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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 12 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 2, “the treatment time” should read –a treatment time--.
Claim 12, lines 2 – 3, “at least electromagnetic field strength” should read -- at least one of electromagnetic field strength--.
Claim 15, lines 2 – 3, “parameters, configured to” should read –parameters, is configured to”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 14 - 15, and claim 11, the limitation “wherein the vibrational motion of the superparamagnetic particles while passing through the vasculature of the human subject” is unclear grammatically. Clarification is requested.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the electromagnetic field parameters" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the electromagnetic field parameters" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the conclusion" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creighton et al (WO 2011053984 A1, hereinafter Creighton) in view of Li et al (WO 2009108478 A1, hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 1, Creighton teaches a method (“method”, [0017]) for treatment of a human subject for removing plaque deposits from blood vessels and vasculature of the human subject ([0017]), the method comprising:
introducing a plurality of superparamagnetic nanoparticles (“Examples of such magnetic nanoparticles include superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles.”, [0080]) into the bloodstream of the human subject ([0008], [0157], [0161], Figures 10A and 10B);
generating a rapidly changing, time-varying externally applied electromagnetic field (“time-varying magnetic field”, [0151]; [0126] – [0127], [0192]) to the human subject ([0123], Figure 6C),
wherein the plurality of the superparamagnetic nanoparticles is distributed substantially uniformly through the vasculature of the human subject (“Fig. 15A as nanoparticles in a random disposition of particles 1505, arrayed so as to be roughly evenly distributed in space”, [0165], Figure 15A);
controlling the time-varying electromagnetic field generating an oscillating magnetic effect to impart vibrational motion ("which magnetite particles are manipulated to rapidly and safely destroy clots", [0126]; “a single (slow) cycle of magnetic field alternation, or b) the increase over a number of cycles as the peak-to-peak magnitude of the field generated is increased. Depending on the absolute scale and oscillating frequency”, [0165], [0192]) to the superparamagnetic nanoparticles throughout the bloodstream of the human subject ([0123] – [0127], [0202]) to the superparamagnetic nanoparticles throughout the bloodstream of the human subject ([0123] – [0127], [0202]),
wherein the vibrational motion ([0126], [0165], [0192]) of the superparamagnetic nanoparticles while passing through the vasculature of the human subject ([0123], “magnetite particles are manipulated to rapidly and safely destroy clots”, [0126], [0165], [0192]),
so as to substantially dislodge and dissolve accumulated plaque in the blood vessels (“removing vulnerable plaque 2715 on a vessel 2705 wall”, [0202], Figure 27; “magnetite particles are manipulated to rapidly and safely destroy clots", [0126]); and
using a magnetic field, removing the superparamagnetic nanoparticles from the bloodstream of the human subject ([0189], Figure 21D; [0192]).
Creighton does not teach a unipolar magnetic field.
However, Li discloses “Unipolar Magnetic Carriers (UMC) are nano to micro scale particles that can be pushed around by a bulk magnet due to each has a unipolar magnetic exterior surface. They are prepared by using magnetic field to sequentially magnetize or polarize small areas in a particle, and are purified and graded by using magnetic repulsion” (abstract) and teaches a unipolar magnetic field (paragraph [66] or [t>6]; abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Creighton to incorporate a unipolar magnetic field, as taught by Li, for the benefit of navigating the nanoparticles to the targeted site and increasing the effectiveness of the treatment (Li: [8]).
Regarding claim 2, Creighton and Li teach all limitations of claim 1. The modified invention of Creighton and Li teaches the method including programming a controller (Creighton: “a computer control panel 604”, [0123]) to cause the electromagnetic field to operate for a predetermined duration of the treatment time (Creighton: “a controller for positioning and rotating the field and the gradient in a manner to agglomerate and traverse the magnetic rotors with respect to a therapeutic target in the circulatory system”, [0007], [0009], [0012], [0017], [0123] – [0124]).
Regarding claim 3, Creighton and Li teach all limitations of claim 1. The modified invention of Creighton and Li teaches the electromagnetic field is focused on a designated sub portion of the vasculature of the human subject, to provide the treatment of the blood vessels and vasculature (Creighton: “Examples of such magnetic nanoparticles include superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles.”, [0080]) (Creighton: “a controller for positioning and rotating the field and the gradient in a manner to agglomerate and traverse the magnetic rotors with respect to a therapeutic target in the circulatory system”, [0007], [0009], [0012], [0017], [0123] – [0124], [0126]).
Regarding claim 4, Creighton and Li teach all limitations of claim 1. The modified invention of Creighton and Li teaches the field strength of the electromagnetic field is controllable for the human subject (Creighton: “a controller for positioning and rotating the field and the gradient in a manner to agglomerate and traverse the magnetic rotors with respect to a therapeutic target in the circulatory system”, [0007], [0009], [0012], [0017], [0080], [0123] – [0124], [0126]).
Regarding claim 5, Creighton and Li teach all limitations of claim 1. The modified invention of Creighton and Li teaches the unipolar (Li: paragraph [66] or [t>6]; abstract) magnetic field (Creighton: [0151]; [0126] – [0127], [0192]) and the electromagnetic field (Creighton: [0095]) but does not teach the unipolar magnetic field is provided by a separate treatment station.
However, Li discloses “Unipolar Magnetic Carriers (UMC) are nano to micro scale particles that can be pushed around by a bulk magnet due to each has a unipolar magnetic exterior surface. They are prepared by using magnetic field to sequentially magnetize or polarize small areas in a particle, and are purified and graded by using magnetic repulsion” (abstract) and teaches a unipolar magnetic field (paragraph [66] or [t>6]) is provided by a separate treatment station (paragraph [66] – [67]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Creighton and Li to incorporate the unipolar magnetic field is provided by a separate treatment station, as taught by Li, for the benefit of controlling the direction of the nanoparticles (Li: [67]).
Regarding claim 6, Creighton and Li teach all limitations of claim 1. The modified invention of Creighton and Li teaches the removal of the superparamagnetic nanoparticle takes place after a predetermined time duration (Creighton: “the removed magnetically infused material will be collected downstream by magnetic means”, [0183]).
Regarding claim 7, Creighton and Li teach all limitations of claim 1. The modified invention of Creighton and Li teaches the removal of the superparamagnetic nanoparticle occurs immediately following the treatment (Creighton: [0189], Figure 21D, [0183]).
Regarding claim 8, Creighton and Li teach all limitations of claim 1. The modified invention of Creighton and Li teaches the time-varying electromagnetic field (“time-varying magnetic field”, [0151]; [0126] – [0127], [0192]) is created by an electromagnetic field generator (Creighton: “magnetomotive system”, [0209] – [0213]).
Regarding claim 9, Creighton and Li teach all limitations of claim 1. The modified invention of Creighton and Li teaches the removal of the superparamagnetic nanoparticles occurs during a post-treatment dialytic procedure (Creighton: “the removed magnetically infused material will be collected downstream by magnetic means”, [0183]; “the gradient would be sufficient to collect particles at the desired obstruction”, [0152]; Examiner interprets as using the nanoparticles to remove fluid obstructions as dialytic procedure.).
Regarding claim 10, Creighton and Li teach all limitations of claim 1. The modified invention of Creighton and Li teaches the oscillating magnetic effect is focused on a predetermined subset of the blood vessels (Creighton: [0112]), at a location where a blood flow obstruction has been previously diagnosed (Creighton: [0112], “a vessel obstruction 830 inside a blood vessel 828 is unblocked by a rotating magnet 902”, [0150]; “devices can be made much smaller and cheaper than existing clinical devices used to amplify the effects of pharmaceuticals or to bore through obstructions in the vasculature”, [0151]; “the gradient would be sufficient to collect particles at the desired obstruction”, [0152]).
Claims 11 – 13 and 15 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creighton et al (WO 2011053984 A1, hereinafter Creighton) in view of Kuhn (US 20110306870 A1) and in further view of Li et al (WO 2009108478 A1, hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 11, Creighton teaches a system (“a system for the physical manipulation of free magnetic rotors in a circulatory system using a remotely placed magnetic field-generating stator”, [0003], abstract) for treatment of a human subject to remove plaque deposits from blood vessels and vasculature of the human subject (“targets of the system can include fluid obstructions such as atherosclerotic plaques, fibrous caps, fatty buildup, coronary occlusions, arterial stenosis, arterial restenosis, vein thrombi, arterial thrombi, cerebral thrombi, embolism, hemorrhage and very small vessels”, [0008], [0157], [0161]), comprising:
a plurality of superparamagnetic nanoparticles (“Examples of such magnetic nanoparticles include superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles.”, [0080]) for introducing into bloodstream of the human subject ([0008], [0157], [0161], Figures 10A and 10B);
an electromagnetic field generator (“magnetomotive system”, [0209] – [0213]) for generating a rapidly changing, time-varying externally applied electromagnetic field (“time-varying magnetic field”, [0151]; [0126] – [0127], [0192]) to the human subject ([0123], Figures 6B - 6C),
wherein the plurality of the superparamagnetic nanoparticles is distributed substantially uniformly through the vasculature of the human subject (“Fig . 15A as nanoparticles in a random disposition of particles 1505, arrayed so as to be roughly evenly distributed in space”, [0165], Figure 15A);
a programmed controller (“a computer control panel 604”, [0123]) for controlling the electromagnetic field generator ([0123]) for controlling the time-varying electromagnetic field generating an oscillating magnetic effect to impart vibrational motion ("which magnetite particles are manipulated to rapidly and safely destroy clots", [0126]; “a single (slow) cycle of magnetic field alternation, or b) the increase over a number of cycles as the peak-to-peak magnitude of the field generated is increased. Depending on the absolute scale and oscillating frequency”, [0165], [0192]) to the superparamagnetic nanoparticles throughout the bloodstream of the human subject ([0123] – [0127], [0202]),
wherein the vibrational motion ([0126], [0165], [0192]) of the superparamagnetic nanoparticles while passing through the vasculature of the human subject ([0123], “magnetite particles are manipulated to rapidly and safely destroy clots”, [0126], [0165], [0192]),
so as to substantially dislodge and dissolve accumulated plaque in the blood vessels (“removing vulnerable plaque 2715 on a vessel 2705 wall”, [0202], Figure 27; “magnetite particles are manipulated to rapidly and safely destroy clots", [0126]); and
a magnetic field, configured to remove the superparamagnetic nanoparticles from the bloodstream of the human subject ([0189], Figure 21D; [0192]).
Creighton does not teach a microcontroller and a unipolar magnetic field.
However, Kuhn discloses a “therapeutic apparatus for treating a subject” (abstract) and teaches a microcontroller (“a microcontroller”, [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Creighton to incorporate a unipolar magnetic field, as taught by Kuhn, for the benefit of providing precise controlling of the particles (Kuhn: [0009], [0036]).
The modified invention of Creighton and Kuhn does not teach a unipolar magnetic field.
However, Li discloses “Unipolar Magnetic Carriers (UMC) are nano to micro scale particles that can be pushed around by a bulk magnet due to each has a unipolar magnetic exterior surface. They are prepared by using magnetic field to sequentially magnetize or polarize small areas in a particle, and are purified and graded by using magnetic repulsion” (abstract) and teaches a unipolar magnetic field (paragraph [66] or [t>6]; abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kuhn and Creighton to incorporate a unipolar magnetic field, as taught by Li, for the benefit of navigating the nanoparticles to the targeted site and increasing the effectiveness of the treatment (Li: [8]).
Regarding claim 12, Creighton, Kuhn and Li teach all limitations of claim 11. The modified invention of Creighton, Kuhn and Li teaches the programmed microcontroller (Creighton: “a computer control panel 604”, [0123]; Kuhn: “a microcontroller”, [0045]) controls at least electromagnetic field strength and operational duration of the electromagnetic field (Creighton: “a controller for positioning and rotating the field and the gradient in a manner to agglomerate and traverse the magnetic rotors with respect to a therapeutic target in the circulatory system”, [0007], [0009], [0012], [0017], [0123] – [0124]).
Regarding claim 13, Creighton, Kuhn and Li teach all limitations of claim 12. The modified invention of Creighton, Kuhn and Li teaches the programmed microcontroller (Creighton: “a computer control panel 604”, [0123]; Kuhn: “a microcontroller”, [0045]) provides selection of electromagnetic field parameters, including nanoparticles a vibration rate of the nanoparticles, magnitude of the nanoparticles vibration, and nanoparticles spin or rotation (Creighton: “Examples of such magnetic nanoparticles include superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles.”, [0080]) (Creighton: “a controller for positioning and rotating the field and the gradient in a manner to agglomerate and traverse the magnetic rotors with respect to a therapeutic target in the circulatory system”, [0007], [0009], [0012], [0017], [0123] – [0124], [0126]).
Regarding claim 15, Creighton, Kuhn and Li teach all limitations of claim 12. The modified invention of Creighton, Kuhn and Li teaches the programmed microcontroller (Creighton: “a computer control panel 604”, [0123]; Kuhn: “a microcontroller”, [0045]), through control of the electromagnetic field parameters (Creighton: “a controller for positioning and rotating the field and the gradient in a manner to agglomerate and traverse the magnetic rotors with respect to a therapeutic target in the circulatory system”, [0007], [0009], [0012], [0017], [0123]), configured to provide nearly uniform distribution of the nanoparticles in the vasculature of the human subject (“Fig . 15A as nanoparticles in a random disposition of particles 1505, arrayed so as to be roughly evenly distributed in space”, [0165], Figure 15A).
Regarding claim 16, Creighton, Kuhn and Li teach all limitations of claim 12. The modified invention of Creighton, Kuhn and Li teaches the programmed microcontroller (Creighton: “a computer control panel 604”, [0123]; Kuhn: “a microcontroller”, [0045]), through control of the electromagnetic field parameters (Creighton: “a controller for positioning and rotating the field and the gradient in a manner to agglomerate and traverse the magnetic rotors with respect to a therapeutic target in the circulatory system”, [0007], [0009], [0012], [0017], [0123]), concentrate the superparamagnetic nanoparticles to one location of body of the human subject at conclusion of the treatment, to provide for less invasive removal of the nanoparticles at one location (Creighton: “the removed magnetically infused material will be collected downstream by magnetic means”, [0183]; “the gradient would be sufficient to collect particles at the desired obstruction”, [0152]). The limitation “to provide for less invasive removal of the nanoparticles at one location” is intended use. Since Creighton teaches the device remove magnetically infused material downstream through magnetic means (Creighton: [0183]), the device of Creighton, Kuhn and Li is capable of performing the intended use as claimed.
Regarding claim 17, Creighton, Kuhn and Li teach all limitations of claim 12. The modified invention of Creighton, Kuhn and Li teaches the programmed microcontroller (Creighton: “a computer control panel 604”, [0123]; Kuhn: “a microcontroller”, [0045]) is configured to provide operational control of the treatment (Creighton: [0123] – [0124]), including uniform distribution of the nanoparticles ([0165]), vibrational parameters of the nanoparticles (Creighton: “a controller for positioning and rotating the field and the gradient in a manner to agglomerate and traverse the magnetic rotors with respect to a therapeutic target in the circulatory system”, [0007], [0009], [0012], [0017], [0123] – [0124], “magnetite particles are manipulated to rapidly and safely destroy clots”, [0126]), and concentration of the nanoparticles at a removal point in the human subject at the conclusion of the treatment (Creighton: “the removed magnetically infused material will be collected downstream by magnetic means”, [0183]; “the gradient would be sufficient to collect particles at the desired obstruction”, [0152]).
Regarding claim 18, Creighton, Kuhn and Li teach all limitations of claim 11. The modified invention of Creighton, Kuhn and Li teaches the superparamagnetic nanoparticles (Creighton: “Examples of such magnetic nanoparticles include superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles.”, [0080]) have a diameter of less than 500 nm (Creighton: “a magnetic nanoparticle of a diameter from about 20 nm to about 60 nm”, [0023] and [0030]) and are coated with a polymer to minimize damage to the endothelial cells of the blood vessels (Creighton: “a coated or uncoated metal particle having a diameter between about 1 nm to about 1000 nm, including about 10 nm to about 200 nm, and about 15 nm to about 150 nm, and about 20 nm to about 60 nm”, [0080]; “In a similar manner, coatings that comprise thrombolytic agents and/or surface features can be added to enhance destruction of a blockage.”, [0100]; Examiner interprets “thrombolytic agents” read on the “coated with a polymer”.).
The limitation “to provide for optimal distribution of the nanoparticles throughout the bloodstream of the human subject” is intended use. Since Creighton teaches the device discloses “nanoparticles in a random disposition of particles 1505, arrayed so as to be roughly evenly distributed in space” ([0165], Figure 15A), the device of Creighton, Kuhn and Li is capable of performing the intended use as claimed.
Regarding claim 19, Creighton, Kuhn and Li teach all limitations of claim 11. The modified invention of Creighton, Kuhn and Li teaches the superparamagnetic nanoparticles are coated with a therapeutic (Creighton: [0079] - [0080], “Magnetic particles would be injected either before, after, or attached to a thrombolytic”, [0152], [0207]) for dissolving plaque (Creighton: [0079]).
Regarding claim 20, Creighton, Kuhn and Li teach all limitations of claim 11. The modified invention of Creighton, Kuhn and Li teaches the system including an imaging system (“allow visualization with magnetic resonance imaging, X-ray, Positron Emission Tomography (PET), or ultrasound technologies;”, [0080], [0099], [0157], [0021]) for monitoring location parameters of the superparamagnetic nanoparticles, during treatment (“Both the magnetic particle collection and magnetic tool objects are capable of being visualized with standard imaging technologies allowing for computer-reconstructed path planning”, [0157], [0099], [0021]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed 12 August 2025, with respect to specification objection and claim objections for claims 1, 9, 11, 13 and 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The specification objection and claim objections for claims 1, 9, 11, 13 and 18 of 14 April 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1 - 3, filed 12 August 2025, with respect to invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of 14 April 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 3 - 4, filed 12 August 2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of 14 April 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4 - 14, filed 12 August 2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(a) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(a) rejections of 14 April 2015 has been withdrawn except for the ones below.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the electromagnetic field parameters" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the electromagnetic field parameters" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the conclusion" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Applicant's arguments, page 16, filed 12 August 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends “Creighton et al does not disclose or suggest the use of oscillating or alternating electromagnetic fields that cause nanoparticles to mechanically vibrate or oscillate so as to physically disrupt and ablate arterial plaque deposits in a vascular system of the human subject.”. However, Creighton et al (WO 2011053984 A1, hereinafter Creighton) in view of Kuhn (US 20110306870 A1) and in further view of Li et al (WO 2009108478 A1, hereinafter Li), in combination does disclose or suggest the use of oscillating or alternating electromagnetic fields that cause nanoparticles to mechanically vibrate or oscillate so as to physically disrupt and ablate arterial plaque deposits in a vascular system of the human subject, in particularly Creighton’s “removing vulnerable plaque 2715 on a vessel 2705 wall” ([0202], Figure 2) and “magnetite particles are manipulated to rapidly and safely destroy clots" ([0126]). Examiner interprets “magnetite particles are manipulated to rapidly and safely destroy clots” to read on “mechanically vibrate or oscillate so as to physically disrupt and ablate […] deposits” of claims 1 and 11. See rejection above.
Applicant's arguments, page 17, filed 12 August 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends “Creighton et al […] does not teach the enzymatic or anionic coatings for digestion or binding of dislodged plaque debris to prevent embolization”. However, claims do not positively recite enzymatic or anionic coatings.
Applicant's arguments, page 17, filed 12 August 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends “Li et al does not the application of oscillating electromagnetic fields to induce nanoparticle vibration for direct mechanical plaque disruption”. However, Creighton teaches the oscillating electromagnetic fields to induce nanoparticle vibration for direct mechanical plaque disruption. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Creighton to incorporate a unipolar magnetic field, as taught by Li, for the benefit of navigating the nanoparticles to the targeted site and increasing the effectiveness of the treatment (Li: [8]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
No prior art of record teach and/or fairly suggest a system for treatment of a human subject to remove plaque deposits from blood vessels and vasculature of the human subject, comprising the programmed microcontroller, through control of the electromagnetic field uses a magnetic pole reversal system through use of an oscillator to impart the motion to the-individual paramagnetic nanoparticles to increase interaction of the nanoparticles with plaque deposits in the human subject's blood vessels, within the context of the remainder of claim 14 and parent claims 11 and 12.
The closest prior art of record, Creighton et al (WO 2011053984 A1, hereinafter Creighton) in view of Li et al (WO 2009108478 A1, hereinafter Li), in combination teach the following:
The modified invention of Creighton, Kuhn and Li teaches the programmed microcontroller (Creighton: “a computer control panel 604”, [0123]; Kuhn: “a microcontroller”, [0045]), through control of the electromagnetic field parameters (Creighton: “a controller for positioning and rotating the field and the gradient in a manner to agglomerate and traverse the magnetic rotors with respect to a therapeutic target in the circulatory system”, [0007], [0009], [0012], [0017], [0123]) to impart the vibrational motion to individual paramagnetic nanoparticles (Creighton: “Examples of such magnetic nanoparticles include superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles.”, [0080]) (Creighton: “a controller for positioning and rotating the field and the gradient in a manner to agglomerate and traverse the magnetic rotors with respect to a therapeutic target in the circulatory system”, [0007], [0009], [0012], [0017], [0123]) to increase interaction of the nanoparticles with plaque deposits in the human subject's blood vessels (Creighton: "which magnetite particles are manipulated to rapidly and safely destroy clots", [0126]).
However, these references fails to disclose, either alone or in combination, a magnetic pole reversal system through use of an oscillator to impart the vibrational motion to individual paramagnetic nanoparticles of claim 14.
Conclusion
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 JULIE T TRAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on (571) 272-4233. 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.
/JULIE THI TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791