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 .
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 05 March 2026. Claims 1-9 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-9.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, “the human body” should apparently read --a human body--. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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, 4, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0250446 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a nanoparticle providing medium for hyperthermia (Abstract), comprising nanoparticles 30 and one or more divided regions 20, wherein the nanoparticles are captured in the one or more divided regions and blocked from contact with the human body ([0018]-[0019]; [0023]; [0027]; e.g., the nanoparticles may be infused into the catheter body; even if they are part of the surface layer, the majority of the nanoparticles will be below the surface and thus blocked from contact with the human body; further, they may be provided with a specific infusion depth and, while positioned near the surface, still blocked from contact with the human body), and wherein the nanoparticle providing medium is configured to be inserted into a target site to be treated ([0003]; [0018]-[0022]; [0026]; implantable/insertable into the body, such as the central venous circulatory system).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses that the nanoparticles are made of one or more materials capable of self-heating ([0016]).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses that the nanoparticle providing medium for hyperthermia is made of one or more of polycaprolactone, poly(ethylene-vinyl acetate), polydioxanone and silicone ([0023]; [0027]), and the size or length of the nanoparticle providing medium is adjusted according to a size of the target site to be treated ([0023]; e.g., variable coating thickness; capable of this intended use, e.g., based upon a diameter of a vein that the device is inserted into).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses that the nanoparticle providing medium is configured in the shape of a tube or a catheter (Fig. 2; [0018]-[0020]).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses a hyperthermia system using a nanoparticle providing medium (Abstract), comprising the nanoparticle providing medium according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1) and an alternating magnetic field device, wherein the alternating magnetic field device applies an alternating magnetic field to the nanoparticle providing medium ([0017]-[0019]), and the nanoparticle providing medium is configured to block contact between the nanoparticles and the human body ([0018]-[0019]; [0023]; [0027]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tai (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0344518 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to disclose that data from the nanoparticle providing medium is wirelessly transmitted to an external control device. Tai discloses a similar system (Abstract) that includes a temperature sensor for measuring temperature, wherein data from the temperature sensor is wirelessly transmitted to an external control device in order to control the heating of a target site ([0007]; [0042]). 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 invention of Lee with such a temperature sensor for wirelessly transmitting data to an external control device, as taught by Tai, in order to control the heating of the target site.
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to disclose a sensor configured to sense temperature, pressure, oxygen saturation or pH of the surface of the nanoparticle providing medium. Tai discloses a similar system (Abstract) that includes a temperature sensor configured to sense temperature of a surface in order to control the heating of a target site ([0007]; [0042]). 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 invention of Lee with such a temperature sensor for sensing temperature of the surface of the nanoparticle providing medium, as taught by Tai, in order to control the heating of the target site.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 2, none of the prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests a cap coupled to one end of such a nanoparticle providing medium. Regarding claim 8, none of the prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests such a nanoparticle providing medium that is configured in the shape of a plate or a patch.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the objection to claim 9 and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The objection and rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections based upon Maier have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. These rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections based on Lee have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Lee only teaches nanoparticles on the surface, not captured in one or more divided regions of a nanoparticle providing medium and blocked from contact with the human body, wherein the nanoparticle providing medium itself is configured to be inserted into the target site. The examiner disagrees. As detailed supra and in the previous Office action, Lee teaches nanoparticles that may be infused into different portions/regions of the catheter at various depths below the surface, thus blocking them from contact with the human body. Further, the catheter is implanted, e.g., in veins of a patient, thus being inserted into a target site. To the extent that Applicant argues that the present invention provides a hyperthermia effect to a wide site without concentrating on one localized region, this language does not appear in the present claims.
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 THADDEUS B COX whose telephone number is (571)270-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Jason M. Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/THADDEUS B COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791