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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p, filed 13 February 2026, with respect to specification objection regarding the abstract have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the abstract has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page , filed 13 February 2026, with respect to the objections made to claim 3 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page & 6, filed 13 February 202, with respect to the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12 February 2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the amendments to claim 1, figures 4A-B show a position arm that can support the field generating coil in a desirable position. Because the "connecting tube (9)” is guided by the position arm (Paragraph 145), the Examiner Interprets the connecting tube to be running through the guide member, as well as understanding that the position arm can be configured into the right angle described within the claim. The casing (7) shown in claim 3 is considered a part of the duct for cooling purposes, and is able to support the weight of the magnetic generating coil. Therefore, Examiner hold that Schwarz teaches the limitation at issue. In view of the foregoing, the rejection of claim 1 has been maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed 12 February 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, has been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Burnett Figure 47 shows the fluid changing direction to move in between the coil towards electronic device in a substantially perpendicular direction. This fluid directional change along with the reference Schwarz teaches the device as currently claimed. In view of the foregoing, the rejection of claim 1 has been maintained.
Examiner Acknowledges cancelation of claim 2, see page 5, filed 13 February 2025. In response, examiner respectfully withdraws 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 & 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0201706 hereinafter Schwarz in view of US 2011/0021863 hereinafter Burnett.
In regards to Claim 1: Schwarz teaches a treatment device using a magnetic field, comprising:
a magnetic field generating coil disposed below a close contact surface that closely contacts a portion of a body (Schwarz, Paragraphs 118 & 148; Items 2 & 24);
a first blower and a second blower disposed symmetrically with respect to the magnetic field generating coil to supply a fluid toward the magnetic field generating coil (Schwarz, Paragraph 78; Figure 2 Item 4); and
a duct configured to provide a seated surface on which the magnetic field generating coil is seated and guide the fluid supplied from the first blower and the second blower toward the magnetic field generating coil (Schwarz, Paragraphs 447, 129 & 133; Figure 2 Item 3; Figure 3B Item 9),
wherein the duct comprises an opening formed in at least a portion of an area forming the seated surface (The coil placed within the duct on a stand constitutes an opened seated surface).
However, Schwarz does not teach an internal electronic device disposed adjacent to the magnetic field generating coil and the opening is defined in a region between the magnetic field generating coil and the internal electronic device, and the duct guides the fluid so that the fluid supplied from the first blower and the second blower passes through the magnetic field generating coil in a direction parallel to a surface formed by the magnetic field generating coil, and the fluid passed through the magnetic field generating coil is supplied to the internal electronic device in a direction perpendicular to the surface formed by the magnetic field generating coil.
Burnett teaches of an internal electronic device disposed adjacent to the magnetic field generating coil (Burnett, Paragraphs 224 & 225; Figure 34 Item 326 & 318) and the opening is defined in a region between the magnetic field generating coil and the internal electronic device, and the duct guides the fluid so that the fluid supplied from the first blower and the second blower passes through the magnetic field generating coil in a direction parallel to a surface formed by the magnetic field generating coil (Burnett, Figure 47), and the fluid passed through the magnetic field generating coil is supplied to the internal electronic device in a direction perpendicular to the surface formed by the magnetic field generating coil (Burnett, Paragraph 249; Figure 34 & 47 Item 326).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the cooling system and electronic internal device described by Burnett to the treatment device of Schwarz, the motivation being to provide a more efficient cooling system that utilizes the same fluid to cool the magnetic coils and the electric components.
In regards to Claim 3: A modified Schwarz teaches all of claim 1, and a third blower configured to discharge the fluid to the outside from the inside of the treatment device,
wherein the third blower guides the fluid so that the fluid supplied from the first blower and the second blower is discharged to the outside of the treatment device through the magnetic field generating coil and the internal electronic device (Burnett, Paragraph 213; Figure 34 Item 324).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the exhaust blower as taught by Burnett to the system taught in a modified Schwarz, the motivation being to provide structure capable of removing the cooling fluid once it has passed over the essential components.
In regards to Claim 4: A modified Schwarz teaches of the treatment device of claim 1, and the internal electronic device is disposed below the magnetic field generating coil (Burnett, Paragraphs 224 & 225; Figure 34 Item 326 & 318).
In regards to Claim 5: A modified Schwarz teaches pf the treatment device of claim 1, and the duct comprises a hole configured to allow a portion of the fluid introduced to at least a portion of a region between the first blower or the second blower and the magnetic field generating coil to pass therethrough (Schwarz, Paragraph 132; Figure 2 Item 6), and the hole guides the fluid so that at least a portion of the fluid supplied from the first blower or the second blower is introduced toward the internal electronic device before being reached to the magnetic field generating coil (Burnett, Paragraph 225; Figure 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine the placement of the electronic components taught by Burnett to the treatment device of a modified Schwarz, the motivation being to provide cooler air to the electronic components to ensure optimal operating capacity.
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 NOE R DIETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1135. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 5pm.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571)-272-4233. 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.
/N.R.D./
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights