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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 9/7/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no burden. This is not found persuasive because there is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct invention as set forth in the restriction requirement mailed on 7/9/26 due to at the inventions require a different field of search such as searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9/7/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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, 4, 5, and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gao et al. (2020/0397523).
Gao discloses the following claimed limitations:
Claim 1: A magnetic core (116) (Fig. 1 and [0094]); A mesoporous shell (112) coated on said magnetic core (Fig. 1, [0084], [0094]); and An outer layer (118) of a chemical for recanalization bound to said mesoporous shell (Fig. 1, [0083], [0085], and [0094]) and ; wherein said nanobot is adapted to respond to an external magnetic field to carry out motion for mechanical and chemical recanalization (Fig. 1 and [0094]).
Claim 4: wherein said magnetic core comprises one or more of Fe, Co,Ni, Mn, and their oxides or alloys ([0083]).
Claim 5: wherein said magnetic core comprises Fe304 ([0089]).
Claim 7: wherein said mesoporous shell comprises silica, Zeolitic Imidazolate Framework-8, Red Blood Cell Membrane or polydopamine ([0084]).
Claim 8: wherein said external magnetic field comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of static magnetic field, tumbling magnetic field, rotating magnetic field, oscillating magnetic field, conical magnetic field, andgradient magnetic field ([0089-90] note that the external magnetic field is not positively claimed and can be used with this device).
Claim 9: wherein said motion comprises staying stationary, rotating, or moving along a desired
trajectory (where it is capable of having this motion).
Claim 10: wherein said nanobot has a size range of 20-5000nm ([0082]).
Claim 11: wherein said nanobot has a size of about 300nm ([0082]).
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karathanasis et al. (2019/0111133)
Karathanasis discloses the following claimed limitations:
Claim 1: A magnetic core ([0044]); A mesoporous shell ([0044]) coated on said magnetic core ([0044]); and An outer layer ([0044]) of a chemical for recanalization bound to said mesoporous shell ([0044]) and ; wherein said nanobot is adapted to respond to an external magnetic field to carry out motion for mechanical and chemical recanalization ([0044]).
Claim 2: wherein said chemical for recanalization comprises thrombolytic agents ([0089]).
Claim 3: wherein said chemical for recanalization comprises tissue plasminogen activator ([0089]).
Claim 4: wherein said magnetic core comprises one or more of Fe, Co,Ni, Mn, and their oxides or alloys ([0044]).
Claim 5: wherein said magnetic core comprises Fe304 ([0044])
Claim 7: wherein said mesoporous shell comprises silica, Zeolitic Imidazolate Framework-8, Red Blood Cell Membrane or polydopamine ([0044]).
Claim 8: wherein said external magnetic field comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of static magnetic field, tumbling magnetic field,rotating magnetic field, oscillating magnetic field, conical magnetic field, andgradient magnetic field ([0044] note that the external magnetic field is not positively claimed and can be used with this device) .
Claim 9: wherein said motion comprises staying stationary, rotating, or moving along a desired trajectory ([0044] where it is capable of having this motion).
Claim 10: wherein said nanobot has a size range of 20-5000nm ([0008] and [0047]).
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.
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) 1-5, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kidd et al. (2020/0360711) in view of Pantelidis et al. (2007/0160639).
Claim 1:
Kidd discloses a magnetic core (15) (Fig. 1 and [0099]); a shell ([0089-91] where there is a non-specialized coating) and An outer layer ([0089-91] and [0038]) of a chemical for recanalization bound to said shell (Fig. 1, [0089-91] and [0038]) and ; wherein said nanobot is adapted to respond to an external magnetic field to carry out motion for mechanical and chemical recanalization (Fig. 1-3).
Kidd teaches all the claimed limitations discussed above however, Kidd does not specify that the shell coating is made of a mesoporous coating.
Pantelidis discloses the use of a mesoporous coating which would function as a drug reservoir (abstract, [0085]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Kidd with a mesoporous coating in view of the teachings of Pantelidis, in order to have a porous material where the therapeutic material can be received and act as a reservoir (abstract, [0085]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a mesoporous coating, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 2: Kidd discloses that said chemical for recanalization comprises thrombolytic agents ([0036], [0038], [0089-91]).
Claim 3: Kidd discloses that wherein said chemical for recanalization comprises tissue plasminogen activator ([0036], [0038], [0089-91]).
Claim 4: Kidd discloses that said magnetic core comprises one or more of Fe, Co,Ni, Mn, and their oxides or alloys ([0011], [0038], [0095]).
Claim 5: Kidd discloses that wherein said magnetic core comprises Fe304 ([0011], [0038], [0095]).
Claim 8: Kidd discloses wherein said external magnetic field comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of static magnetic field, tumbling magnetic field,rotating magnetic field, oscillating magnetic field, conical magnetic field, andgradient magnetic field (Fig. 1-3).
Claim 9: Kidd discloses that said motion comprises staying stationary, rotating, or moving along a desired trajectory (Fig. 1-3).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kidd et al. (2020/0360711) in view of Pantelidis et al. (2007/0160639) and further in view of Steinhart et al. (2017/0363953)
Kidd in view of Pantelidis discloses all the claimed limitations discussed above, however Kidd in view of Pantelidis is silent with regards to said mesoporous shell is made of a material comprising metal-organic framework (MOF) or cell membrane.
Steinhart discloses that the mesoporous material can be a metal-organic framework (MOF) ([0125]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a metal-organic framework (MOF), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Furthermore, a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have yielded predictable results supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2143, "KSR" rationale B.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karathanasis et al. (2019/0111133) in view of Steinhart et al. (2017/0363953)
Karathanasis discloses all the claimed limitations discussed above, however Karathanasis is silent with regards to said mesoporous shell is made of a material comprising metal-organic framework (MOF) or cell membrane.
Steinhart discloses that the mesoporous material can be a metal-organic framework (MOF) ([0125]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a metal-organic framework (MOF), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Furthermore, a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have yielded predictable results supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2143, "KSR" rationale B.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art appears to teach the claimed limitations when considered alone or in combination.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANNE DORNBUSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3515. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 9 am-3 pm.
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.
/DIANNE DORNBUSCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
