DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 23 June 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-3, 11 and 14-27 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 11 and 14, as well as the cancellation of claims 4, 12, 13 and the addition of claims 20-27.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 23 June 2025. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control module” in claim 1; “cancer type input unit,” “storage unit,” and “controller” in claim 20; and “storage unit” and “controller” in claim 24.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, 25 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities: at lines 4 and 5 of claim 1, the extended underscores should be deleted in future amendments; at line 7 of claim 11, “300 kHz,” should apparently read –300 kHz, and--; at line 4 of claim 25, “tissues,” should apparently read –tissues, and--; and at line 3 of claim 26, “tissues,” should apparently read –tissues, and--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 20-23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 has been amended to recite that “a magnitude of the alternating current supplied to the magnetic field generator varies” however the specification does not provide any support for the magnitude of the alternating current supplied to the magnetic field generator varying.
Paragraphs [0063], [0064], [0131] and [0137] of the instant publication talk about the electric current being supplied to the magnetic field generator at a specific value; for instance, [0063] states “[u]nless particularly explained, the electric current supplied to the magnetic field generator is 250 A;” and [0064] states “an electric current of 335.4 A with the frequency of 280 kHz was applied.” Both paragraphs disclose a current of a specific value; not one that varies. Therefore, the amendment constitutes new matter.
Claims 1-3, 16, 20-23, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 26 recite that the “a magnetic flux density of the magnetic field in an area that is 5 mm away from the inner diameter face of the coil is 18 mT or larger.” However, the specification ([0064] of the instant publication) only provides support for a magnetic flux density in an area that is 5 mm away of up to 21 mT, therefore the amendment constitutes new matter. Further, “18 mT or larger” (with respect to claims 1, 16 and 26) encompasses magnetic flux densities that exceeds those supported by the disclosure.
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 1-3, 11 and 14-27 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 is indefinite as it is unclear what defines “an inner diameter face” (line 4) of the coil.
Claim 1 is indefinite as it is unclear what “generates a magnetic field;” whether it is the magnetic field generator; the coil, or the face of the coil (see lines 3-5).
Claim 1 at line 15 recites “the cancer treatment apparatus does not use particles with magnetic induction heating properties implanted in a body of a patient”. It is unclear what is being defined by “magnetic induction heating properties”.
It is further unclear, with respect to claim 1, how “magnetic induction heating properties” can be “implanted in a body of a patient”. In this instance, this appears to be a grammatical error.
Claim 1 at line 17 recites the limitation "the magnetic field that is applied to the affected tissues". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A suggested amendment is: --the magnetic field to be applied to the affected tissues--.
At line 17 of claim 1, it is unclear if “a magnetic field density of the magnetic field” is the same as or different than “a magnetic field density of the magnetic field” recited at lines 11-12.
At lines 8-9 of claim 11, it is unclear what is defined by “a directed biological effect caused by the…magnetic field”.
Claim 11 at line 9 recites the limitation "the alternating magnetic field applied on cancer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 at lines 9-11 recites that the treatment method does not rely on “thermal treatment effects of particles with magnetic induction heating properties implanted in a body of a patient”. It is unclear what is being defined by “magnetic induction heating properties”.
At line 10 of claim 11, it is unclear what is defined by “thermal treatment effects of particles with magnetic induction heating properties”.
It is further unclear, with respect to claim 11, how “magnetic induction heating properties” can be “implanted in a body of a patient”. In this instance, this appears to be a grammatical error.
Claim 14 is indefinite as it is directed to a method claim, however it does not further define a step of a method. A recitation of “no use” of a heat generation device does not further limit a step of a claim.
At line 5 of claim 18, it is unclear if “a frequency of the magnetic field” is the same as or different than “a frequency of the alternating magnetic field” recited at line 7 of claim 11.
In claims 20 and 24, limitation “controller” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 24 at line 4 recites “reading out a predetermined application duration”. It is unclear what is defined by “reading out” in this claim and in light of the specification.
Claim 26 is indefinite as it is unclear what defines “an inner diameter face” (line 3) of the coil.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 22, 23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hirayama et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0317830). Regarding claims 1 and 3, Hirayama et al. (hereinafter Hirayama) discloses a cancer treatment apparatus for treating a cancer [0116] comprising: a magnetic field generator that includes a coil with an inner diameter face of the coil (coil 20 in Fig. 3 has a face which is at the end of the device closest to target 31; [0081]) and that generates a magnetic field of which a frequency is ranged from 100 kHz to 300 kHz to be applied from the coil to human affected tissues [0082]; a power source that generates an alternating current to be supplied to the magnetic field generator (power source [0082]), and
a control module (computer) that controls the alternating current supplied from the power source to the magnetic field generator [0210], wherein the control module controls the alternating current such that a magnetic flux density of the magnetic field ([0109] and [0210]), which is generated by the magnetic field generator, is a predetermined value (magnetic flux desired – [0082], [0118], [0120] and [0210]),
a frequency and magnitude of the alternating current supplied to the magnetic field generator varies in correspondence with output from the control module ([0057], [0058], [0067], [0069] – the alternating current may be supplied to the coil from the power source at a range of frequencies which anticipates the capability of the variance; and [0210]),
the cancer treatment apparatus does not use particles with magnetic induction heating properties implanted in a body of a patient (as the “cancer treatment apparatus” of Hirayama is being construed as the magnetic field generator that has a coil; a power source; and a control module as claimed (see [0109] and Fig. 19 of Hirayama), and
the magnetic field generator of Hirayama is capable of applying the magnetic field to tissues such that a magnetic flux density (18 mT or larger [0082]) of the magnetic field ([0109] and [0210]) in an area that is 5 mm away ([0081]: “up to the position of 5 mm from the irradiation target”) from the inner diameter face of the coil (coil 20 in Fig. 3 has a face which is at the end of the device closest to target 31; also see [0081]).
Regarding claim 22, although the magnetic field generator of Hirayama may be constructed such that one side of the coil may not contact tissue, the opposing side of the coil is nonetheless configured to have a treatment surface that is configured to be directly placed on a skin in a vicinity of the affected tissues (Figs. 3 and 4, [0081] and [0084]).
Regarding claim 23, the coil is configured to have a treatment surface that is configured not to be directly placed on a skin in a vicinity of the affected tissues, and to be placed in 5 mm or less from the skin (Fig. 3 and [0081]).
Regarding claim 27, the alternating current is supplied to the magnetic field generator based on a set value [0082].
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0317830) in view of Petty et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0256704). Regarding claim 2, Hirayama discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra; however Hirayama fails to disclose wherein the control module controls the power source to maintain a temperature of the affected tissues lower than a cancer cell killing temperature. Petty et al. (hereinafter Petty) discloses a non-invasive method of stimulating tissue within the body for therapeutic purposes, by providing magnetic field therapy as likewise taught by Hirayama, wherein a control module controls the power source to maintain a temperature of affected tissues, via temperature sensors and adjustment of the control signal, lower than a cancer cell killing temperature (which would also equate to a cell killing temperature) [0030]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure a control module for processing monitored temperature data as taught by Hirayama ((0112] and [0210]) to control the power source to maintain a temperature of affected tissues lower than a cell killing temperature ([0030] of Petty) as Hirayama teaches monitoring temperature data of the irradiated, target tissue ([0112] and [0210]) and Petty discloses that monitoring temperature of target tissue below a particular threshold prevents patient discomfort and tissue damage/burn ([0030], [0050] and [0059] of Petty).
Claims 11, 14-17, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0317830) in view of Costa et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,665,898). Regarding claim 11, Hirayama discloses a treatment method for treating a cancer [0116] comprising: placing affected tissues within a predetermined range with respect to the magnetic field generator (Fig. 3 and [0081]), and applying an alternating magnetic field to the affected tissues by using the magnetic field generator ([0116] and [0082]), wherein a frequency of the alternating magnetic field is ranged from 100 kHz to 300 kHz [0082]. It is noted that the negative limitation “not relying on thermal treatment effects of particles with magnetic induction heating properties implanted in a body of a patient” is taught by Hirayama as Hirayama discloses that “magneto-sensitive heating particles” may be provided to the irradiation target “in some instances” [0121] which is construed as the particles not being required for the method disclosed above.
However, Hirayama fails to disclose explicitly that the application of the alternating magnetic field on the tumor induces cancer cell proliferation inhibition through a direct biological effect caused by the alternating magnetic field applied on cancer. Costa et al. (hereinafter Costa) discloses a treatment method for applying an alternating magnetic field to malignant cells/tumors, wherein the application of the alternating magnetic field on the tumor induces cancer cell proliferation inhibition through a direct biological effect caused by the alternating magnetic field applied on cancer (col. 2, lines 10-67 and col. 3, lines 16-32), “not relying on thermal treatment effects of particles with magnetic induction heating properties implanted in a body of a patient” (col. 3, lines 51-62). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the method of Hirayama to induce cancer cell proliferation by applying the method on a cancer, as disclosed by Costa, as Hirayama recognizes the use of the treatment method on tumors as Costa recognizes the use of an alternating magnetic field on malignant/tumorous cells in the treatment of cancer.
Regarding claim 14 and in view of its indefinite nature, the instant specification indicates that “heat generation device” is defined as a heating element that exhibits porcelain induction heat generation by a magnetic field, which Hirayama does not indicate as being used in paragraphs [0082] and [0116].
Regarding claim 15, a magnetic flux density of the magnetic field is a predetermined value (Hirayama - [0082] and [0086)).
Regarding claim 16, the predetermined value of the magnetic flux density is at least 18 mT or larger (Hirayama - [0082]).
Regarding claim 17, the method further comprises controlling a power source (power source, [0082] of Hirayama) via a computer ([0210] of Hirayama) to generate an alternating current to be supplied to the magnetic field generator (coil) such that the magnetic field is generated using the alternating current ([0082], [0109], [0118] and [0120] of Hirayama).
Regarding claim 25, the magnetic field generator of Hirayama includes a coil 20 through which the alternating magnetic field is applied to the affected tissues ([0081]-[0082]), and while the alternating magnetic field is applied to the affected tissues, the coil 20 of the magnetic field generator is in a non-contact state with the affected tissues (Fig. 3 and [0081]).
Regarding claim 26, the coil includes an inner diameter face that is configured to face the affected tissues (coil 20 in Fig. 3 has a face which is at the end of the device and faces target 31; [0081]), and the magnetic field is set so that a magnetic flux density of the magnetic field ([0109] and [0210]) in an area that is 5 mm away ([0081]: “up to the position of 5 mm from the irradiation target”) from the inner diameter face of the coil 20 is 18 mT or larger [0082]).
Claims 18, 19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0317830) in view of Costa et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,665,898) and further in view of Zabara (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0189707). Regarding claim 18, Hirayama and Costa disclose the invention as claimed, see rejection supra; however the combination fails to disclose explicitly inputting a cancer type of the affected tissues wherein the cancer type, which is input, is defined as an input cancer type, and determining a frequency of the magnetic field in correspondence with the input cancer type. Zabara discloses a regime for magnetic field therapy, wherein the frequency, intensity and direction of the magnetic field will be selected and adjusted based upon the nature and type of target cancerous tissue ([0071], [0168] and [0169]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method for treating tumors via magnetic field therapy as taught by Hirayama and Costa, to include inputting a type of cancer and determining a frequency of the magnetic field corresponding to such selected type as taught by Zabara ([0071], [0168] and [0169]), as Hirayama discloses a general treatment of tumors [0210] and use of various frequencies ([0069] and [0082]) and flux densities ([(0057] and [0082]) and Costa discloses that intensities will vary depending on the type and location of the tumor being treated (col. 3, lines 19-24).
Regarding claim 19, Zabara discloses that the input cancer type is a glioblastoma, a malignant melanoma, a tongue cancer, a breast cancer, a malignant mesothelioma, a pancreatic cancer, or a human alveolar basal epithelial adenocarcinoma [0066].
Regarding claim 24, Hirayama discloses a computer configured to control and monitor the alternating current applied to the magnetic field generator, wherein the computer is also configured to receive, as input, data related to the irradiation device, characteristics of the target (tumor) or object being irradiated, store a plurality of application durations, and adjust/set predetermined applications of the current/magnetic flux density supplied to the magnetic field generator according to such input ([0067], [0209]-[0211] and [0220]).
However, Hirayama and Costa fails to disclose explicitly that the type of input is a cancer type of the affected tissues, and reading out a predetermined application duration that is associated with the input cancer type from the storage unit, wherein the magnetic field generator keeps applying the alternating magnetic field to the affected tissues for the predetermined application duration that is read out from the storage unit.
Zabara discloses a regime for magnetic field therapy, wherein the frequency, intensity and direction of the magnetic field will be selected and adjusted based upon the nature and type of target cancerous tissue ([0071], [0168] and [0169]), and further wherein the treatment regimen also includes parameters related to a treatment exposure time [0129]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method for treating tumors via magnetic field therapy based on characteristics of the tumor as taught by Hirayama, to include inputting a type of cancer and “reading out a predetermined application duration of the magnetic field corresponding to such selected type as taught by Zabara ([0071], [0168], [0169] and [0129]), as Hirayama discloses a general treatment of tumors [0210] and use of various frequencies ([0069] and [0082]) and flux densities ([(0057] and [0082]) and it is well-recognized that tumors are generally associated with cancer.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0317830) in view of Zabara (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0189707). Regarding claim 20, Hirayama discloses a computer configured to control and monitor the alternating current applied to the magnetic field generator, wherein the computer is also configured to receive, as input, data related to the irradiation device, characteristics of the target (tumor) or object being irradiated, store a plurality of application durations, and adjust/set predetermined applications of the current/magnetic flux density supplied to the magnetic field generator according to such input ([0067], [0209]-[0211] and [0220]).
However, Hirayama fails to disclose explicitly that the type of input is a cancer type of the affected tissues. Zabara discloses a regime for magnetic field therapy, wherein the frequency, intensity and direction of the magnetic field will be selected and adjusted based upon the nature and type of target cancerous tissue ([0071], [0168] and [0169]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method for treating tumors via magnetic field therapy based on characteristics of the tumor as taught by Hirayama, to include inputting a type of cancer and determining a frequency of the magnetic field corresponding to such selected type as taught by Zabara ([0071], [0168] and [0169]), as Hirayama discloses a general treatment of tumors [0210] and use of various frequencies ([0069] and [0082]) and flux densities ([(0057] and [0082]) and it is well-recognized that tumors are generally associated with cancer.
Regarding claim 21, while Hirayama does not disclose explicitly that the storage unit stores application durations ranged from 30 minutes to 180 minutes, Zabara discloses selectable treatment parameters for exposure time of the treatment regimen [0129]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a computer storage of a cancer treatment apparatus as taught by Hirayama, to include the storage capability of application duration as taught by Zabara as Hirayama recognizes the storage of multiple selectable parameters of a treatment protocol and Zabara teaches additional selection parameters to include exposure times [0129].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 23 June 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 13 and 11-19 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered, however new grounds of rejection are presented above in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 23 June 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered, however new grounds of rejection are presented above in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 23 June 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) citing Hirayama (‘830) have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant contends that Hirayama is silent to the direct biological effects of the alternating magnetic field on cancer cells, or any components for realizing a treatment apparatus and method using the effect. However, this argument is not persuasive. It is noted that claim 1 is directed to an apparatus for treating cancer, and such an apparatus does not require a step of treating cancer; merely an apparatus capable thereof (which is met by the limitations as noted above to Hirayama). Claim 11 does require the induction of cancer cell proliferation inhibition through a direct biological effect, however it is unclear what is defined by “a directed biological effect” as indicated in the rejection above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). To this end, claim 11 was amended sufficiently such that Costa was incorporated for the new limitations of claim 11 (see rejection above). In view of the foregoing, the rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) citing Hirayama (‘830) has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments filed 23 June 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 11-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) citing Hirayama (‘830) have been fully considered, however new grounds of rejection are presented above in light of the amendments to Hirayama et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0317830) in view of Costa et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,665,898).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE HOPKINS MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-9058. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 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, Charles A Marmor, II can be reached on (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights