CTFR 17/459,160 CTFR 96475 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 The amendments filed 4/21/2026 have been entered. Accordingly, claims 1-4, 9-10, and 42 are pending in the current application. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant argues the supporting reference of Cao has a fundamentally different principle of operation than that of Hansen, and therefore would lack sufficient reason to combine with the primary reference of Hansen in order to teach the limitation involving “wherein the subject is in a supine position or a prone position”, as the claim has been amended to recite. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting that both Hansen and Cao involve applying mechanical vibrational therapy to a user’s chest. While the manner in which the mechanical vibrations are applied to the user may differ, they both ultimately result in the user’s chest region receiving mechanical vibrations. Furthermore, the Examiner maintains that having the user be in a supine or prone position while receiving treatment would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as Cao clearly teaches such positions may have potential benefits in the removal of urinary stones (Page 7 of Cao), and having the user lie down (in either a supine or prone manner) is an art-recognized position for a user to be in while receiving vibrational therapy that may offer the user additional comfort, as opposed to the user being upright . 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-2, 4, 9-10 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (US 5,569,170) in view of Bernhardt (US 2018/0303458 A1), Rousso (WO 2020/0070748 A1) and in further view of Cao (DE 112013006858 T5) . Regarding claim 1, Hansen discloses a method comprising: circumferentially administering vibrations to a subject's torso or a portion thereof via a vest placed on the subject's torso (vest 24 circumferentially applies mechanical vibrations to a user’s torso via pressure pulses imparted by inflatable air bags 31 and 32, Col. 3 lines 55-60 and Col. 5 lines 20-35 and an Figure 1) , wherein the vibrations are produced by inflation and deflation of air pockets (inflatable air bags 31, 32, Figure 1) through a first hose connection and a second hose connection (first and second hoses 37 and 38 carry pulses of air under pressure to the internal chambers of the air bags 31, 32, Figure 1 and Col. 4 lines 12-15) , wherein the air pockets that are part of the vest (air bags 31 and 32 are incorporated within vest 24, Figure 1) , wherein the vibrations cause a lower portion of the torso to experience a pressure ranging from 1 psi to 5 psi (air pump 42 is operated to inflate air bags 31, 32 to a selected pressure such as 1 psi, therefore within the claimed pressure range, Col. 5 lines 35-36) . However, although Hansen teaches a method of administering mechanical circumferential vibrations to a user’s torso via inflatable air pockets (Figure 1 and Abstract), Hansen doesn’t explicitly state the method being used for facilitating passage of a urinary stone and/or alleviating a pain caused by a urinary stone; and although Hansen further teaches the operating frequency being adjustable (Col. 1 lines 50-55), Hansen doesn’t explicitly state wherein the vibrations are administered with a frequency ranging from 5 Hz to 20 Hz; and Hansen is silent wherein the vibrations are administered to the subject for a plurality of periods each ranging from between 15 minutes and 40 minutes, and wherein each period of administration is followed by a lull period ranging from 1 minute to 30 minutes; and wherein the subject is in a supine or prone position. However, in regards to a method of administering vibrations to a user’s torso for facilitating passage of a urinary stone and/or alleviating a pain caused by a urinary stone, and wherein the vibrations have a frequency of between 5 Hz to 20 Hz, Bernhardt discloses a method for facilitating passage of a urinary stone and/or alleviating a pain caused by a urinary stone (method for creating mechanical waves that travel through an individual’s body to the kidneys and/or associated ureters to loosen/dislodge kidney stones, Abstract and Paragraph 0019), the method comprising circumferentially administering vibrations to a subject's torso or a portion thereof via a vest placed on the subject’s torso (a circumferential wearable belt/band apparatus 100 includes a waist band 105 comprising tactile transducers 110a,b that produce mechanical waves toward the kidney of the user, Paragraph 0025; mechanical waves produced by the transducers cause the kidneys to vibrate, Paragraph 0019; band 105 may be worn and arranged in a position in which the tactile transducers are in the vicinity of the individual’s kidneys, therefore administrating vibrations to a portion of the torso, Paragraph 0006; the Examiner notes the wearable belt/band 105 of Bernhardt’s device constitutes as a “vest” as it is a sleeveless, close-fitting waist-length garment, the same general configuration as shown in Applicant’s Figures 2 and 5); wherein the vibrations have a frequency of between 5 Hz to 20 Hz (the tactile transducers produce mechanical vibrations at a resonant frequency of a kidney tissue which may be in the range of 9-16 Hz, therefore falling in the range of between 5 to 20 Hz, Paragraph 0006). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use Hansen’s method of administering vibrations to a user’s torso for the facilitating of passage of a urinary stone and/or alleviating pain from a urinary stone, at a frequency of between 5 Hz to 20 Hz, as taught by Bernhardt, as applying such mechanical vibrations to a user’s torso serves as a therapeutically effective means of treating kidney and/or urinary stones (Abstract of Bernhardt). In regards to wherein the vibrations are administered to the subject for a plurality of periods each ranging from between 15 minutes and 40 minutes, and wherein each period of administration is followed by a lull period ranging from 1 minute to 30 minutes, Rousso teaches a method of treating post-renal disorders such as formation of kidney stones (Abstract, Page 2 lines 1-2) wherein ultrasonic vibrations (Page 22 lines 9-10) are applied to user’s torso via a wearable vest (Figure 61) via ultrasonic transducers (transducers 6104, 6106, and 6108, Figure 61 and Page 22), wherein the vibrations are administered to the subject for a plurality of periods each ranging from between 15 to 40 minutes (therapy sessions are applied repeatedly for at least 30 minutes, therefore administered for a plurality of periods with each period falling within the claimed range of 15 to 40 minutes, Page 122 lines 10-13), wherein each therapy session is followed by a lull period ranging from 1 minute to 30 minutes (the therapeutic sessions has intermittent breaks of at least 1 minute, Page 122 lines 17-18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hansen’s method of applying vibrations to a user’s chest to include administering the vibrations to the subject for a plurality of periods each ranging from between 15 to 40 minutes, as well as being followed by intermittent lull periods each ranging from 1 minute to 30 minutes, as taught by Rousso, as providing vibrations to the user’s torso for relatively long time intervals such as between 15 to 40 minutes may assist in the breaking up of kidney stones, and applying periods of no vibrational therapy for a period of at least 1 minute may allow the patient to rest and/or slowly adapt to the treatment process. In regards to the subject being in a supine or prone position, Cao teaches a method of and apparatus configured to assist in the removal or urinary stones comprising a vibrating bed and primary oscillator (Abstract, Figure 1) wherein the subject is in a supine position (if the kidney stone is located in the upper pole of the kidney, the patient should take a supine position , Page 7, paragraph 6) or a prone position (if the kidney stone is a right or left kidney stone, the patient should take a prone position , Page 7, paragraphs 4 and 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hansen to include the subject being placed in either a supine or prone position, as taught by Cao, as this position allows the urinary stone to enter the funnel and the ureter, aiding in the removal process of the stone (Page 7 of Cao), and it would have been obvious to have the subject lie in either a supine or prone position to enhance user comfort while receiving treatment, and having the user lie in either a supine or prone position is an art-recognized position for a user to be in while receiving vibrational therapy. Regarding claim 2, Hansen further discloses wherein circumferentially administering vibrations to the subject's torso or a portion thereof comprises simultaneously administering vibrations at a plurality of locations (pulsator 36 causes air bags 28, 29 to transmit controller air pressure pulses simultaneously as indicated by arrows 33 and 34 to the thoracic wall 13 of the user, air bags 28 and 29 are disposed in different locations, Figures 1 and Col. 3 lines 60-65). Regarding claim 4, Hansen further discloses wherein the portion of the subject's torso comprises a lower portion of the torso covering the kidneys, ureter, and/or urinary bladder (see vest 24 covering entire torso of user, therefore covering the kidneys, ureter, and/or bladder, Figure 1). Regarding claim 9, Hansen in view of Bernhardt and Rousso and Cao teach the method of claim 1, with Cao again teaching wherein the subject is in a supine position (if the kidney stone is located in the upper pole of the kidney, the patient should take a supine position , Page 7, paragraph 6). Regarding claim 10, Cao further teaches wherein the subject is in a prone position (if the kidney stone is a right or left kidney stone, the patient should take a prone position , Page 7, paragraphs 4 and 5). Regarding claim 42, Hansen further discloses wherein the vest is also configured to provide high frequency chest wall compression (HFCWC) (wave generator 178 has a wave frequency adjusting control 194 to allow controlling the frequency of the pulses, to allow pulsator to delivery controlled pulsating air pressure forces to the vest, Col. 6 lines 1-5) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (US 5,569,170) in view of Bernhardt (US 2018/0303458 A1), Rousso (WO 2020/0070748 A1), and in further view of Rousso (WO 2018/185767 A1) . Regarding claim 3, Hansen in view of Bernhardt and Rousso (‘748) teach the method of claim 1, and although Hansen further teaches circumferentially administering vibrations to a subject’s torso or a portion thereof, Hansen doesn’t explicitly state wherein circumferentially administering vibrations to the subject's torso or a portion thereof comprises sequentially administering vibrations at a plurality of locations. However, Rousso (‘767) teaches a method of circumferentially administrating vibrations to a subject’s torso for the purpose of treating the kidneys (a device is fully mobile and worn by the patient as a vest or a belt 400, with ultrasonic transducers that convert electrical energy into acoustic vibrations and pressure waves, inducing vibrations to the kidneys, Page 25 lines 25-29 and Figure 4) and further teaches the vibrations being sequentially administered at a plurality of locations (device may comprise multiple independently transmitting transducers, delivering sequential pressure waveforms to different regions of the target organ, Page 21 lines 12-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hansen to include the option of administering the vibrations at a plurality of locations sequentially, as further taught by Rousso, as sequentially administering vibrations at a plurality of locations may allow the vibrations to reach a wider area of the kidney or target area (Page 21 lines 9-11 of Rousso). Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 SARAH B LEDERER whose telephone number is 571-272-7274. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:30 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, Brandy Lee can be reached on (571)-270-7410. 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. /SARAH B LEDERER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785 /MARGARET M LUARCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785 Application/Control Number: 17/459,160 Page 2 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 17/459,160 Page 3 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 17/459,160 Page 4 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 17/459,160 Page 5 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 17/459,160 Page 6 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 17/459,160 Page 7 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 17/459,160 Page 8 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 17/459,160 Page 9 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 17/459,160 Page 10 Art Unit: 3785 Application/Control Number: 17/459,160 Page 11 Art Unit: 3785
Prosecution Insights