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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 2050481 (Kafka, see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Kafka teaches a device for influencing biological processes in a living tissue for applying a pulsating magnetic field to at least a part of the tissue (translation: pg. 4, paragraph 6 – pg. 5, paragraph 1), with a field generating device (2) configured to generate the pulsating magnetic field and a pulse generator (1) configured to drive the field generating device with a signal sequence (translation: pg. 4, paragraph 6-pg. 5, paragraph 1; pg. 8, paragraph 5; Figure 1), the pulse generator configured to output the signal sequence, which is formed from a superposition of a first sequence of main pulses and at least one second sequence of main pulses (translation: main pulses and sub-pulses, pg. 4, paragraph 6-pg. 5, paragraph 1; pg. 9, paragraph 3; Figures 2-4), the pules repetition rate of which is between 0.1 and 1000 Hz (pg. 9, paragraph 2), wherein
each main pulse comprises a pulse length;
the pulse length and the pulse repetition rate of the main pulses of the second sequence of main pulses are different from the pulse length and the pulse repetition rate of the main pulses of the first sequence of main pulses (Figures 2-4);
the pulse repetition rate of the main pulses of the second sequence of main pulses changes monotonically in the time-dependent course opposite to the change in the pulse length (translation: pg. 9, paragraph 5; Figures 2-4);
an amplitude waveform of a main pulse comprises the following function y(x):
y
x
=
k
1
+
k
2
∙
e
sin
(
x
k
3
)
+
sin
(
x
∙
k
4
k
5
)
+
x
∙
k
6
;
wherein:
x = computational substitute for time t during a main pulse;
k1 = offset value;
k2 = amplitude factor, k2≠0;
k3 = exponent of x, k3≠0;
k4 = multiplication factor of x, k4≠0;
k5 = exponent of (x*k4), k5≠0;
k6 = multiplication factor of x;
wherein k1 – k6 are parameters which are freely selectable to give different shapes to the amplitude waveform, each main pulse being modulated with sub-pulses by respective selection of the parameters ([0017]; translation: pg. 5, paragraph 3; pg. 5, paragraph 5-pg. 6, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 2, Kafka teaches the computational substitute x depends linearly on time t ([0017]; translation: pg. 5, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 7, Kafka teaches the main pulses of the first sequence of main pulses follow one another directly in the time-dependent course without a pause; and the main pulses of the second sequence of main pulses follow one another directly in a time-dependent course without a pause (Figures 2-4).
Regarding claim 8, Kafka teaches the pulse length of the main pulses of the first sequence of main pulses decreases monotonically or increases monotonically; and the pulse repetition rate of the main pulses of the first sequence of main pulses changes monotonically in the time-dependent course opposite to the change in the pulse length of these main pulses increases monotonically or decreases monotonically (Figures 2-4).
Regarding claim 9, Kafka teaches the pulse generator is configured to output the signal sequence and at least one further signal sequence in temporal succession, the at least one further signal sequence differing from the first signal sequence in at least one of the following: the pulse length of the main pulses of the first sequence of main pulses; the pulse length of the main pulses of the second sequence of main pulses; one or more parameters k1-k6 (Figure 2: main pulse length changes with subsequent main pulses).
Regarding claim 10, Kafka teaches the pulse generator (1) is configured to output the at least one further signal sequence after a defined pause time after the output of the first signal sequence (translation: pause, pg. 5, paragraph 3; pause, pg. 8, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 11, Kafka teaches the parameters k3 to k5 of the function y(x) are integers and k1, k2, and k6 are selected in decimal increments from the following value ranges:
-6 < k1, k2, k6 < 6;
-6 < k3, k5 <6 (integer);
-10 < k4 < 10 ([0035]; translation: pg. 8, paragraph 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 7 April 2026, with respect to the informality objection of claims 3-6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of 12 January 2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claim 1 and its dependents under 35 U.S.C. 102 citing Kafka have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends Kafka does not teach first and second superimposed main pulse sequences in accordance with the expression claimed (arguments, pages 5-6). Particularly, applicant contends Kafka teaches a signal sequence comprising a main pulse (10) and sub-pulses (11), wherein the sub-pulses (11) are superimposed on each main pulse (10), but Kafka does not teach both the main pulses and sub-pulses satisfy the y(x) expression of claim 1 (arguments, pg. 6). The examiner does not find these arguments to be persuasive.
Claim 1 states “the signal sequence, which is formed from a superposition of a first sequence of main pulses and at least one second sequence of main pulses” and “an amplitude of a waveform of a main pulse comprises the following function y(x)” (emphasis added). As presently written, claim 1 merely requires a waveform of “a main pulse”, singular, comprises the y(x) function. Accordingly, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., both the first and second main pulses satisfy the y(x) expression) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since, as recognized by applicant, Kafka teaches a “first sequence of main pulses”, construed as “main pulses” (10), and a “second sequence of main pulses” (pg. 4, paragraph 6-pg. 5, paragraph 1), construed as superimposed “sub-pulses” (11) (pg. 9, paragraph 3; Figure 3), wherein, as presently required by claim 1, the amplitude waveform of at least “a main pulse” (10) satisfies the y(x) expression claimed (see at least: “an amplitude characteristic with the following time function…”, pg. 5, paragraph 3; “the amplitude curve…Fig. 2 and Figure 3”, pg. 5, paragraph 5; translation: claim 1), Kafka meets the invention as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the informality objections set forth in this Office action and to include 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: No prior art of record teach and/or fairly suggest the device for influencing biological processes in a living tissue of claim 3, wherein the computation substitute x for the time t is defined as claimed, within the context of all the limitations of parent claim 1.
The closest prior art of record, EP 2050481 as cited above, teaches the device as in claim 1 with a computational substitute x for the time t, but discloses a different expression of x for the time t (see Kafka claim 1).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Carrie R Dorna whose telephone number is (571)270-7483. The examiner can normally be reached 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.
/CARRIE R DORNA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights