DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because theAbstract should generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length, see MPEP 608.01(b). Current abstract appears to be more than 150 words (263 according to word) and it’s two paragraphs.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: first occurrence of acronym PWM should be spelled out to indicate what each letter stands for.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: throughout the claim language element reference numbers and name that are recited in the parentheses “()” are crossed out. For example: claim 8, frequency
All dependent claims are objected to because of the following informalities: letter “c” in line one where a reference to parent claim is made is capitalized, it should be lower case “c”. For example, claim 2, line 1: “Claim 1” should recite, “claim 1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, Second Paragraph
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
Claim 16 and all dependent claims therefrom are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. The preface “e.g.” (for example) suggests that the enumerated sequences are illustrative rather than limiting. This makes it unclear whether the listed sequences are part of the claimed invention or merely exemplary embodiments, and therefore the claim fails to provide definite scope.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are allowable, contingent on appropriate amendments, as discussed above.
The prior art does not teach or suggest a system for therapeutic treatments with electromagnetic waves comprising the recited elements in cooperation, including a third PWM signal, wherein said third PWM signal is set, for each switching cycle, to a respective first logic level for a train switch-on period and to a respective second logic level for a train switch-off period; generate an enable signal, wherein said enable signal is set to a respective first logic level when said second PWM signal has the respective first logic level and said third PWM signal has the respective first logic level, and to a respective second logic level when said second PWM signal has the respective second logic level or said third PWM signal has the respective second logic level; generate a second digital value , wherein the second digital value is set to the first digital value when said enable signal has the respective first logic level and to zero when said enable signal has the respective second logic level; generate said first PWM signal as a function of a third digital value indicative of said given duty cycle; vary said third digital value via a discrete proportional integral regulation configured to regulate the difference between said second digital value and said digital sample to zero.
The closest prior art references are Boveja et al. (US 20070067004 A1, 2007-03-22) and
Cetroni (WO 2012172504 A1, 2012-12-20) who teach systems for therapeutic treatments with electromagnetic waves comprising at most two PWM signals.
For these reasons the claims are believed to be allowable over the art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT T LUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1860. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm, M-F (generally).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gary Jackson, can be reached on 571-272-4697. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Scott Luan, Ph.D.
/SCOTT LUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792