DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 01 April 2026. Claims 10-18 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the amendments to claims 10-17, as well as the addition of new claim 18.
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 15, 16, and 18 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. The present application provides sufficient support for broadly increasing life span by treating conditions that would shorten one's life span; for example, there is evidence of the claimed method treating patients with Alzheimer's. However, there is no teaching that the claimed method would be able to reduce the occurrence and/or severity of the extremely broad and lengthy list of diseases recited by claims 15 and 18. Further, there is no teaching that the claimed method would be able to increase the life span via mechanisms that are independent of age-related diseases, as recited by claim 16.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 10-14, 16, and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Luttrull et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0360709 A1; hereinafter known as “Luttrull”), in view of Arendash et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0106997 A1; cited in the IDS filed 07 April 2026; hereinafter known as “Arendash”).
Regarding claim 10, Luttrull discloses a method capable of increasing human life span (longevity) via electromagnetic treatment (Abstract; preventing neurodegenerative disease), the method comprising: positioning an array of electromagnetic emitters 124 proximal to a subject (Figs. 40, 41; [0200]-[0201]); generating, by an electromagnetic wave generator 132, electromagnetic waves having a predetermined set of parameters including a frequency of 1 megahertz (MHz) to 430 gigahertz (GHz), an average Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) of 2 watts per kilogram (W/kg), a pulse repetition rate of 1 to 300 hertz (Hz), or a duty cycle between 1% and 100% ([0202]-[0205]); and applying the electromagnetic waves to the subject through the electromagnetic emitters to provide an increase of the life span of the subject ([0205]-[0206]). Luttrull fails to expressly disclose an average SAR of 2.1 to 16 W/kg. Luttrull arguably renders this obvious, in light of its disclosure of 2.0 W/kg, as a prima facie case of obviousness can exist where the claimed ranges do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05(I). However, for sake of completeness, Arendash discloses a similar method (Abstract) that provides electromagnetic waves with a SAR of up to about 8 W/kg in order to enhance cognition and treat the underlying neurological disorder (Abstract; [0016]). 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 Luttrull with the SAR taught by Arendash in order to enhance cognition and treat the underlying neurological disorder.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Luttrull and Arendash discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Luttrull further discloses that the array of electromagnetic emitters is positioned adjacent a head surface of the subject (Figs. 40, 41; [0201]; [0205]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Luttrull and Arendash discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Luttrull further discloses that the array of electromagnetic emitters is positioned adjacent a body surface of the subject (Figs. 40, 41; [0201]; [0205]).
Regarding claims 13, 14, and 16, the combination of Luttrull and Arendash discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Luttrull further discloses that the increase in life span results from the electromagnetic waves balancing pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines/immune mediators in a brain and/or body of the subject, from the electromagnetic waves inducing non-immune related actions in a brain and/or body of the subject, and from the electromagnetic waves via brain and/or body mechanisms that are independent of age-related diseases ([0205]; the electromagnetic waves taught by Luttrull have all the parameters recited by claim 10 and are applied in the same manner as the present invention; thus, they would be able to provide such results).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Luttrull and Arendash discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Luttrull further discloses that applying electromagnetic treatment to the subject through the electromagnetic emitters comprises periodic treatments at predetermined intervals ([0205]).
Subject Matter Allowable Over Prior Art of Record
None of the prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests such methods that provide the increase in life span via reduced occurrence and/or severity of the broad and length list of age-related diseases recited by claims 15 and 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the objections to the specification and claim 15, as well as the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The objections and rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that paragraphs 0072-0073 provide sufficient support for the limitations of claims 15 and 16 (and, implicitly, new claim 18). The examiner disagrees. The fact that the age-related diseases are literally listed in the specification does not mean that there is sufficient support to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Indeed, one of ordinary skill in the art would not read the cited paragraphs as reasonably conveying possession of the invention recited in these claims. Applicant even notes in paragraph 0072 that common belief and scientific literature purports a negative effect of such electromagnetic waves on human longevity. Thus, more evidence beyond mere assertion would be required for one of ordinary skill in the art to believe that the electromagnetic waves of the claimed invention would somehow be able to treat (for example) all forms of dementia, all forms of cardiovascular disease, and all forms of cancer, along with the other numerous diseases listed in the claims, to provide the increase in life span.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made, as detailed supra.
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
Prosecution Insights