DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on 12/23/2025.
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 .
Claim Objection
Following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 16 and 21 include numerous acronyms/abbreviations. At least first occurrence of each acronym/abbreviation should be spelled out in full.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Each of claim 1, claim 16 and claim 21 recite “an out-of-plane magnetic field” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, it is unclear as to the magnetic field is “out-of-plane” with reference and or relative to the plane of what reference structure/plane i.e. magnetic stimulator, controller, support surface, system or something else.
Dependent claims 2-14 and 17-20 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the additional recited limitations fail to cure the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue in their respective base claims. Consequently, dependent claims 2-14 and 17-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on their direct/indirect dependency on their respective base claims.
Claim Interpretation
Claims terms where relevant are being interpreted in light of definitions enumerated in instant application specification page [0002], [0074-0076].
Please note that USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted "in view of the specification" without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily). In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.... The reason is simply that during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.... An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.").
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-10, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettinelli; Eugene Eustis (Pub. No.: US 20100324642 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Pettinelli”) in view of Tan et al. (Pub. No.: US 20190172998 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Tan”).
As per independent Claim 1, Pettinelli discloses a neuro-stimulation system (Pettinelli in abstract “a method of treating movement disorders by the modulation of neuronal transmission using time-variant non-conservative magnetic fields”) comprising:
a stimulator controller (Pettinelli in [0021] “a voltage from controller 20 produces a flux in proportion to amplitude and time derivative of the voltage wave.”),
a support surface configured to be positioned within a living body (Pettinelli in fig. 2, [0021] “implanted nerve control coil 21”), and
a magneto-ionic stimulator comprising planar layers (Examiner notes that a broad yet reasonable interpretation of this limitation would also encompass the following interpretation -- a magneto-ionic stimulator comprising at least two partially planar layers-- i.e. a magneto-ionic stimulator comprising at least two layers that are at least partially planar. Pettinelli in at least fig. 2, [0024] for example discloses a stimulator comprising at least two layers that are at least partially planar as seen in fig. 2. Pettinelli in at least [0024] “the voltage waveforms within the nerve that are created by the flux change of the cuff coil 21 can simultaneously be positive in one area and negative in another, at least over the course of time in which the magnetic flux is changing. Thus the ionic flow of the sensory and motor neurons within the nerve… can, on a time-transient basis, be controlled”)
positioned on the support surface and electrically connected to the stimulator controller in a manner that the stimulator controller applies a voltage to the magneto-ionic stimulator (Pettinelli in [0021] “implanted nerve control coil 21 consists of windings which when energized by a voltage from controller 20 produces a flux in proportion to amplitude and time derivative of the voltage wave ”),
wherein a change in the voltage changes a magnetic flux density magnetic field produced by the magneto-ionic stimulator at a therapeutically effective frequency (Pettinelli in [0021], [0023] for example discloses a change in the voltage changes a magnetic flux density magnetic field produced by the magneto-ionic stimulator at a therapeutically effective frequency dependent upon depending on the type of neuronal treatment/intervention needed. Pettinelli in [0021] “implanted nerve control coil 21 consists of windings which when energized by a voltage from controller 20 produces a flux in proportion to amplitude and time derivative of the voltage wave”; [0023] “Depending on the nature and timing of the inputs derived from the sensors…the controller 20 produces voltage outputs 28 that are timed to intervene with the abnormal flow of action potential in the nerve…types of possible controller voltage output waveforms 28 is large and situation dependent… timing of the outputs 28 can vary, but are likely to initially in the millisecond range… number of pulse outputs will vary greatly depending on the type of intervention needed, and can be as few as one per detected abnormality.”).
Pettinelli does not explicitly disclose a magneto-ionic component wherein a change in the voltage changes a magnetic flux density of an out-of-plane magnetic field produced by the magneto-ionic component at a frequency between 0.5 Hz and 100KHz.
However, in an analogous magneto-ionic systems field of endeavor, Tan discloses a magneto-ionic device (Tan in at least fig. 2A, fig. 6-7, fig. 9, [0006], [0008], [0089-0090] for example discloses magneto-ionic device 1000. See at least Tan [0089] “magneto-ionic device 1000” ) comprising planar layers positioned on the support surface (Tan in at least fig. 2A, fig. 7, [0089], [0094] for example discloses planar layers 1010-1040 positioned on the support surface. See at least Tan [0089] “magnetic layer 1020 may be disposed between the first electrode 1010 and the second electrode 1040. A proton conductor 1030 may then be disposed between the magnetic layer 1020 and the second electrode 1040.”; [0094] “first electrode 1010 … be deposited onto a substrate and used to provide a base layer supporting subsequent layers in the magneto-ionic device 1000”),
wherein a change in the voltage changes a magnetic flux density of an out-of-plane magnetic field produced by the magneto-ionic component at a frequency between 0.5 Hz and 100KHz (Tan in at least fig. 7, [0089-0090], [0132] for example discloses a change in the voltage changes a magnetic flux density of an out-of-plane magnetic field produced by the magneto-ionic component at a frequency between 0.5 Hz and 100KHz. See at least Tan [0090] “magneto-ionic mechanism to switch the magnetic layer 1020 in the magneto-ionic device 1000 between at least two states. The magneto-ionic device 1000 may initially be in a first magnetic state where the magnetic layer 1020 has … an out-of-plane magnetization relative to the plane of the magnetic layer 1020 (e.g., a Co magnetic layer 1020 adjoining a GdO.sub.x proton conductor 1030)”; [0132] “magnetization state can thus be switched in a nonvolatile fashion between out-of-plane and in-plane states”).
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 magneto-ionic component of the neuro-stimulation system as taught by Pettinelli, such that the magneto-ionic component generates an out-of-plane magnetic field at a frequency between 0.5 Hz and 100KHz, as taught by Tan. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the advantage of deriving a device with lower power consumption, less heat dissipation and faster magnetic state switching times (Tan, [0004]) and for the advantage of operating at a frequency depending on the type of intervention needed, and can be as few as one per detected abnormality (Pettinelli, [0023])
As per dependent Claim 2, the combination of Pettinelli and Tan as a whole disclose neuro-stimulation system wherein the magneto-ionic stimulator comprises a layer of gadolinium oxide (GdOx)_in contact with a layer of cobolt (Co) (Tan in at least fig. 2A, for example discloses wherein the magneto-ionic stimulator 1000 comprises a layer of gadolinium oxide (GdOx)_1030 ([0106] “GdO.sub.x proton conductor 1030”) in contact with a layer of cobolt (Co)) 1020 ([0116] “magnetic layer 1020 may be formed from various magnetic materials including, but not limited to, cobalt, iron (Fe), Ni, rare earth metals and alloys of these”). Also see fig. 1).
As per dependent Claim 3, the combination of Pettinelli and Tan as a whole discloses neuro-stimulation system of claim 2, wherein the stimulator controller applies a positive voltage across the GdOx layer energizing hydrogen to appear at the boundary between the GdOX layer and the Co layer (Tan in at least fig. 2B-2C, fig. 7, [0089-0090] for example discloses applies a positive voltage across the GdOx layer 1030 energizing hydrogen to appear at the boundary between the GdOX layer 1030 and the Co layer 1020. See at least Tan [0089] “The proton conductor 1030 is used to transport protons between the second electrode 1040 and the magnetic layer 1020 when a gate voltage is applied to the first electrode 1010 and the second electrode 1040. As hydrogen ions are moved either towards or away from the magnetic layer 1020, the magnetic layer 1020 may switch between at least two magnetic states”; [0090] “The magneto-ionic device 1000 may initially be in a first magnetic state where the magnetic layer 1020 has … an out-of-plane magnetization relative to the plane of the magnetic layer 1020 (e.g., a Co magnetic layer 1020 adjoining a GdO.sub.x proton conductor 1030). As shown in FIG. 2B, when a positive gate voltage, V.sub.g, is applied… protons may then be transported towards the magnetic layer 1020”).
As per dependent Claim 4, the combination of Pettinelli and Tan as a whole discloses neuro-stimulation system of claim 3, wherein the magneto- ionic stimulator produces a weaker out-of-plane magnetic field as the hydrogen appears at the boundary (Tan in at least fig. 7, fig. 2B, 2C, [0090] for example discloses wherein the magneto- ionic stimulator produces a weaker out-of-plane magnetic field as the hydrogen appears at the boundary as seen in fig. 2B-2C, 7G, 7H. See at least Tan [0090] “The magneto-ionic device 1000 may initially be in a first magnetic state where the magnetic layer 1020 has … an out-of-plane magnetization relative to the plane of the magnetic layer 1020 (e.g., a Co magnetic layer 1020 adjoining a GdO.sub.x proton conductor 1030). As shown in FIG. 2B, when a positive gate voltage, V.sub.g, is applied… protons may then be transported towards the magnetic layer 1020”).
As per dependent Claim 5, the combination of Pettinelli and Tan as a whole discloses neuro-stimulation system of claim 4, wherein the stimulator controller removes the positive voltage across the GdOx layer energizing the hydrogen to move away from the boundary between the GdOX layer and the Co layer (Tan in at least fig. 7, [0089] for example discloses wherein the stimulator controller removes the positive voltage across the GdOx layer energizing the hydrogen to move away from the boundary between the GdOX layer and the Co layer as seen in fig. 7I. See at least Tan [0089] “The proton conductor 1030 is used to transport protons between the second electrode 1040 and the magnetic layer 1020 when a gate voltage is applied to the first electrode 1010 and the second electrode 1040. As hydrogen ions are moved either towards or away from the magnetic layer 1020, the magnetic layer 1020 may switch between at least two magnetic states”;).
As per dependent Claim 6, the combination of Pettinelli and Tan as a whole discloses neuro-stimulation system of claim 5, wherein the magneto- ionic stimulator produces a stronger out-of-plane magnetic field as the hydrogen moves away from the boundary (Tan in at least fig. 7 for example discloses wherein the magneto- ionic stimulator produces a stronger out-of-plane magnetic field (fig. 7A, fig. 7E) as the hydrogen moves away from the boundary (fig. 7I)).
As per dependent Claim 7, the combination of Pettinelli and Tan as a whole discloses neuro-stimulation system of claim 2, wherein the stimulator controller applies a negative voltage across the GdOx layer to drive oxygen into the Co layer (Tan, [0108] “material used to form the proton conductor 1030 may also affect the magnetic properties of the magnetic layer 1020… an oxide adjoining the magnetic layer 1020 may cause oxygen hybridization to occur at the interface between the oxide and the magnetic layer 1020. Oxygen hybridization can result in a surface anisotropy contribution that prefers the magnetization of the magnetic layer 1020 to orient out-of-plane… the proton conductor 1030 can thus be formed from an oxide that forms an oxygen bond between the oxide and the magnetic layer 1020 that stabilizes the out-of-plane magnetization. Additionally, the choice of material for the proton conductor 1030 may also affect the ease in switching between magnetic states in the proton conductor 1030. For example, GdO.sub.x exhibits a large spin orbit coupling, which may be used to change other magnetic properties of the magnetic layer 1020 discussed below.” Also see fig. 1).
As per dependent Claim 8, the combination of Pettinelli and Tan as a whole discloses
neuro-stimulation system wherein the magneto- ionic stimulator produces a weaker out-of-plane magnetic field as the oxygen is driven into the Co layer (Tan [0108] “material used to form the proton conductor 1030 may also affect the magnetic properties of the magnetic layer 1020… an oxide adjoining the magnetic layer 1020 may cause oxygen hybridization to occur at the interface between the oxide and the magnetic layer 1020. Oxygen hybridization can result in a surface anisotropy contribution that prefers the magnetization of the magnetic layer 1020 to orient out-of-plane… the proton conductor 1030 can thus be formed from an oxide that forms an oxygen bond between the oxide and the magnetic layer 1020 that stabilizes the out-of-plane magnetization. Additionally, the choice of material for the proton conductor 1030 may also affect the ease in switching between magnetic states in the proton conductor 1030. For example, GdO.sub.x exhibits a large spin orbit coupling, which may be used to change other magnetic properties of the magnetic layer 1020 discussed below.” Also see fig. 1).
As per dependent Claim 9, the combination of Pettinelli and Tan as a whole discloses neuro-stimulation system wherein the stimulator controller applies a positive voltage across the GdOx layer to drive oxygen out of the Co layer (Tan [0108] “material used to form the proton conductor 1030 may also affect the magnetic properties of the magnetic layer 1020… an oxide adjoining the magnetic layer 1020 may cause oxygen hybridization to occur at the interface between the oxide and the magnetic layer 1020. Oxygen hybridization can result in a surface anisotropy contribution that prefers the magnetization of the magnetic layer 1020 to orient out-of-plane… the proton conductor 1030 can thus be formed from an oxide that forms an oxygen bond between the oxide and the magnetic layer 1020 that stabilizes the out-of-plane magnetization. Additionally, the choice of material for the proton conductor 1030 may also affect the ease in switching between magnetic states in the proton conductor 1030. For example, GdO.sub.x exhibits a large spin orbit coupling, which may be used to change other magnetic properties of the magnetic layer 1020 discussed below.”. Also see fig. 1).
As per dependent Claim 10, the combination of Pettinelli and Tan as a whole discloses neuro-stimulation system of claim 9, wherein the magneto- ionic stimulator produces a stronger out-of-plane magnetic field as the oxygen is driven out of the Co layer (Tan [0108] “material used to form the proton conductor 1030 may also affect the magnetic properties of the magnetic layer 1020… an oxide adjoining the magnetic layer 1020 may cause oxygen hybridization to occur at the interface between the oxide and the magnetic layer 1020. Oxygen hybridization can result in a surface anisotropy contribution that prefers the magnetization of the magnetic layer 1020 to orient out-of-plane… the proton conductor 1030 can thus be formed from an oxide that forms an oxygen bond between the oxide and the magnetic layer 1020 that stabilizes the out-of-plane magnetization. Additionally, the choice of material for the proton conductor 1030 may also affect the ease in switching between magnetic states in the proton conductor 1030. For example, GdO.sub.x exhibits a large spin orbit coupling, which may be used to change other magnetic properties of the magnetic layer 1020 discussed below.” Also see fig. 1).
As per independent Claim 16, Pettinelli discloses a method of stimulating a neuron (Pettinelli in abstract “a method of treating movement disorders by the modulation of neuronal transmission using time-variant non-conservative magnetic fields”) comprising:
placing a magneto-ionic stimulator comprising planar layers within a living body near the neuron (Examiner notes that a broad yet reasonable interpretation of this limitation would also encompass the following interpretation -- a magneto-ionic stimulator comprising at least two partially planar layers-- i.e. a magneto-ionic stimulator comprising at least two layers that are at least partially planar. Pettinelli in at least fig. 2, [0024] for example discloses placing a magneto-ionic stimulator comprising at least two layers that are at least partially planar within a living body near the neuron as seen in fig. 2. See Pettinelli in at least [0024] “the voltage waveforms within the nerve that are created by the flux change of the cuff coil 21 can simultaneously be positive in one area and negative in another, at least over the course of time in which the magnetic flux is changing. Thus the ionic flow of the sensory and motor neurons within the nerve… can, on a time-transient basis, be controlled”); and
using a controller connected to the stimulator to change a voltage applied to the magneto-ionic stimulator (Pettinelli in [0023] “controller 20 produces voltage outputs 28 that are timed to intervene with the abnormal flow of action potential in the nerve”) to change the strength of magnetic field generated by the magneto-ionic stimulator at a therapeutically effective frequency in a manner that an electric field is generated along the neuron (Pettinelli in [0021], [0023-0024] for example discloses change the strength of magnetic field generated by the magneto-ionic stimulator at a therapeutically effective frequency in a manner that an electric field is generated along the neuron depending on the type of neuronal treatment/intervention needed. See at least Pettinelli in [0021] “implanted nerve control coil 21 consists of windings which when energized by a voltage from controller 20 produces a flux in proportion to amplitude and time derivative of the voltage wave”; [0023] “Depending on the nature and timing of the inputs derived from the sensors…the controller 20 produces voltage outputs 28 that are timed to intervene with the abnormal flow of action potential in the nerve…types of possible controller voltage output waveforms 28 is large and situation dependent… timing of the outputs 28 can vary, but are likely to initially in the millisecond range… number of pulse outputs will vary greatly depending on the type of intervention needed, and can be as few as one per detected abnormality.”; [0024] “the voltage waveforms within the nerve that are created by the flux change of the cuff coil 21 can simultaneously be positive in one area and negative in another, at least over the course of time in which the magnetic flux is changing. Thus the ionic flow of the sensory and motor neurons within the nerve… can, on a time-transient basis, be controlled”).
Pettinelli does not explicitly disclose step that changes a voltage applied to the magneto-ionic component to change the strength of an out-of-plane magnetic field generated by the magneto-ionic stimulator at a frequency between 0.5 Hz and 100KHz.
However, in an analogous magneto-ionic systems field of endeavor, Tan method of using magneto-ionic component (Tan in at least fig. 2A, [0006], [0008], [0089-0090] for example discloses method of using a magneto-ionic device 1000. See at least Tan [0008] “a method of reversibly switching a magnetic state of a magneto-ionic device”) comprising
changing a voltage applied to the magneto-ionic component comprising planar layers to change the strength of an out-of-plane magnetic field generated by the magneto-ionic component at a frequency between 0.5 Hz and 100KHz (Tan in at least fig. 2A, fig. 7, [0089-0090], [0094], [0132] for example discloses changing a voltage applied to the magneto-ionic component comprising planar layers to change the strength of an out-of-plane magnetic field generated by the magneto-ionic component at a frequency between 0.5 Hz and 100KHz. See at least Tan [0089] “magnetic layer 1020 may be disposed between the first electrode 1010 and the second electrode 1040. A proton conductor 1030 may then be disposed between the magnetic layer 1020 and the second electrode 1040.”; [0090] “magneto-ionic mechanism to switch the magnetic layer 1020 in the magneto-ionic device 1000 between at least two states. The magneto-ionic device 1000 may initially be in a first magnetic state where the magnetic layer 1020 has … an out-of-plane magnetization relative to the plane of the magnetic layer 1020 (e.g., a Co magnetic layer 1020 adjoining a GdO.sub.x proton conductor 1030)”; [0094] “first electrode 1010 … be deposited onto a substrate and used to provide a base layer supporting subsequent layers in the magneto-ionic device 1000”; [0132] “magnetization state can thus be switched in a nonvolatile fashion between out-of-plane and in-plane states”).
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 neuro-stimulation system method as taught by Pettinelli, such that method includes changing a voltage applied to the magneto-ionic component to change the strength of an out-of-plane magnetic field generated by the magneto-ionic stimulator at a frequency between 0.5 Hz and 100KHz, as taught by Tan. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the advantage of deriving a device with lower power consumption, less heat dissipation and faster magnetic state switching times (Tan, [0004]) and for the advantage of operating at a frequency depending on the type of intervention needed, and can be as few as one per detected abnormality (Pettinelli, [0023]).
As per dependent Claim 17, the combination of Pettinelli and Tan as a whole discloses method wherein the magneto-ionic stimulator comprises a layer of oxide in contact with a layer of cobolt-iron (CoFex) alloy (Tan in at least [0116] for example discloses fig. 2, fig. 7, for example discloses wherein the magneto-ionic stimulator comprises a layer 1030 of oxide GdOx ([0106] “GdO.sub.x proton conductor 1030”) in contact with a layer of cobolt-iron (CoFex) alloy 1020. See at least Tan [0116] “magnetic layer 1020 may be formed from various magnetic materials including, but not limited to, cobalt, iron (Fe), Ni, rare earth metals and alloys of these.”).
As per dependent Claim 18, the combination of Pettinelli and Tan as a whole discloses method wherein the magneto-ionic stimulator comprises a layer of gadolinium oxide (GdOx) in contact with a layer of palladium (Pd), which is in contact with a layer of cobolt (Co) (Tan in at least fig. 9A discloses magneto-ionic stimulator comprises a layer of gadolinium oxide (GdOx) 3030 in contact with a layer of palladium (Pd) 3060, which is in contact with a layer of cobolt (Co) 3020).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi et al. (Pub. No.: US 20140081073 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Nishi”) in view of Tan.
As per independent Claim 21, Nishi discloses a neuro-stimulation system (Nishi in at least abstract “device contains a high frequency electromagnetic wave generating means generating a high frequency electromagnetic wave. The magnetic stimulation by the high frequency alternating electromagnetic field allows the intracellular concentration of calcium ions to increase to induce exocytosis of the neurotrophic factor group and to increase mRNA of the neurotrophic factor group in the cells so that the synthesis and extracellular release of the neurotrophic factor group are promoted”) comprising:
a stimulator controller (Nishi in fig. 2A, [0069] control block 20), a support surface (Nishi in fig. 2A, [0069] substrate 17), and
a magneto-ionic stimulator positioned on the support surface (Nishi in fig. 2A, [0069] “the control block 20, the high frequency coil 30A, and the low frequency coil 40A, for example, are mounted on a same substrate 17” and [0009] “applying a high frequency alternating magnetic field of a predetermined frequency to specific cells …of an affected area of a subject to be treated at an appropriate magnetic field intensity … allows the concentration of calcium ions (Ca.sup.2+) within these cells to be increased”) and electrically connected to the stimulator controller, wherein the magneto-ionic stimulator comprises planar layers of different materials and produces magnetic field that oscillates at a frequency less than 10 kHz (Examiner notes that a broad yet reasonable interpretation of this limitation would also encompass the following interpretation – the magneto-ionic stimulator comprises at least two partially planar layers-- i.e. a magneto-ionic stimulator comprising at least two layers that are at least partially planar. Nishi in at least fig. 2A, [0072] for example discloses electrically connected to the stimulator controller, wherein the magneto-ionic stimulator comprises at least two partially planar layers represented by 30A, 40A layers as seen in fig. 2A of different sized materials and produces magnetic field that oscillates at a frequency less than 10 kHz. Nishi in [0072] “low frequency coil 40A is, for example, capable of generating a low frequency electromagnetic wave, which is at a frequency of approximately 2.0 kHz, by being applied the low frequency electric current from the abovementioned control block 20, and emitting it peripherally. This low frequency electromagnetic wave includes a low frequency alternating magnetic field”).
Nishi does not explicitly disclose wherein the magneto-ionic stimulator produces an out-of-plane magnetic field feature
However, in an analogous magneto-ionic systems field of endeavor, Tan discloses a magneto-ionic magnetic field generating system (Tan in at least fig. 2A, fig. 6-7, [0006], [0008], [0089-0090] for example discloses magneto-ionic device 1000. See at least Tan [0089] “magneto-ionic device 1000”) wherein the magneto-ionic stimulator comprises planar layers of different materials and produces an out-of-plane magnetic field (Tan in at least fig. 2A, fig. 7, [0089-0090], [0094], [0132] for example discloses wherein the magneto-ionic stimulator comprises planar layers of different materials and produces an out-of-plane magnetic field. See at least Tan [0089] “magnetic layer 1020 may be disposed between the first electrode 1010 and the second electrode 1040. A proton conductor 1030 may then be disposed between the magnetic layer 1020 and the second electrode 1040.”; [0090] “magneto-ionic mechanism to switch the magnetic layer 1020 in the magneto-ionic device 1000 between at least two states. The magneto-ionic device 1000 may initially be in a first magnetic state where the magnetic layer 1020 has … an out-of-plane magnetization relative to the plane of the magnetic layer 1020 (e.g., a Co magnetic layer 1020 adjoining a GdO.sub.x proton conductor 1030)”; [0094] “first electrode 1010 … be deposited onto a substrate and used to provide a base layer supporting subsequent layers in the magneto-ionic device 1000”; [0132] “magnetization state can thus be switched in a nonvolatile fashion between out-of-plane and in-plane states”).
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 magneto-ionic component of the neuro-stimulation system as taught by Nishi, such that the magneto-ionic stimulator produces an out-of-plane magnetic field, as taught by Tan. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the advantage of deriving a device with lower power consumption, less heat dissipation and faster magnetic state switching times (Tan, [0004]).
Contingently Allowable Subject-Matter
As per dependent claims 11-14, 19-20, dependent claims 11-14, 19-20would be contingently allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims in addition to overcoming any other rejections/objections enumerated above.
As per dependent claims 11-14, 19-20, dependent claims 11-14, 19-20 are being 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 in addition to overcoming any other rejections/objections enumerated above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per dependent Claim 11, the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious neuro-stimulation system wherein the magneto-ionic stimulator comprises a layer of gadolinium oxide (GdOx) in contact with a layer of palladium (Pd), which is in contact with a layer of cobolt (Co) including all the other features, structures, specific arrangement and combination of features, and structures in dependent claim 11 including all of the limitations of the respective base claim and any intervening claims.
As per dependent Claim 19, the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious method of claim 16, wherein the magneto-ionic stimulator comprises a layer of cobolt-iron-boron (CoFeB) that is in contact with a layer of magnesium oxide (MgO) including all the other features, structures, specific arrangement and combination of features, and structures in dependent claim 19 including all of the limitations of the respective base claim and any intervening claims.
However, none of the prior art discloses or renders obvious all the features, structures, steps, specific arrangement and combination of features and structures as in dependent claims 11 and 19.
Additionally, as per dependent claims 12-14, 20 dependent claims 12-14, 20 would be contingently allowable based on their direct/indirect dependency on respective contingently allowable base claim.
Response to Amendment
According to the Amendment, filed 12/23/2025, the status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 1-14, 16-21 are currently amended;
Claims 15, 22-29 are cancelled.
The Specification/Drawings has been amended in view of the Amendment, filed 12/23/2025. No new matter was introduced.
By the current amendment, as a result, claims 1-14, 16-21 are now pending in this application and are being examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Issues Raised and Arguments/Remarks to Rejections/Objections Not Based On Prior Art presented on Page 7-9 of Applicant’s Amendment dated 12/23/2025
The Examiner agrees with the Applicant, and in light of the amendments/arguments, withdraws the following non prior art related objections/rejections raised in Office Action dated 09/24/2025: [1] The objection to Specification/Drawings is withdrawn in view of the amendment and arguments, filed 12/23/2025; [2] The objection to claims is withdrawn in view of the amendment and arguments, filed 12/23/2025; [3] The 35 U.S.C. 112(a), rejections to claims as raised in Office Action dated 09/24/2025 are withdrawn in view of the amendment, filed 12/23/2025; [4] The 35 U.S.C. 112(b), rejections to claims as raised in Office Action dated 09/24/2025 are withdrawn in view of the amendment, filed 12/23/2025.
Issues Raised and Arguments/Remarks to Rejections Based On Prior Art presented on Pages 9 of Applicant’s Amendment dated 12/23/2025 where Applicant’s’ remarks inter alia that:
35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection of the Amended Independent Claim 1, 16 and 21 and Amended Dependent Claims 2-10, 17-18
[A1] Claims 1 and 16 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pettinelli (UPPN 2010/0324642 A1).
[A2] Claims 1 and 16 have been amended to indicate that the stimulator comprises planar layers. Support for this amendment is found in FIGS. 2-13. Applicant respectfully submits that the stimulator in Pettinelli does not include planar layers…Since Pettinelli does not show or suggest a stimulator having planar layers, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claims 1 and 16 are patentable over Pettinelli.
[B1] Claim 21 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Nishi et al. (UPPN 2014/0081073 A1, hereinafter "Nishi").
[B2] Claim 21 has been amended to include that the stimulator comprises planar layers of different materials.
Applicant respectfully submits that Nishi does not show or suggest a stimulator with planar layers. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 21 is patentable over Nishi.
Applicant’s arguments [A-A2], [B-B2]with respect to the above claim limitation in Claim 1 have been considered but are not persuasive with respect to stimulator comprises planar layers.
With respect to claim 1, Examiner notes that a broad yet reasonable interpretation of this limitation “magneto-ionic stimulator comprising planar layers” would also encompass the following interpretation -- a magneto-ionic stimulator comprising at least two partially planar layers-- i.e. a magneto-ionic stimulator comprising at least two layers that are at least partially planar. Pettinelli in at least fig. 2, [0024] for example discloses a stimulator comprising at least two layers that are at least partially planar as seen in fig. 2 and as evidenced in at least [0024] “the voltage waveforms within the nerve that are created by the flux change of the cuff coil 21 can simultaneously be positive in one area and negative in another, at least over the course of time in which the magnetic flux is changing. Thus the ionic flow of the sensory and motor neurons within the nerve… can, on a time-transient basis, be controlled”.
With respect to claim 16, Examiner notes that a broad yet reasonable interpretation of this limitation “the magneto-ionic stimulator comprises planar layers” would also encompass the following interpretation -- a magneto-ionic stimulator comprising at least two partially planar layers-- i.e. a magneto-ionic stimulator comprising at least two layers that are at least partially planar. Pettinelli in at least fig. 2, [0024] for example discloses placing a magneto-ionic stimulator comprising at least two layers that are at least partially planar within a living body near the neuron as seen in fig. 2 and as evidenced in Pettinelli in at least [0024] “the voltage waveforms within the nerve that are created by the flux change of the cuff coil 21 can simultaneously be positive in one area and negative in another, at least over the course of time in which the magnetic flux is changing. Thus the ionic flow of the sensory and motor neurons within the nerve… can, on a time-transient basis, be controlled”.
With respect to claim 21, Examiner notes that a broad yet reasonable interpretation of this limitation “the magneto-ionic stimulator comprises planar layers” would also encompass the following interpretation – the magneto-ionic stimulator comprises at least two partially planar layers-- i.e. a magneto-ionic stimulator comprising at least two layers that are at least partially planar. Nishi in at least fig. 2A, [0072] for example discloses electrically connected to the stimulator controller, wherein the magneto-ionic stimulator comprises at least two partially planar layers represented by 30A, 40A layers as seen in fig. 2A of different sized materials and produces magnetic field that oscillates at a frequency less than 10 kHz. Nishi in [0072] “low frequency coil 40A is, for example, capable of generating a low frequency electromagnetic wave, which is at a frequency of approximately 2.0 kHz, by being applied the low frequency electric current from the abovementioned control block 20, and emitting it peripherally. This low frequency electromagnetic wave includes a low frequency alternating magnetic field”
Examiner notes that Applicant added additional new limitations as seen in amended claims dated 12/23/2025 which are not explicitly disclosed by primary reference and thus, new ground(s) of rejection are being made under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) in view of applied primary reference in combination with new applied secondary reference Tan as a whole. The new grounds of rejections were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to claims especially independent claims 1, 16, and 21. Please also cross-reference detailed claim 1, 16, 21 interpretation, claim limitation mapping to prior art disclosed features and method steps and detailed explanations above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to dependent claims been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the dependent claims define a patentable invention based on their dependency on base claims without specifically pointing out how the language of the dependent claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Please also cross-reference detailed claim 1-10, 16-18 and 21 interpretation, claim limitation mapping to prior art disclosed features and method steps and detailed explanations above.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNITA REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-5151. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Thu 10-4 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CHARLES A MARMOR II can be reached on (571)272-4730. 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.
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) Form at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/SUNITA REDDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791