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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/17/25 has been entered.
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) 48, 49, 51, 55-62, and 91-104 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Publication No. 2019/0343702 to Smith in view of U. S. Publication No. 2020/0001120 to Lee et al.
Regarding Claim 48, Smith teaches a nonsurgical method of destroying a pathogen present in a subject patient comprising the steps of: a. identifying a body region of the subject patient afflicted with the pathogen (para 010 teaches dermal treatment) using known diagnostic techniques (applicant agrees the claim limitation is prior art); and b. performing an ultrasonic cavitation procedure on an outer surface of the afflicted body region of the subject patient to disrupt functionality of the pathogen (para 0031 teaches ultrasonic cavitation treatment to disrupt functionality of the pathogen).
Smith does not expressly teach a specified target region for ultrasonic cavitation to treat a pathogen in a subject.
Lee teaches ultrasonic cavitation to treat the lungs in a subject (para 0096, 0112, and 0120 teaches ultrasonic cavitation of the lung tissue).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Smith with a setup to treat lungs with ultrasonic cavitation as taught by Lee, since such a setup would result in precise treatment of the lung tissue.
Regarding Claim 49, Smith teaches a. before the step of performing the ultrasonic cavitation, placing the subject patient in a hyperbaric chamber capable of being pressurized or depressurized to a desired internal chamber pressure (para 005-008 teaches pressure of the hyperbaric chamber); and b. adjusting the internal chamber pressure to the desired internal chamber pressure (para 005-008 teaches adjusting pressure of the hyperbaric chamber).
Regarding Claim 51, Smith teaches that the pathogens are selected from the group consisting of viruses, bacteria, fungi, protozoa, helminths and parasites (para 0050 teaches a disease).
Regarding Claim 55, Smith teaches providing hyperbaric oxygen treatment (para 005-007 teaches hyperbaric oxygen treatment).
Regarding Claim 56, Smith teaches a nonsurgical method of destroying pathogens present in an anatomical location of a subject patient, the method comprising the steps of: a. identifying the anatomical location of the subject patient where the pathogen is present (para 010-013 teaches dermal treatment); b. performing an ultrasonic procedure on a region of an outer surface of the subject patient proximate the identified anatomical location to direct ultrasonic forces toward the pathogens in such anatomical location (para 0031 teaches ultrasonic cavitation treatment).
Regarding Claim 58, Smith teaches carrying out the method within a hyperbaric chamber while also providing hyperbaric oxygen treatment to the subject patient (para 005-007 teaches hyperbaric oxygen treatment).
Regarding Claim 59-62, Smith teaches that the pathogens are selected from the group consisting of viruses, bacteria, fungi, protozoa, helminths and parasites (para 0050 teaches a disease).
Regarding Claim 95-98 Lee teaches ultrasonic procedure on the chest of the subject (figs. 1-3 and para 0096, 0112, and 0120 teaches ultrasonic cavitation of the lung tissue).
Regarding claims 99 and 104, Lee teaches that the ultrasonic procedure is performed with portable ultrasound equipment (Figs. 1-3 element 104).
Claim(s) 91-94 and 100-103 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Publication No. 2019/0343702 to Smith in view of U. S. Publication No. 2020/0001120 to Lee et al. further in view of NPL titled “Effect of receptors on the resonant transient harmonic vibrations of the Coronavirus” by Wierzbicki et al. (From IDS, and applicant acknowledged prior art).
Regarding Claim 91-94 and 100-103, Weirzbicki teaches the claimed limitations and Applicant agrees in the specifications that the subject matter of the claims is from applicant admitted prior art (para 0129 of the specification).
Claim(s) 50 and 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Publication No. 2019/0343702 to Smith in view of U. S. Publication No. 2020/0001120 to Lee et al. further in view of U. S. Publication No. 2005/0228267 to Bulkes et al.
Regarding Claims 50 and 57, Smith and Lee teaches all of the above claimed limitations but does not expressly teach a guided ultrasound procedure in tandem with Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
Bulkes teaches a guided ultrasound procedure in tandem with Magnetic Resonance Imaging (para 0030 teaches combined ultrasound/mri image guidance).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Smith and Lee with a setup such that the method uses a combined ultrasound/mri image guidance as taught by Bulkes, since such a setup would result in precise image guidance as, both imaging modalities are used for the guidance procedure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/17/25 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Regarding claims 91-94 and 100-103 the claimed limitations are applicant admitted prior art (para 0129 of the specification).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANJAY CATTUNGAL whose telephone number is (571)272-1306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Keith Raymond can be reached on 571-270-1790. 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.
/SANJAY CATTUNGAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798