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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed December 1st, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, 6 and 9-11 remain pending in the application.
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, 3, 4, 6, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (EP Patent No. 2893920) in View of Lee (WO Patent No. 2017188725) and further in view of Ivkov (US Patent No. 7731648).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches a magnetic nanoparticle heating method comprising (Paragraph 6, The present disclosure provides a method of selective activation for a magnetic nanoparticle having a magnetic vortex structure), providing magnetic nanoparticles (Paragraph 9, includes providing a magnetic nanoparticle), applying a direct current (DC) magnetic field to the magnetic nanoparticles (Paragraph 9-10, First applying a DC magnetic field to magnetic nanoparticles); applying an alternating current (AC) magnetic field (Paragraph 12, Second applying a AC magnetic field to magnetic nanoparticles) having a frequency equal to the resonance frequency of the magnetic nanoparticles (Paragraph 83-89, When applying an AC magnetic field having the same frequency as resonance frequency of the magnetic nanoparticle the violent precession motion and other motions of nanoparticle will increase which will increase the temperature).
However, Kim fails to teach how to control temperature change rate.
Lee teaches using magnetic nano particles for thermotherapy (Paragraph 12, Magnetic Nano Particles) where a temperature change rate dT/dt of the magnetic nanoparticles is increased to at least 10 K/s or more (Paragraph 23, the heat generated from the magnetic nanoparticles may generate a temperature change of 5K to 15K in the treatment target site) by adjusting at least one of a strength of the DC magnetic field, a frequency of the AC magnetic field, a strength of the AC magnetic field, and a pulse width of the AC magnetic field (Paragraph 109-110, and 121, Adjusting AC magnetic field to have the same frequency as the resonance frequency can increase the temperature change rate dT/dt of the magnetic nanoparticles), and wherein the maximum value of the temperature change rate dT/dt of the magnetic nanoparticles is increased either by increasing the frequency of the AC magnetic field or by increasing the strength of the AC magnetic field (Paragraph 109-110, and 121, Increasing AC magnetic field frequency or strength to the resonance frequency to exhibit a maximum value SAR (the amount of heat generated per second per weight of particles) which helps find the maximum temperature change rate dT/dt of the magnetic nanoparticles using Equation 3. Therefore increasing the resonance frequency will increase the SAR value and the temperature change rate).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to incorporate controlling temperature change rate as stated in Lee. The temperature change helps with treating cancer cells by breaking down the cells (Paragraph 108, Thermotherapy).
Kim in view of Lee fails to teach the pulse width of the AC magnetic field.
Ivkov teaches thermotherapy using magnetic nanoparticles (Col 1 Line 19-21, Thermotherapy) where the pulse width of the AC magnetic field is 0.3 sec. to 10 sec (Claim 38, Alternating magnetic field may have a pulse time of .1 to 12000 seconds).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim in view of Lee to include the pulse width of the AC magnetic field as stated in Ivkov. Utilizing and adjusting AC Magnetic field can help treat tumors (Col 4 Line 1-7, Thermotherapy).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim in view of Lee and Ivkov teaches that the strength of the DC magnetic field is less than 2,000 Oe and greater than 0 Oe (Kim: Paragraph 84, A DC magnetic field applied is selected to have its magnitude of about 100 Oe. Table 1 Showcases a wider range of DC magnetic field magnitude).
Kim in view of Lee and Ivkov teaches the claimed invention except that the ranges do not match. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the workable ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and modifying the range of the strength of the DC magnetic field would yield similar results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality that range of the strength of the DC magnetic field, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 4, Kim in view of Lee and Ivkov teaches that the frequency of the AC magnetic field is 500 MHz to 6 GHz (Kim: Paragraph 84, Frequencies of the AC magnetic field are selected to be 281 MHz. Table 1 Showcases resonance frequencies AC magnetic field can be according to the size of a magnetic nanoparticle and the magnitude of an DC magnetic field).
Kim in view of Lee and Ivkov teaches the claimed invention except that the ranges do not match. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the workable ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and modifying the range of frequency of the AC magnetic field would yield similar results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality that range of the frequency of the AC magnetic field, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 6, Kim in view of Lee and Ivkov teaches that the strength of the AC magnetic field is less than 10 Oe and greater than 0 Oe (Kim: Paragraph 84, An AC magnetic field applied is selected to have its magnitude of about 10 Oe).
Kim in view of Lee and Ivkov teaches the claimed invention except that the ranges do not match. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the workable ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and modifying the range of the strength of the AC magnetic field would yield similar results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality that range of the strength of the AC magnetic field, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 9, Kim in view of Lee and Ivkov teaches that the magnetic nanoparticles have a diameter greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than 500 nm (Kim: Paragraph 14, The magnetic nanoparticle may have a diameter in a range of 40 nm to 200 nm).
While Kim in view of Lee and Ivkov may not expressly teach that the nanoparticles have a diameter greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than 500 nm of the instant claim. Kim in view of Lee teaches a diameter that falls within the diameter range of the instant claim. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality that the magnetic nanoparticles have a diameter greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than 500 nm, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 10, Kim in view of Lee and Ivkov teaches that the magnetic nanoparticles are magnetic nanoparticles having a superparamagnetic structure or a single-domain structure, or magnetic nanoparticles having a magnetic vortex structure comprising a magnetic vortex core component, a horizontal magnetization component, and a spiral magnetization component (Kim: Paragraph 48, The magnetic nanoparticle 100 may have the magnetic vortex structure 110. The magnetic vortex structure 110 may have a magnetic vortex core component 120, a horizontal magnetization component 130, and a spiral magnetization component 140).
Regarding Claim 11, Kim in view of Lee and Ivkov teaches that the magnetic nanoparticles comprise at least one of permalloy (Ni80Fe20), maghemite (y- Fe2O3), magnetite (y-Fe3O4), barium ferrite (BaxFeyOz, where x, y, and z are arbitrary numbers), MnFe2O4, NiFe2O4, ZnFe2O4, and COFe2O4 (Kim: Paragraph 17, magnetic nanoparticles comprise Permalloy, Maghemite, Magnetite, Barium Ferrite (BaxFeyOz; x, y and z are arbitrary), and COFe2O4)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 1st, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues, pages 4-8, that Ivkov Alternating magnetic field’s pulse time of .1 to 12000 seconds is too broad and that a narrow range can maintain a more stable dT/dt value and is not result-effective.
However, the prior art does recognize that the variable affects the relevant property or result. The alternating current has an effect on temperature increase in a magnetic fluid to treat cancer (Col 4 Line 1-30 and Claim 38, AC Current), therefore the variable is result-effective. Id. (‘A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.’) (MPEP 2144.05 III C)
Applicant argues, pages 8-9, that Kim and Lee fails to teach “ temperature change rate dT/dt of the magnetic nanoparticles is increased to at least 10 K/s or more”, however that is taught by Lee where the nanoparticles experience a temperature change of 5K to 15K (Paragraph 23).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4:00 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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761