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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the applied art does not teach that each coil of the mats or blankets forms the magnetic fields one at a time. However, Burnett teaches that each coil 32 can have its own switching mechanism to allow the firing of coil 32 in sequence. Thus, when this teaching is used in the device of Dissing, each mat or blanket would have at least two coils where each coil, like coils 32 of Burnett, would be activated one at a time in each mat or blanket.
Claim(s) 1,4,7,8,12,15,16,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dissing et al (6,561,968) and Burnett et al 2003/0158583).
1. (Currently amended): An apparatus for transdermal treatments comprising:
a first and a second pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) mat or blanket, each PEMF mat or blanket comprising a plurality of coils, (at least col. 10:6 teaches the use of coils in a blanket, and at least col. 6:42-46 teaches a sheet with a plurality of coils; see also figure 5)
wherein the coils of the first and second PEMF [[mat]] mats or blankets are disposed and configured to form magnetic fields to treat concurrently a whole body of a subject transdermally; (It is considered to have been obvious to use first and second blankets, as opposed to one blanket with multiple coils, since it would yield predictable results, and be a duplication of what is already done. For example, using two blankets each with a coil is a duplication of using one blanket with two coils. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). MPEP 2144.04.) See also figure 5 which is considered to show two coils on opposite sides of a body, where each side is a blanket with two coils. Further, to treat a whole body, as opposed to only a limb, is also considered to have been obvious since it is an obvious duplication of treating just part of a body. No unexpected result would occur from treating the whole body, as opposed to only a portion of it. Rather, the treatment would be more efficient.)
wherein the plurality of coils of each PEMF mat or blanket forms the magnetic fields coil one at a time. (Burnett teaches a PEMF device, see figures 1-8 and at least ¶10,14, where the stimulation is in sequence or simultaneously, see at least ¶55. At least Paragraph 55 of Burnett teaches that each coil 32 can be fired in sequence, and thus one at a time. It would have been obvious to use such sequential energization of the coils with the device of Dissing since it would allow for the adjustment of the rate and amplitude of the stimulation as well as the amount of current applied to be personalized for each coil to provide more effective and varied treatment for the patient, as mentioned in at least ¶45 of Burnett.)
4. (Original): The apparatus for transdermal treatments of claim 1, wherein the subject is a human. (see at least col. 7:60)
7. (Previously presented): The apparatus for transdermal treatments of claim 1, wherein the plurality of coils form two overlapping PEMF fields to provide at least partially amplified magnetic fields. (see at least col. 16:1-60 which teaches enhanced field lines)
8. (Currently amended): A method of transdermal treatment of a subject comprising:
providing the subject;
providing a first and a second pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) mat or blanket, each PEMF mat or blanket comprising a plurality of coils, (at least col. 10:6 teaches the use of coils in a blanket, and at least col. 6:42-46 teaches a sheet with a plurality of coils; see also figure 5)
wherein the coils of the first and second PEMF mats or blankets are disposed and configured to form magnetic fields to treat concurrently a whole body of the subject transdermally; (It is considered to have been obvious to use first and second blankets, as opposed to one blanket with multiple coils, since it would yield predictable results, and be a duplication of what is already done. For example, using two blankets each with a coil is a duplication of using one blanket with two coils. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). MPEP 2144.04.) See also figure 5 which is considered to show two coils on opposite sides of a body, where each side is a blanket with two coils. Further, to treat a whole body, as opposed to only a limb, is also considered to have been obvious since it is an obvious duplication of treating just part of a body. No unexpected result would occur from treating the whole body, as opposed to only a portion of it. Rather, the treatment would be more efficient.)
and wherein the plurality of coils of each PEMF mat or blanket forms the magnetic fields one coil at a time; (Burnett teaches a PEMF device, see figures 1-8 and at least ¶10,14, where the stimulation is in sequence or simultaneously, see at least ¶55. At least Paragraph 55 of Burnett teaches that each coil 32 can be fired in sequence, and thus one at a time. It would have been obvious to use such sequential energization of the coils with the device of Dissing since it would allow for the adjustment of the rate and amplitude of the stimulation as well as the amount of current applied to be personalized for each coil to provide more effective and varied treatment for the patient, as mentioned in at least ¶45 of Burnett.)
placing the first and second PEMF blankets around the subject; and forming the magnetic fields. (such step is considered to have been obvious since it would allow for the whole body to be treated at once, thus resulting in more efficient therapy for the patient)
12. (Original): The method of transdermal treatment of claim 8, wherein the subject is a human. (see at least col. 7:60)
15. (Previously presented): The method of transdermal treatment claim 8, wherein the plurality of coils forms two overlapping magnetic fields to provide at least partially amplified magnetic fields. (see at least col. 16:1-60 which teaches enhanced field lines)
16. (Currently amended): Use of an apparatus for transdermal treatments of a subject, wherein the apparatus comprises a first and a second pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) mat or blanket, each PEMF mat or blanket comprising a plurality of coils, (at least col. 10:6 teaches the use of coils in a blanket, and at least col. 6:42-46 teaches a sheet with a plurality of coils; see also figure 5)
wherein the first and second PEMF mats or blankets are disposed and configured to form magnetic fields to treat concurrently a whole body of the subject transdermally; (It is considered to have been obvious to use first and second blankets, as opposed to one blanket with multiple coils, since it would yield predictable results, and be a duplication of what is already done. For example, using two blankets each with a coil is a duplication of using one blanket with two coils. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). MPEP 2144.04.) See also figure 5 which is considered to show two coils on opposite sides of a body, where each side is a blanket with two coils. Further, to treat a whole body, as opposed to only a limb, is also considered to have been obvious since it is an obvious duplication of treating just part of a body. No unexpected result would occur from treating the whole body, as opposed to only a portion of it. Rather, the treatment would be more efficient.)
wherein the plurality of coils of each PEMF mat or blanket forms the magnetic fields one coil at a time; (Burnett teaches a PEMF device, see figures 1-8 and at least ¶10,14, where the stimulation is in sequence or simultaneously, see at least ¶55. At least Paragraph 55 of Burnett teaches that each coil 32 can be fired in sequence, and thus one at a time. It would have been obvious to use such sequential energization of the coils with the device of Dissing since it would allow for the adjustment of the rate and amplitude of the stimulation as well as the amount of current applied to be personalized for each coil to provide more effective and varied treatment for the patient, as mentioned in at least ¶45 of Burnett.)
the use comprising placing the first and second PEMF mats or blankets around the subject. (such step is considered to have been obvious since it would allow for the whole body to be treated at once, thus resulting in more efficient therapy for the patient)
19. (Original): The use of the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the subject is a human. (see at least col. 7:60)
Claim(s) 3,6,11,14,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dissing et al (6,561,968) and Burnett et al (2003/0158583) and further in view of (Erickson et al (5,181,902).
3. The apparatus for transdermal treatments of claim 1, further comprising one or more processors connected to the first and second PEMF mats or blankets, wherein the one or more processors control each of the magnetic fields formed by the plurality of coils. (Dissing is silent as to the use of processors. However, Erickson teaches the use of processors and a program to control the pemf therapy, see at least col. 5:16-68. It would have been obvious to use the processors of Erickson with Dissing since they are well known in the art to control pemf therapy, and would yield predictable results)
6. The apparatus for transdermal treatments of claim 1, wherein formation of the magnetic fields by the plurality of coils is programmed into a processor for a treatment of the subject. (Dissing is silent as to the use of processors. However, Erickson teaches the use of processors and a program to control the pemf therapy, see at least col. 5:16-68. It would have been obvious to use the processors of Erickson with Dissing since they are well known in the art to control pemf therapy, and would yield predictable results)
11. The method of transdermal treatment of claim 8, wherein one or more processors connected to the first and second PEMF mats or blankets control each of the magnetic fields formed by the plurality of coils. (Dissing is silent as to the use of processors. However, Erickson teaches the use of processors and a program to control the pemf therapy, see at least col. 5:16-68. It would have been obvious to use the processors of Erickson with Dissing since they are well known in the art to control pemf therapy, and would yield predictable results)
14. The method of transdermal treatment of claim 8, wherein formation of the magnetic fields by the plurality of coils is programmed into a processor for a treatment of the subject. (Dissing is silent as to the use of processors. However, Erickson teaches the use of processors and a program to control the pemf therapy, see at least col. 5:16-68. It would have been obvious to use the processors of Erickson with Dissing since they are well known in the art to control pemf therapy, and would yield predictable results)
18. The use of the apparatus of claim 16, wherein one or more processors connected to the first and second PEMF mats or blankets control each of the magnetic fields formed by the plurality of coils. (Dissing is silent as to the use of processors. However, Erickson teaches the use of processors and a program to control the pemf therapy, see at least col. 5:16-68. It would have been obvious to use the processors of Erickson with Dissing since they are well known in the art to control pemf therapy, and would yield predictable results)
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 1,3,4,6,7,8,11,12,14,15,16,18,19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-32 of U.S. Patent No. 11,439,553 in view of Dissing and Burnett (2003/0158583) as set forth above.
Re application claim 1, at least claim 3 of the ’968 patent teaches applying PEMF to the whole body. Dissing teaches using a blanket with coils therein. It would have been obvious to use two blankets with the device of patent claim 3 since it would allow for the whole body to be covered in an efficient and predictable manner.
Burnett teaches a PEMF device, see figures 1-8 and at least ¶10,14, where the stimulation is in sequence or simultaneously, see at least ¶55. At least Paragraph 55 of Burnett teaches that each coil 32 can be fired in sequence, and thus one at a time. It would have been obvious to use such sequential energization of the coils with the device of Dissing since it would allow for the adjustment of the rate and amplitude of the stimulation as well as the amount of current applied to be personalized for each coil to provide more effective and varied treatment for the patient, as mentioned in at least ¶45 of Burnett.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott M. Getzow whose telephone number is (571)272-4946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 on 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.
/Scott M. Getzow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792