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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/11/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. This action is responsive to the amendments filed 12/11/2025. Claims 1, 8, and 13-14 have been amended. Claims 17-20 were canceled. Claims 21-24 were newly added.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s response with respect to the art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-10, 12-14, 16 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Axelgaard et al. (US Pub.: 2011/0301683 A1) and further in view of Palti et al. (US Patent No.: 8,244,345 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Axelgaard teaches a transducer apparatus for delivering tumor treating fields to a subject's body (e.g. paragraph 0001, – using electrodes to perform electrical stimulation for treatment. Examiner notes that if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (See MPEP 2111.02(II)), the transducer apparatus (e.g. Fig. 5) comprising:
an array of electrode elements (e.g. Fig. 5 – electrodes 140 and 142), configured to deliver tumor treating fields to the subject's body (e.g. paragraph 0001, – electrodes applying electrical stimulation; Examiner notes that this limitation contains functional language and it is the Examiner’s position that Axelgaard’s electrodes are capable of delivering tumor treating fields), the array comprising all electrode elements present on the transducer apparatus (e.g. Fig. 5 – electrodes 140 and 142),
the array configured to be positioned over the subject's body with a face of the array facing the subject's body (e.g. Fig. 7; paragraph 0036);
wherein, when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the face of the array, a number of the electrode elements of the array are peripheral electrode elements defining an outer perimeter of the array (e.g. Fig. 5 – electrodes 140), the peripheral electrode elements substantially surrounding all other electrode elements of the array (e.g. Fig. 5 – electrodes 140 surrounding electrodes 142);
for each pair of adjacent peripheral electrode elements along the outer perimeter, a distance between the pair of adjacent peripheral electrode elements is not more than 25% greater than a distance between any other pair of adjacent peripheral electrode elements (e.g. Fig. 5, – the illustrated electrodes 140 are disposed to form a regular (equilateral and equiangular) hexagon thus the distance between any two adjacent peripheral electrode elements in the hexagon is the same. See annotated Fig. 5 below); and for each peripheral electrode element, an angle formed between the peripheral electrode element and its two adjacent peripheral electrode elements along the outer perimeter is greater than 90 degrees and less than 180 degrees, the angle facing interior to the array (e.g. Fig. 5 – the regular hexagon configuration is equidistant and equiangular and thus each of its interior angles is 120 degrees).
PNG
media_image1.png
602
931
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Axelgaard does not explicitly teach and wherein the array of electrode elements is configured to deliver tumor treating fields to the subject's body at frequencies in a range of from 50 kHz to 500 kHz and/or at an electric field intensity in a range of from 1 V/cm to 4 V/cm.
Palti, in a same field of endeavor of electrical stimulation, discloses wherein the array of electrode elements is configured to deliver tumor treating fields to the subject's body at frequencies in a range of from 50 kHz to 500 kHz and/or at an electric field intensity in a range of from 1 V/cm to 4 V/cm (e.g. column 6 lines 59-67, – delivering frequencies of 50 kHz to 500 kHz; column 20 lines 57-61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Axelgaard to include wherein the array of electrode elements is configured to deliver tumor treating fields to the subject's body at frequencies in a range of from 50 kHz to 500 kHz and/or at an electric field intensity in a range of from 1 V/cm to 4 V/cm, as taught and suggested by Palti, in order to enhance the ability to disrupt cellular structures by breaking the bridge membranes of dividing cells (Palti, column 6, lines 39-50).
Regarding claim 2, Axelgaard in view of Palti teaches the transducer apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above, and Axelgaard further teaches wherein the outer perimeter either extends through, or touches the outermost edge of, each of the peripheral electrode elements (e.g. Fig. 5; paragraphs 0042-0043).
Regarding claim 3, Axelgaard in view of Palti teaches the transducer apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above, and Axelgaard further teaches wherein at least 50% of a total number of electrode elements in the array are peripheral electrode elements (e.g. Fig. 5; paragraphs 0044-0045).
Regarding claim 4, Axelgaard in view of Palti teaches the transducer apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above, and Axelgaard further teaches wherein the array comprises at least five peripheral electrode elements (e.g. Fig. 5 – six peripheral electrodes 140).
Regarding claim 5, Axelgaard in view of Palti teaches the transducer apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above, and Axelgaard further teaches wherein, for each pair of adjacent peripheral electrode elements along the outer perimeter, a distance between the pair of adjacent peripheral electrode elements is not more than 10% greater than a distance between any other pair of adjacent peripheral electrode elements (e.g. Fig. 5 – the illustrated electrodes 140 are disposed to form an equilateral and equiangular (i.e. regular) hexagon thus the distance between any two adjacent peripheral electrodes in the hexagon is the same).
Regarding claim 6, Axelgaard in view of Palti teaches the transducer apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above, and Axelgaard further teaches wherein, for each distance between the pair of adjacent peripheral elements along the outer perimeter, the distance is from a centroid of a first peripheral electrode element to a centroid of a second adjacent peripheral electrode element (e.g. Fig. 5 – the illustrated electrodes 140 are disposed to form an equilateral and equiangular (i.e. regular) hexagon thus the distance between any two adjacent peripheral electrodes in the hexagon is the same).
Regarding claim 7, Axelgaard in view of Palti teaches the transducer apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above, and Axelgaard further teaches wherein, for each distance between a pair of adjacent peripheral elements along the outer perimeter, the distance is a shortest distance from an edge of a first peripheral electrode element to an edge of a second adjacent peripheral electrode element (e.g. Fig. 5 – the peripheral electrode elements 140 are equidistant and equiangular).
Regarding claim 8, Axelgaard in view of Palti teaches the transducer apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above, and Axelgaard further teaches wherein the angle formed between at least one peripheral electrode element and its two adjacent peripheral electrode elements along the outer perimeter is between 108 degrees and 162 degrees and/or greater than 120 degrees and less than or equal to 150 degrees (e.g. Fig. 5 – the regular hexagon configuration is equidistant and equiangular and thus each of its interior angles is 120 degrees). Regarding claim 9, Axelgaard in view of Palti teaches the transducer apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above, and Axelgaard further teaches wherein for each peripheral electrode element, the angle is measured between a first line connecting a centroid of the peripheral electrode element to a centroid of a first adjacent peripheral electrode element and a second line connecting the centroid of the peripheral electrode element to a centroid of a second adjacent peripheral electrode element (e.g. Fig. 5 – all of the peripheral electrode elements in the regular hexagon configuration are equidistant and equiangular).
Regarding claim 10, Axelgaard in view of Palti teaches the transducer apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above, and Axelgaard further teaches wherein each of the electrode elements in the array, individually, has a shape selected from: disk-shaped or substantially disk-shaped; square, rectangular or hexagonal shape; substantially square, rectangular or hexagonal shape with one or more rounded corners; triangular shape; substantially triangular shape with rounded corners; truncated triangular shape; substantially truncated triangular shape with rounded corners; wedge shape; substantially wedge shape with rounded corners; truncated wedge shape; or substantially truncated wedge shape with rounded corners (e.g. Fig. 5 – electrodes 140 and 142 are substantially disk-shaped).
Regarding claim 12, Axelgaard in view of Palti teaches the transducer apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above, and Axelgaard further teaches wherein the outer perimeter extends through at least a majority of the peripheral electrode elements or is disposed along and touches an outermost edge of at least a majority of the peripheral electrode elements (e.g. Fig. 5 – outer perimeter at least extends through/touches the peripheral electrodes 140).
Regarding claim 13, Axelgaard teaches a transducer apparatus for delivering tumor treating fields to a subject's body (e.g. paragraph 0001, – using electrodes to perform electrical stimulation for treatment. Examiner notes that if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (See MPEP 2111.02(II)), the transducer apparatus (e.g. Fig. 5) comprising:
an array of electrode elements (e.g. Fig. 5 – electrodes 140 and 142), configured to deliver tumor treating fields to the subject's body (e.g. paragraph 0001, – electrodes applying electrical stimulation; Examiner notes that this limitation contains functional language and it is the Examiner’s position that Axelgaard’s electrodes are capable of delivering tumor treating fields), the array comprising all electrode elements present on the transducer apparatus (e.g. Fig. 5 – electrodes 140 and 142),
the array configured to be positioned over the subject's body with a face of the array facing the subject's body (e.g. Fig. 7; paragraph 0036);
wherein, when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the face of the array, an outer perimeter substantially surrounding the array of electrode elements is entirely convex in shape (e.g. Fig. 5 – outer perimeter is polygonal shape with rounded corners);
the outer perimeter either extends through, or touches the outermost edge of, at least five of the electrode elements of the array (e.g. Fig. 5; paragraphs 0044-0045), the at least five electrode elements extended through or touched by the outer perimeter being peripheral electrode elements of the array (e.g. Fig. 5 – six peripheral electrodes 140; paragraphs 0042-0043);
and the peripheral electrode elements of the array are spaced from each other along the perimeter with a variation in the spacing between adjacent peripheral electrode elements of less than 25% (e.g. Fig. 5, – the illustrated electrodes 140 are disposed to form a regular (equilateral and equiangular) hexagon thus the distance between any two adjacent peripheral electrode elements in the hexagon is the same. See annotated Fig. 5 above as applied to claim 1).
However, Axelgaard does not explicitly teach and wherein the array of electrode elements is configured to deliver tumor treating fields to the subject's body at frequencies in a range of from 50 kHz to 500 kHz and/or at an electric field intensity in a range of from 1 V/cm to 4 V/cm.
Palti, in a same field of endeavor of electrical stimulation, discloses wherein the array of electrode elements is configured to deliver tumor treating fields to the subject's body at frequencies in a range of from 50 kHz to 500 kHz and/or at an electric field intensity in a range of from 1 V/cm to 4 V/cm (e.g. column 6 lines 59-67, – 50 kHz to 500 kHz; column 20 lines 57-61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Axelgaard to include wherein the array of electrode elements is configured to deliver tumor treating fields to the subject's body at frequencies in a range of from 50 kHz to 500 kHz and/or at an electric field intensity in a range of from 1 V/cm to 4 V/cm, as taught and suggested by Palti, in order to enhance the ability to disrupt cellular structures by breaking the bridge membranes of dividing cells (Palti, column 6, lines 39-50).
Regarding claim 14, Axelgaard in view of Palti teaches the transducer apparatus of claim 13 as discussed above, and Axelgaard further teaches wherein the array does not have three or more peripheral electrode elements disposed adjacent each other and aligned with each other such that a straight line passes through a centroid of each of the three or more peripheral electrode elements (e.g. Fig. 5 – electrodes 140; paragraphs 0042, 0044).
Regarding claim 16, Axelgaard in view of Palti teaches the transducer apparatus of claim 13 as discussed above, and Axelgaard further teaches wherein the convex outer perimeter has a regular polygon shape, a substantially regular polygonal shape with rounded or curved vertices, an irregular polygon shape, or an irregular polygonal shape with rounded or curved vertices (e.g. Fig. 5, – substantially regular polygon shape with rounded or curved vertices; paragraphs 0042; 0044).
Regarding claim 21, Axelgaard in view of Palti teaches the transducer apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above, and Axelgaard further teaches wherein an X-axis and a Y-axis of the array are perpendicular to each other and intersect each other at a centroid of the array and in the plane of the array, wherein the array of electrode elements has symmetry with respect to the X-axis, the Y-axis, or both the X-axis and the Y-axis (e.g. Fig. 5; paragraph 042).
Regarding claim 22, Axelgaard in view of Palti teaches the transducer apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above, and Axelgaard further teaches wherein the transducer apparatus is configured for placement on a head, thorax, torso or thigh of the subject (e.g. paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 23, Axelgaard in view of Palti teaches the transducer apparatus of claim 13 as discussed above, and Axelgaard further teaches wherein an X-axis and a Y-axis of the array are perpendicular to each other and intersect each other at a centroid of the array and in the plane of the array, wherein the array of electrode elements has symmetry with respect to the X-axis, the Y-axis, or both the X-axis and the Y-axis (e.g. Fig. 5; paragraph 042).
Regarding claim 24, Axelgaard in view of Palti teaches the transducer apparatus of claim 13 as discussed above, and Axelgaard further teaches wherein the transducer apparatus is configured for placement on a head, thorax, torso or thigh of the subject (e.g. paragraph 0036).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Axelgaard and further in view of Palti and further in view of Palti et al. (US Pub.: 2013/0190847 A1, hereafter referred to as “Palti ‘847” – Previously Cited).
Regarding claim 11, Axelgaard in view of Palti teaches the transducer apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Axelgaard in view of Palti does not explicitly teach wherein each electrode element in the array comprises a ceramic disk.
Palti ‘847, in a same field of endeavor of electrical stimulation, discloses wherein each electrode element in the array comprises a ceramic disk (e.g. abstract, paragraph 0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Axelgaard and Palti to include a ceramic disk for each electrode element in the array, as taught and suggested by Palti ‘847, in order to increase the dielectric breakdown voltage as well as enhance the insulation of the electrodes (Palti ‘847, paragraph 0015).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Axelgaard and further in view of Palti and further in view of Eckhouse et al. (US Pub.: 2013/0226269 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Axelgaard in view of Palti teaches the transducer apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Axelgaard in view of Palti does not explicitly teach wherein the convex outer perimeter is substantially circular, oval, ovaloid, ovoid, or elliptical.
Eckhouse, in a same field of endeavor of electrical stimulation, discloses wherein the convex outer perimeter is substantially circular, oval, ovaloid, ovoid, or elliptical (e.g. paragraph 0031, – substantially circular).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Axelgaard and Palti to incorporate wherein the convex outer perimeter is substantially circular, oval, ovaloid, ovoid, or elliptical, as taught and suggested by Eckhouse, because it is a simple substitution of one known shape used for a transducer apparatus for another in order to obtain the predictable results of effective electrical stimulation.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 10, 13, 22, and 24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 17 of copending Application No. 17/886319 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of copending Application No. 17/886319 are obvious over the claims of the instant application in view of Axelgaard et al. (US Pub.: 2011/0301683 A1) as shown below. As noted below, “for each pair of adjacent peripheral electrode elements along the outer perimeter, a distance between the pair of adjacent peripheral electrode elements is not more than 25% greater than a distance between any other pair of adjacent peripheral electrode elements; and for each peripheral electrode element, an angle formed between the peripheral electrode element and its two adjacent peripheral electrode elements along the outer perimeter is greater than 90 degrees and less than 180 degrees, the angle facing interior to the array” does not appear in the reference application (17/886,319). Axelgaard teaches “for each pair of adjacent peripheral electrode elements along the outer perimeter, a distance between the pair of adjacent peripheral electrode elements is not more than 25% greater than a distance between any other pair of adjacent peripheral electrode elements (e.g. Fig. 5 - the illustrated electrodes 140 are positioned to form a regular hexagon (i.e. equilateral and equiangular hexagon) thus the distance between any two adjacent elements in the hexagon is the same); and for each peripheral electrode element, an angle formed between the peripheral electrode element and its two adjacent peripheral electrode elements along the outer perimeter is greater than 90 degrees and less than 180 degrees, the angle facing interior to the array (e.g. Fig. 5 – the regular hexagon configuration is equidistant and equiangular and thus each of its interior angles is 120 degrees)”. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the limitations above, as taught and suggested by Axelgaard, into the reference application (17/886,319) because it improves the flexibility as well as conductivity of the electrode device which improves patient’s comfort during therapy by reducing skin irritation (Axelgaard, paragraph 003).
INSTANT APPLICATION (17/698457)
REFERENCE APPLICATION (17/886319)
1. A transducer apparatus for delivering tumor treating fields to a subject's body, the transducer apparatus comprising:
an array of electrode elements configured to deliver tumor treating fields to the subject's body, the array comprising all electrode elements present on the transducer apparatus, the array configured to be positioned over the subject's body with a face of the array facing the subject's body; wherein, when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the face of the array, a number of the electrode elements of the array are peripheral electrode elements defining an outer perimeter of the array, the peripheral electrode elements substantially surrounding all other electrode elements of the array;
for each pair of adjacent peripheral electrode elements along the outer perimeter, a distance between the pair of adjacent peripheral electrode elements is not more than 25% greater than a distance between any other pair of adjacent peripheral electrode elements;
and for each peripheral electrode element, an angle formed between the peripheral electrode element and its two adjacent peripheral electrode elements along the outer perimeter is greater than 90 degrees and less than 180 degrees, the angle facing interior to the array;
and wherein the array of electrode elements is configured to deliver tumor treating fields to the subject's body at frequencies in a range of from 50 kHz to 500 kHz and/or at an electric field intensity in a range of from 1 V/cm to 4 V/cm.
1. A transducer apparatus configured to deliver tumor treating fields having a frequency from 50 kHz to 1 MHz to a subject's body, the transducer apparatus comprising:
an array of a plurality of electrode elements, wherein the plurality of electrode elements is capable of delivering tumor treating fields to the subject's body;
wherein the plurality of electrode elements comprises a first electrode element and a second electrode element, wherein the first electrode element and the second electrode element are substantially located in a plane of the transducer apparatus;
and when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane, the first electrode element and the second electrode element have edges located adjacent each other without any other electrodes between them, wherein the edges of the first electrode element and the second electrode element extend parallel to each other along their length, and each of the edges is a substantially straight edge portion located between two rounded corners of the corresponding electrode element.
10. The transducer apparatus of claim 1, wherein each of the electrode elements in the array, individually, has a shape selected from: disk-shaped or substantially disk- shaped; square, rectangular or hexagonal shape; substantially square, rectangular or hexagonal shape with one or more rounded corners; triangular shape; substantially triangular shape with rounded corners; truncated triangular shape; substantially truncated triangular shape with rounded corners; wedge shape; substantially wedge shape with rounded corners; truncated wedge shape; or substantially truncated wedge shape with rounded corners.
5. The transducer apparatus of claim 1, wherein at least one of the electrode elements in the array has a square, rectangular, or hexagonal shape or a substantially square, rectangular, or hexagonal shape with one or more rounded corners; or at least one of the electrode elements in the array has a triangular shape, a substantially triangular shape with rounded corners, a truncated triangular shape, a substantially truncated triangular shape with rounded corners, a wedge shape, a substantially wedge shape with rounded corners, a truncated wedge shape, or a substantially truncated wedge shape with rounded corners.
13. A transducer apparatus for delivering tumor treating fields to a subject's body, the transducer apparatus comprising:
an array of electrode elements configured to deliver tumor treating fields to the subject's body, the array comprising all electrode elements present on the transducer apparatus, the array configured to be positioned over the subject's body with a face of the array facing the subject's body; wherein, when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the face of the array, an outer perimeter substantially surrounding the array of electrode elements is entirely convex in shape;
the outer perimeter either extends through, or touches the outermost edge of, at least five of the electrode elements of the array, the at least five electrode elements extended through or touched by the outer perimeter being peripheral electrode elements of the array;
and the peripheral electrode elements of the array are spaced from each other along the perimeter with a variation in the spacing between adjacent peripheral electrode elements of less than 25% wherein the array of electrode elements is configured to deliver tumor treating fields to the subject's body at frequencies in a range of from 50 kHz to 500 kHz and/or at an electric field intensity in a range of from 1 V/cm to 4 V/cm.
17. A transducer apparatus configured to deliver tumor treating fields having a frequency from 50 kHz to 1 MHz to a subject's body, the transducer apparatus comprising:
an array of multiple electrode elements, the array configured to be positioned over the subject's body with a face of the array facing the subject's body, the array capable of delivering tumor treating fields to the subject's body;
wherein, when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the face of the array,
at least one electrode element is located proximate a center portion of the array, the at least one electrode element comprising:
a first edge extending in a radially outward direction relative to the center portion of the array;
a second edge extending in a radially outward direction relative to the center portion of the array;
and a rounded edge connecting the first edge to the second edge at an end of the respective electrode element located radially away from the center portion of the array.
22. The transducer apparatus of claim 1, wherein the transducer apparatus is configured for placement on a head, thorax, torso or thigh of the subject.
1. A transducer apparatus configured to deliver tumor treating fields having a frequency from 50 kHz to 1 MHz to a subject's body, the transducer apparatus comprising:
an array of a plurality of electrode elements, wherein the plurality of electrode elements is capable of delivering tumor treating fields to the subject's body;
wherein the plurality of electrode elements comprises a first electrode element and a second electrode element, wherein the first electrode element and the second electrode element are substantially located in a plane of the transducer apparatus;
and when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane, the first electrode element and the second electrode element have edges located adjacent each other without any other electrodes between them, wherein the edges of the first electrode element and the second electrode element extend parallel to each other along their length, and each of the edges is a substantially straight edge portion located between two rounded corners of the corresponding electrode element.
24. The transducer apparatus of claim 13, wherein the transducer apparatus is configured for placement on a head, thorax, torso or thigh of the subject.
17. A transducer apparatus configured to deliver tumor treating fields having a frequency from 50 kHz to 1 MHz to a subject's body, the transducer apparatus comprising:
an array of multiple electrode elements, the array configured to be positioned over the subject's body with a face of the array facing the subject's body, the array capable of delivering tumor treating fields to the subject's body;
wherein, when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the face of the array,
at least one electrode element is located proximate a center portion of the array, the at least one electrode element comprising:
a first edge extending in a radially outward direction relative to the center portion of the array;
a second edge extending in a radially outward direction relative to the center portion of the array;
and a rounded edge connecting the first edge to the second edge at an end of the respective electrode element located radially away from the center portion of the array.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL TEHRANI whose telephone number is (571)270-0697. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792