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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0331604 (Okamoto et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Okamoto teaches an apparatus for generating an alternating magnetic field for cancer treatment (The limitation “for generating…for cancer treatment” is intended use. Since the apparatus is configured for generating an alternating magnetic field for delivering therapeutic stimulation, the apparatus is capable of use for cancer treatment, see abstract), comprising: a coil head (10) configured to surround a target area of a body to generate an alternating magnetic field therein ([0033]; [0035]; “coil head” 10 is configured to “surround” a target body part as it would be present on nearly all sides of the target body part when placed within element 10, see Figure 1); a current generator configured to receive power from a power source and apply an alternating current to the coil head (magnetic field control part of controller 30 construed as “current generator”, [0042]); and a controller configured to adjust a frequency and a strength of the alternating magnetic field, wherein the coil head includes a coil (13a-h) (“magnitude of the current is controlled by a control using an active element such as a transistor, an inverter control system, or a control system using a transformer”, thus “active element” is construed as “controller”, [0045]; variable frequency and field strength, [0061]).
Regarding claim 2, Okamoto teaches the coil is provided with a ferrite core at the outside thereof (core members 11, 12 formed of ferrite, and extend “outside” of the coils 13a-h as shown in Figure 1; [0036]).
Regarding claim 3, Okamoto teaches the ferrite core (11, 12) is formed to shield all of an outer surface of the coil (the core elements 11, 12 extend beyond the coils 13a-h, wherein “an outer surface” is construed to mean one outer surface of the coil, and is interpreted as each planar, interior-facing outer surface of the coil, thus are “formed to shield all of an outer surface of the coil”, see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Okamoto teaches the coil (13a-h) comprises a plurality of parallel structures (41), and wherein the plurality of parallel structures is configured to reduce heat generation of the apparatus (“parallel structures” construed as two parallel channels 41, see Figure 1; [0049]).
Regarding claim 6, Okamoto teaches the coil head (10) has a plurality of different inner diameters according to a target area of the body ([0040]-[0042]; Figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Okamoto teaches a system for generating an alternating magnetic field for cancer treatment (The limitation “for generating…for cancer treatment” is intended use. Since the apparatus is configured for generating an alternating magnetic field for delivering therapeutic stimulation, the apparatus is capable of use for cancer treatment, see abstract), comprising: the apparatus for generating the alternating magnetic field according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1; Figure 1); wherein the system is configured to set the frequency and strength of the alternating magnetic field through the controller and for the current generator to generate the alternating current having the set frequency and strength (magnetic field control part of controller 30 construed as “current generator”, [0042]; “magnitude of the current is controlled by a control using an active element such as a transistor, an inverter control system, or a control system using a transformer”, thus “active element” of the controller 30 construed as “controller” [0045]; variable frequency and field strength, [0061]), and is configured to allow the alternating current to flow through the coil to generate the alternating magnetic field in the target area of the body ([0033]; Figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, Okamoto teaches an apparatus for generating an alternating magnetic field for cancer treatment (The limitation “for generating…for cancer treatment” is intended use. Since the apparatus is configured for generating an alternating magnetic field for delivering therapeutic stimulation, the apparatus is capable of use for cancer treatment, see abstract), the apparatus comprising: an alternating magnetic field generator configured to generate an alternating magnetic field for a treatment area of a body ([0033]; coil 13a-h, [0036]; magnetic field control part of controller 30, [0042]); and a controller configured to adjust a frequency and a strength of the alternating magnetic field (“magnitude of the current is controlled by a control using an active element such as a transistor, an inverter control system, or a control system using a transformer”, thus “active element” of the controller 30 construed as “controller” [0045]; variable frequency and field strength, [0061]), wherein the generated alternating magnetic field is configured to act directly on the treatment area of the body without the use of magnetic nanoparticles (The limitation “to act directly on the treatment area of the body without the use of magnetic nanoparticles” is intended use. Since Okamoto does not teach the use of magnetic nanoparticles in its operation and use of its magnetic treatment apparatus to direct electromagnetic stimulation to a target body area, [0033], Okamoto teaches the claimed intended use.).
Regarding claim 10, Okamoto teaches the alternating magnetic field generator comprises: a coil (13a-h) configured to generate the alternating magnetic field for the treatment area of the body, and a current generator configured to apply an alternating current to the coil ([0033]; coil 13a-h, [0036]; magnetic field control part of controller 30 construed as “current generator”, [0042]).
Regarding claim 11, Okamoto teaches the coil is provided with a ferrite core at the outside thereof (core members 11, 12 formed of ferrite, and extend “outside” of the coils 13a-h as shown in Figure 1; [0036]); and the ferrite core (11, 12) is formed to shield all of an outer surface of the coil (the core elements 11, 12 extend beyond the coils 13a-h, thus are “formed to shield all of an outer surface of the coil”, see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, Okamoto teaches the coil (13a-h) comprises a plurality of parallel structures (41), and wherein the plurality of parallel structures is configured to reduce heat generation of the apparatus (“parallel structures” construed as two parallel channels 41, see Figure 1; [0049]).
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 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0331604 (Okamoto et al.) in view of WO 2004/082759 (Eisenberg et al.).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Okamoto teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Okamoto teaches the frequency of the alternating magnetic field generated in the coil head is 10 to 300 Hz ([0061]), and does not teach the frequency is 80 kHz to 120 kHz.
However, Eisenberg teaches an apparatus for generating an alternating magnetic field for cancer treatment (The limitation “for generating…for cancer treatment” is intended use. Since the apparatus is configured for generating an alternating magnetic field for delivering therapeutic stimulation, the apparatus is capable of use for cancer treatment, see abstract), comprising: a coil head (104, 106) configured to surround a target area of a body to generate an alternating magnetic field (108, 110) therein, wherein the frequency of the alternating magnetic field generated in the coil head is 80 kHz to 120 kHz (between 5kHz and 100 kHz, col. 8, lines 3-20; Figure 1). 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 magnetic field of Okamoto such that its frequency is between 5 kHz and 100 kHz, such as between 80 kHz and 100 kHz, as taught by Eisenberg, because such a frequency range of 80 kHz to 100 kHz is desirable for inducing an alternating magnetic field in a therapeutically effective frequency in the target area, wherein the field frequency is discoverable through routine experimentation. Applicant does not appear to assign criticality to the frequency range of 80 kHz to 120 kHz. Accordingly, absent criticality, it has been held that "[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0331604 (Okamoto et al.) in view of DE 10242542 (Donisi et al., see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 7, Okamoto teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Okamoto does not teach the apparatus includes a visual sensor that visually senses the target area of the body.
However, Donisi teaches an apparatus for generating an alternating magnetic field for cancer treatment (The limitation “for generating…for cancer treatment” is intended use. Since the apparatus is configured for generating an alternating magnetic field for delivering therapeutic stimulation, the apparatus is capable of use for cancer treatment, see abstract), comprising: a visual sensor that visually senses a target area of a body (“visual sensor” construed as the camera in page 4, paragraph 6). 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 apparatus of Okamoto to include a visual sensor that visually senses the target area of the body as taught by Donisi in order to ensure the coil is properly positioned at the target area at the beginning of treatment (Donisi: page 4, paragraph 6).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0331604 (Okamoto et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0375005 (Segal).
Regarding claim 14, Okamoto teaches all the limitations of claim 9. Okamoto teaches a system for cancer treatment (The limitation “for generating…for cancer treatment” is intended use. Since the apparatus is configured for generating an alternating magnetic field for delivering therapeutic stimulation, the apparatus is capable of use for cancer treatment, see abstract) comprising: the apparatus for generating the alternating magnetic field according to claim 9 configured to apply the magnetic field to the body (see discussion for claim 9; [0033]). Okamoto does not teach the system includes a bed part.
However, Segal teaches a system for cancer treatment (The limitation “for generating…for cancer treatment” is intended use. Since the apparatus is configured for generating an alternating magnetic field for delivering therapeutic stimulation, the apparatus is capable of use for cancer treatment, see abstract), the system comprising: a bed part (20) ([0055]; Figure 1); and an apparatus for generating the alternating magnetic field configured to apply the alternating magnetic field to the bed part ([0051]; [0053]; [0056]-[0057]; Figure 1). 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 Okamoto to include a bed part as taught by Segal in order to provide a patient support for the patient’s entire body to improve comfort during treatment. Since the coil head will be located around a patient’s body part, and the patient’s body is supported on the bed during treatment, the alternating magnetic field will at least in part be applied to the bed part.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 16 December 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments to the claims. The rejections of 16 September 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 16 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends Okamoto does not meet the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as the coil head is not configured to “surround” a target body area (arguments, page 6). The examiner does not find this argument to be persuasive. The limitation “surround” has been interpreted under its plain and customary meaning requiring the coil head is present around or on nearly all sides of the target body area during use (“surround” defined as “to be present on all or nearly all sides of”, Collins Dictionary). As written, this limitation does not require the coil head fully encloses, encircles, or completely encompasses a target body area placed therein. To further elaborate on the previously applied interpretation of Okamoto, the “coil head” as depicted in Figure 1 comprises core members 11, 12, 21, and 22 which “constitute a magnetic circuit together”, ([0033]; [0035]; [0041]; Figure 1). Accordingly, since the “coil head” as shown in Figure 1 would be present around nearly all sides of a target body part placed therein, the “coil head” of Okamoto is configured to “surround” the patient’s target body area in use.
Applicant asserts the prior Office action does not identify the claim elements of the coil head, coil, and ferrite core in the prior art (arguments, page 6). Applicant contends “[t]he core members 11, 12 cannot be equated to…both the coil head and the ferrite core” (arguments, page 6). The examiner does not find this argument to be persuasive. As presently claimed, the “coil head” includes a coil, and the coil is “provided with” a ferrite core. As set forth in the rejections above, the “coil head” includes elements (11, 12, 21, and 22 as well as coil 13a-h) as shown in Figure 1, “coil” includes elements (13a-h), and “ferrite core” includes (11, 12). Accordingly, the present art meets each and every element as presently claimed.
Applicant asserts the core elements 11 and 12 do not shield all of an outer surface of the coil (arguments, pages 6-7). The examiner does not find this argument to be persuasive. The limitation “an outer surface” does not require the entire outer surface of the coil, but rather may be interpreted as set forth in the clarified rejection above and in annotated Figure 1 below. Since the ferrite core (11, 12) extend inwardly beyond the coil (13a-d and 13e-h, respectively), that portion of the projected “core” is “formed to shield all of an outer surface of the coil” (emphasis added).
PNG
media_image1.png
550
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant contends Okamoto fails to disclose the alternating magnetic field is generated without the use of magnetic nanoparticles (arguments, page 7). The examiner does not find this argument to be persuasive. The limitation “to act directly on the treatment area of the body without the use of magnetic nanoparticles” is intended use. Since Okamoto does not teach the use of magnetic nanoparticles in generating an alternating magnetic field ([0033]), the prior art meets the claim. Okamoto need not explicitly state its alternating magnetic field is generated without every element it does not employ, such as magnetic nanoparticles. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant contends Okamoto recognizes treatment for pain, but does not disclose use of the apparatus for treating cancer (arguments, page 7). The examiner does not find this argument to be persuasive. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant contends none of Eisenberg, Donisi, and Segal fail to remedy the alleged deficiencies of Okamoto in teaching a coil head configured to surround a target body part, treating cancer, or generating an alternating magnetic field without the use of magnetic nanoparticles (arguments, pages 8-10). The examiner does not find this argument to be persuasive. Okamoto was relied upon to meet the limitations alleged to have been unmet by the secondary references, as detailed above. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant contends Segal fails to disclose applying an alternating magnetic field to a bed as required in claim 14 (arguments, page 10). The examiner does not find this argument to be persuasive. The apparatus resulting from the combination of Okamoto and Segal as set forth above would include the coil head located around a patient’s body part with the patient’s body supported on the bed during treatment. Thus, as a consequence of that resultant configuration, the alternating magnetic field will at least in part be applied to the bed part.
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 Carrie R Dorna whose telephone number is (571)270-7483. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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 at 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.
/CARRIE R DORNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791