug delivery member. As to the above , Schaefer teaches, in a similar field of endeavor, namely, a means for delivering a therapeutic drug, comprising an implantable device (which equates to the microrobot of Jang 2021’) comprising a porous drug delivery member (porous sponge 226) within the central lumen of the delivery device (which equates to the drug within the central lumen of the microrobot of Jang 2021’) for carrying the one or more agents (paragraph [0071] and Fig. 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the central lumen of Jang 2021’ to incorporate a porous drug delivery member to house the one or more agents, based on the teachings of Schaefer, for the purpose of providing a more controlled release of the drug (paragraph [0056] – Olson, JR et al) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al (US 2021/0137622 A1) (herein referred to as Jang 2021’ ) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bates (US 2005/0064009 A1) . Regarding claims 9 and 11 , as discussed above, Jang 2021’ discloses the device of claim 1. Additionally, Jang 2021’ discloses delivering one or more agents (drug) within the central lumen of the tubular body (paragraph [0038]). However, Jang 2021’ is silent regarding (i) [claims 9 and 11] wherein the drug is contained within a dissolvable drug delivery member. As to the above , Bates teaches a means of dispersing a drug within the body comprising a drug delivery member (material 102) carrying one or more agents (drug) that is configured to dissolve to release the one or more agents (paragraph [0093]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the central lumen of Jang 2021’ to incorporate a dissolvable drug delivery member, based on the teachings of Bates, for the purpose of have a more controlled release of the drug . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al (US 2022/0280182 A1) . Regarding claim 12, as discussed above, Jang discloses the device of claim 1. However, Jang is silent regarding (i) the tubular body’s dimensions, wherein the tubular body has an outer diameter between about one and six millimeters (1.0-6.0 mm), and a length between the first and second ends between about 0.9 and ten millimeters (0.9-10 mm). There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the outer diameter and the length of the tubular body would result in a difference in function of the device of Jang. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the tubular body of Jang, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed outer diameter and length. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the outer diameter and length “may” be within the claimed ranges, and offering other acceptable ranges (e.g., less than 1mm outer diameter and a length less than 0.9mm, specification at para. [0030]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the ranges as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tubular body of Jang to have an outer diameter between 1 and 6 mm and a length between 0.9 and 10 mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 14 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al (US 2022/0280182 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kim et al (US 2021/0220068 A1) . Regarding claims 14 – 17 , as discussed above, Jang discloses the system of claim 13, including the magnetic field generator. However, Jang is silent regarding (i) [claims 14 and 15] the magnetic field driver comprises at least one coil / a 3-axis Helmholtz coil and (ii) [claims 16 and 17] a controller for controlling the magnetic field generator and configured to control one or more of a speed of rotation of the device, to cause the device to translate within a body lumen, and to cause the device to change direction within a body lumen. As to the above , Kim teaches, in the same field of endeavor, a device (microrobot) comprising a tubular body (main body 100), one or more fins (helical blades – Fig. 3A), and a magnet (magnet – Fig. 3A), and a magnetic field driver (electromagnetic actuation system) for generating the magnetic field to control rotation of the device, the magnetic field driver (electromagnetic actuation system) comprising a 3-axis Helmholtz coil and a controller (controller) configured to control one or more of a speed of rotation of the device, to cause the device to translate within a body lumen, and to cause the device to change direction within a body lumen (abstract, paragraphs [0004], [0031 – 0033], [0065 – 0066], [0093 – 0095], [0108], [0122], and Figs. 3A – 4B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the magnetic field generator of It should be understood that Jang and Kim are known references in the art that teach an untethered microrobot rotated by an externally generated magnetic field (abstract, paragraphs [0002 – 0003], [0053 – 0062], and Figs. 11 – 14 – Jang ; paragraphs [0004], [0031 – 0033], [0065 – 0066], [0093 – 0095], [0108], [0122], and Figs. 3A – 4B – Kim); and the Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have substituted one magnetic field driver for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and resulted in the modified system of Jang being able to function as intended to properly drive the microrobot. The Examiner notes the rejection above is based on KSR int’l Co. V. Teleflex inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), rational B, outlined in MPEP 2143 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al (US 2022/0280182 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Hall et al (US 2011/0282337 A1) . Regarding claim 22 , as discussed above, Jang discloses the system of claim 13, including the magnetic field generator. However, Jang is silent regarding (i) a guide tube sized to be introduced into the body lumen and carrying the device, the device deployable through a distal opening of the guide tube within the body lumen. As to the above , Hall teaches a system comprising a guide tube (outer sheath 80) sided to be introduced into a body lumen for carrying a device (end-effector 110), wherein the device (end-effector 110) is deployable through the distal opening of the guide tube (outer sheath 80) (abstract, paragraphs [0060 – 0061], and Figs. 2 – 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Jang, to incorporate a guide tube, based on the teachings of Hall, for the purpose of protecting the vasculature from the blades of the micro-robot while traversing the vasculature to the treatment site . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Pertinent Prior Art 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Jang et al (US 11,648,068 B2) and Jang et al (US 2022/0296316 A1) teach tubular microrobots with fins driven by an external magnetic field. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Restaino whose telephone number is (571)272-4748. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 4:00 ET. 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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at 571-272-7134. 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. /Andrew Restaino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771 Application/Control Number: 18/939,349 Page 2 Art Unit: 3771 Application/Control Number: 18/939,349 Page 3 Art Unit: 3771 Application/Control Number: 18/939,349 Page 5 Art Unit: 3771 Application/Control Number: 18/939,349 Page 6 Art Unit: 3771 Application/Control Number: 18/939,349 Page 7 Art Unit: 3771 Application/Control Number: 18/939,349 Page 8 Art Unit: 3771 Application/Control Number: 18/939,349 Page 9 Art Unit: 3771 Application/Control Number: 18/939,349 Page 12 Art Unit: 3771 Application/Control Number: 18/939,349 Page 13 Art Unit: 3771 Application/Control Number: 18/939,349 Page 14 Art Unit: 3771
Prosecution Insights