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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/09/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 09/03/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I, II, and III inventions are sufficiently related to allow for examination of these inventions together. This is not found persuasive. Although there may be some overlap of the search for Groups I, II, and III, there is nothing to indicate that the search would be coextensive. Furthermore, the office action dated 08/14/2026 explains why Groups I, II, and III do not overlap the scope (See MPEP § 806.05 and CTRS dated 08/14/2026). Therefore, the extra search and/or examination burden for addressing Groups I, II, and III poses a serious burden to the examiner which makes the restriction requirement proper.
Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciuti et al. (WO 2021005582 A1, published January 14, 2021), from IDS, in view of Scheunert et al. (US 20240423743 A1, published December 26, 2024 with a priority date of March 7, 2022), hereinafter referred to as Ciuti and Scheunert, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Ciuti teaches a magnetic robotic assembly for magnetically locating a medical device (Fig. 1, system 100 locating medical device 200), comprising:
a robotic arm (Fig. 1, robotic arm 105),
a base (Fig. 1, patient table), wherein the robotic arm is movable in a plurality of configurations with respect to said robot base (Fig. 1, table (where external magnetic field source 120 is located) as base, and robotic arm 105 moves with respect to the table (base); see claim 9 – “…actuate said robotic arm (105)…”),
wherein the robotic arm extends at least between a robotic arm basal end and a robotic arm distal end (Fig. 1, robotic arm 105 extends between a basal end and a distal end),
a first magnetic source configured to generate a first magnetic field and at least a second magnetic source configured to generate a second magnetic field (Fig. 1, external magnetic field sources 110 and 120 as first and second magnetic field sources configured to generate magnetic fields),
wherein the first magnetic field is constant and wherein the second magnetic field is periodically variable (Fig. 1; see pg. 5, lines 12-17 – “…an external permanent magnet 110, which is adapted to generate a static magnetic field [first magnetic field, constant] having frequency fn = 0; four solenoids 120, arranged to generate alternate electromagnetic fields frequencies f2 ≠ f3 ≠ f4 ≠ f5 ≠ 0 [second magnetic field, periodically variable].”),
wherein the first magnetic source is connected to said robotic arm distal end (Fig. 1, external magnetic field source 110 (first magnetic source) connected to robotic arm 105 distal end),
wherein the first magnetic source is movable integrally with said robotic arm distal end in a plurality of operating positions of the first magnetic source with respect to said robot base to immerse at least one insertion portion of the medical device in the first magnetic field by moving said robotic arm (Fig. 1; see claim 9 – “…actuate said robotic arm (105) [which includes external magnetic field source 110, first magnetic source] to move said endoscopic capsule (200) [insertion portion (entirety) of medical device] along said advancement direction optimizing the magnetic force between said locomotive source and said internal permanent magnet.” So medical device 200 is immersed in the first magnetic field (external magnetic field source 110) by moving robotic arm 105);
wherein said at least a second magnetic source is constrained to said robot base to be arranged in a second magnetic source position which is fixed and integral with respect to said robot base for each first magnetic source position of said first magnetic source (Fig. 1, external magnetic field source 120 (second magnetic source) constrained to base (table), which is fixed with respect to each position of the robotic arm 150 and external magnetic field source 110 (first magnetic source)).
Ciuti teaches a robotic arm and a base (table), but does not explicitly teach where the base is configured to support the robotic arm.
Whereas, Scheunert, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches a robot base configured to support the robotic arm, wherein the robotic arm is movable in a plurality of configurations with respect to said robot base, wherein said robotic arm basal end is connected to said robot base (Fig. 1, table system 12 (robot base) configured to support robotic arm(s) 20, and robotic arm basal end is connected to table system 12 (robot base)).
In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 133 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in Ciuti would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.
Ciuti discloses the claimed invention except for the base (table) is configured to support the robotic arm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to have the base (table) configured to support the robotic arm, since it has been held that making in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in multiple pieces involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have the base (table) configured to support the robotic arm in order to have a table-based robotic system, as taught in Scheunert (see para. 0025). In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 133 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); See MPEP 2144.04 VB.
Furthermore, regarding claim 2, Ciuti further teaches wherein said at least a second magnetic source is oriented so that when said first magnetic source is in any first magnetic source operating position of said plurality of first magnetic source operating positions, the second magnetic field is superimposed on the first magnetic field to immerse at least the insertion portion in the first magnetic field and the second magnetic field, and/or to avoid a parallelism between the magnetic field vectors of said second magnetic field and the magnetic field vectors of said first magnetic field in any position in which the first magnetic field is superimposed on the second magnetic field (Fig. 2, magnetic field of external source 120 (second magnetic field) is superimposed on magnetic field of external source 110 (first magnetic field) to immerse medical device 200 in magnetic fields; see pg. 4, line 25 – “Fig. 2 shows in detail the magnetic fields obtained by the alternating magnetic field source of the embodiment of Fig. 1.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 3, Ciuti further teaches one or more of the following features or a combination thereof:
wherein said magnetic robotic assembly comprises an effector directly connected to said robotic arm distal end, wherein said effector comprises said first magnetic source avoiding supporting further magnetic sources configured to generate a respective further magnetic field; and/or
wherein said first magnetic source is a permanent magnet configured to generate said first magnetic field (Fig. 1; see pg. 5, lines 12-14 – “…an external permanent magnet 110, which is adapted to generate a static magnetic field [first magnetic source, field] having frequency fn = 0;…”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 4, Ciuti further teaches one or more of the following features or a combination thereof:
wherein said at least a second magnetic source comprises at least one winding configured to generate said second magnetic field when crossed by a current, and/or
wherein said at least a second magnetic source is an electromagnet configured to generate said second magnetic field (see pg. 5, lines 15-17 – “…four solenoids 120, arranged to generate alternate electromagnetic fields frequencies f2 ≠ f3 ≠ f4 ≠ f5 ≠ 0 [second magnetic field, source].”), and/or
wherein said robot base comprises a base body delimiting at least one seat of said at least a second magnetic source, wherein said at least a second magnetic source is housed in said seat of said at least a second magnetic source in connection with said robot base, and wherein said at least a second magnetic source is electrically powered by an electrical connection of a second magnetic source, wherein said electrical connection is housed inside said base body.
Furthermore, regarding claim 5, Ciuti further teaches one or more of the following features or a combination thereof:
wherein said robot base comprises a support portion-adapted to directly support said at least a second magnetic source, wherein said support portion at least partially delimits said at least one seat of second magnetic source; and/or
wherein said robot base comprises reversible connection means configured to reversibly connect said at least a second magnetic source to said robot base allowing a replacement of said at least a second magnetic source with another from a set of second magnetic sources; and/or
wherein said at least a second magnetic source comprises a coil support adapted to support said at least one winding, wherein said coil support has at least one hollow portion to electrically connect the at least one winding, and/or wherein the at least a second magnetic source comprises a magnetic core to concentrate lines of the second magnetic field in material of the magnetic core (Fig. 2; see pg. 5, lines 15-17 – “…four solenoids 120, arranged to generate alternate electromagnetic fields frequencies f2 ≠ f3 ≠ f4 ≠ f5 ≠ 0 [second magnetic source].” Solenoid as magnetic source, where it is inherent and known in the art for a solenoid to have at least one winding, have support for said winding, electrically connect to said winding, and have a magnetic core to generate the magnetic field).
Furthermore, regarding claim 7, Ciuti further teaches wherein said at least one winding defines a winding axis (Fig. 2; see pg. 5, lines 15-17 – “…four solenoids 120, arranged to generate alternate electromagnetic fields frequencies f2 ≠ f3 ≠ f4 ≠ f5 ≠ 0 [second magnetic source].” Inherent and known in the art for a solenoid to have at least one winding, so inherently a solenoid has a “winding axis”), and
wherein said robot base comprises a pedestal adapted to rest on a support surface or a floor to stably support the robotic arm, wherein the pedestal comprises an abutment surface (Fig. 1, base (table) includes pedestal adapted to rest on a support surface/floor via an abutment surface),
wherein the winding axis is parallel to the abutment surface or wherein the winding axis forms a winding angle between 0 and 60 degrees with the abutment surface of said pedestal core (Fig. 1-2, winding axis of solenoids 120 is parallel to abutment surface of base (table)).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciuti in view of Scheunert, as applied to claim 4 above, and in further view of Rodriguez-Navarro et al. (US 20180296289 A1, published October 18, 2018), hereinafter referred to as Navarro.
Regarding claim 6, Ciuti in view of Scheunert teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 4 above, and
Ciuti further teaches wherein said base body avoids shielding the second magnetic field at least towards said front part of the magnetic robotic assembly (Fig. 1-2, where base (table) would inherently avoid shielding the magnetic field of source 120 in order to immerse medical device 200 with magnetic fields).
Ciuti in view of Scheunert teaches a robot base, but does not explicitly teach where the robot base includes a control panel.
Whereas, Navarro, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein said robot base comprises a control panel adapted to control said magnetic robotic assembly, wherein said magnetic robotic assembly defines a front zone in which the robotic arm distal end is adapted to move, wherein the control panel is arranged on the base body in a zone opposite to the front zone, wherein said base body shields the second magnetic field at least towards the control panel (Fig. 2A, user interface 202 as control panel moving robotic arms 206 in front of control panel, where base (table) would inherently shield the control panel from magnetic fields to limit interference; see para. 0026 – “The user interface 202 may be configured to allow the operator to control the location and orientation of the intracavity devices 210, 212 through operator input to the input device for control of the position of the support arms 206 and magnetic field of the external magnet 208.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a robot base, as disclosed in Ciuti in view of Scheunert, by having where the robot base includes a control panel, as disclosed in Navarro. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a surgical system having one or more devices to manipulate tissue controlled by a single operator without an assistant operator, as taught in Navarro (see para. 0004).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Maschke (DE 102008032313 B3, published December 17, 2009) discloses a robotic arm attached to patient table, a magnetic field generator in the table and a magnetic field generator on the distal end of the robotic arm.
Kim et al. (US 20250009456 A1, published January 9, 2025 with a priority date of December 15, 2021) discloses the patient is located between the first magnetic field generating unit 200 and the upper coil 320 of the second magnetic field generating unit 300, and the magnetic fields generated from the first magnetic field generating unit 200 and the second magnetic field generating unit are distributed in a patient area (Fig. 1 and 9).
Yang et al. (US 20240032949 A1, published February 1, 2024 with a priority date of August 1, 2022) discloses an interventional setup 10 having a patient support table 12 for supporting a patient 14. An imaging system 16 may be provided, along with a robotic interventional device drive system 18 (Fig. 1).
Gelinas (US 20230157654 A1, published May 25, 2023 with a priority date of November 16, 2021) discloses a system for steering magnetotactic entities in a subject having a propulsion system for navigating in a body of the subject using a magnetic field sufficient for influencing the direction of the magnetotactic entities while not without inducing a displacement force on the magnetotactic entities.
Ellman et al. (US 20230255699 A1, published August 17, 2023 with a priority date of June 30, 2020) discloses a robotic navigation system includes a robot base (140); a robotic arm (144) comprising a proximal portion secured to the robot base, a distal portion movable relative to the proximal portion (Fig. 2A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nyrobi Celestine whose telephone number is 571-272-0129. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:00AM - 5:00PM 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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights