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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 10/09/25 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 should read “wherein the radiation pad includes a flexible dielectric substrate,”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
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.
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the portable microwave generator" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that the generator is the microwave generator from claim 1 from which claim 10 depends.
The remaining claims are rejected for being dependent on one of the claims above for at least the reasons set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-3, 9-10, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ballikaya (WO 2021/197643).
Regarding claim 1, Ballikaya (WO 2021/197643) discloses –
A microwave device for a disinfection treatment of a human being (claim 1, abstract), comprising:
a radiation pad including an array of antennas (Fig. 10 support member 21 mounting antenna array 8); and
a microwave generator (Fig. 2 microwave generator 10 generating microwaves; p. 9 last par.) configured to
excite the array of antennas to cause each antenna in the array of antennas to transmit a continuous-wave microwave signal (p. 18 par. 2), wherein
each antenna is arranged in the radiation pad so that as the radiation pad is positioned adjacent a treatment area of the human being the continuous-wave microwave signals from the array of antennas combine in the near field in the treatment area to inactivate microbial pathogens comprising bacteria or fungus (p. 9 par. 1, see also fig. 7 showing the array of antennas being positioned adjacent a human body for treatment thereof).
Regarding claim 2, the apparatus disclosed by Ballikaya is well capable of performing the function of treating pathogens where the microbial pathogens include at least one of staphylococcus aureus, escherichia coli, bacillus subtilis, acinetobacter baumannii, candida albicans, or aspergillus fumigatus, and is reasonably expected to do so, and therefore all the limitations of the claim are met. MPEP 2114, II.
Regarding claim 3, the apparatus disclosed by Ballikaya is well capable of performing the function of the continuous-wave microwave signals from the array of antenna that combine in the near field in the treatment area are configured to induce a resonance of water molecules that surround the microbial pathogens to fracture a membrane of the microbial pathogens, and is reasonably expected to do so, and therefore all the limitations of the claim are met. MPEP 2114, II.
Regarding claim 9, Ballikaya further teaches the array of antennas is one of a 4 x 4 array of antennas, an 8 x 8 array of antennas, a 16 x 16 array of antennas, or a 32 x 32 array of antennas (Fig. 10 shows at least a 4 x 4 arrangement of antennas, therefore the structure includes at least that configuration and reads on the limitation).
Regarding claim 10, Ballikaya further teaches the portable microwave generator is operable to tune a frequency of the continuous-wave microwave signals (p. 13 par. 1, p. 17 par. 2 disclose a selectable frequency of continuous microwave energy; p. 15 par. 1 discloses portability of the device).
Regarding claim 12, Ballikaya further teaches a battery pack configured to power the microwave generator (p. 15 par. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Ballikaya further teaches the microwave generator i operable to tune the continuous frequency in a band within 4 GHz to 12 GHz (p. 18 par. 2 discloses 8.3-8.5 GHz, anticipating the claimed range).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the device disclosed by Ballikaya is well capable of performing the claimed function of treating a treatment area that includes a wound in a human being and a nail bed of a human being, as the device is intended to be configured to treat a body of a human being (p. 21 last par.). See MPEP 2114, II.
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.
Claims 4-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballikaya (WO 2021/197643) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ladan (US 2021/0234267).
Regarding claim 4, Ballikaya is set forth with regards to claim 1 above but appears to be silent with regards to the spacing between adjacent ones of the antennas in the array of antennas.
Ladan (US 2021/0234267) discloses a microwave antenna system for a human body (abstract) and the configuration including the shape and size of the array affects the output radiation of the antenna array (par. 24), thereby establishing the spacing of the array as a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Ballikaya such that the pacing between adjacent ones of the antennas in the array of antennas is less than one-half of a wavelength of a frequency of each continuous-wave microwave signal to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to optimize the radiation emission performance of the antenna array to arrive at an improved device. This modification would be nothing more than the routine-optimization of a variable that is well-understood, and the results would be nothing more than predictable. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)-(B).
Regarding claim 5, the modification of the spacing of the antenna array of Ballikaya to be .4 times the wavelength of the frequency of each continuous-wave microwave signal would similarly be nothing more than the routine-optimization of a variable that is well-understood, and the results would be nothing more than predictable as set forth above in the rejection of claim 4. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)-(B).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ballikaya further teaches each antenna in the array of antennas comprises a patch antenna (Ladan discloses a flexible substrate that is worn in par. 25 and fig. 6).
Claims 6-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballikaya (WO 2021/197643) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lebaron (WO 2018/023057).
Regarding claim 6, Ballikaya is set forth above with regards to claim 1, but appears to be silent with regards to a dipole antenna.
Lebaron discloses an antenna assembly configured to be used for human application (abstract) wherein the antenna array includes a dipole antenna (p. 4 par. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Ballikaya such that each antenna in the array of antennas comprises a dipole antenna as taught by Lebaron to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to use a known-appropriate antenna design for the application of radiation to human tissue to arrive at an improved device. The combination of familiar prior art elements, including known antenna types for their known applications, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ballikaya further teaches the radiation pad includes a flexible dielectric substrate, and wherein each dipole antenna includes an upper plate disposed on an upper surface of the flexible dielectric substrate and a lower plate disposed on a lower surface of the flexible dielectric substrate (Fig. 14F, p. 36 last par. – p. 37 par. 1 discloses a dipole antenna including a fabric layer that includes a top and bottom layer on either side of a dielectric substrate).
Regarding claim 13, modified Ballikaya further teaches a feed network in the radiation pad configured to couple the microwave generator to the array of antennas (Fig. 1 interface unit 9 communicates with a voltage control oscillator 4 through control unit 2 to power the antenna, reading on the limitation of a feed network; p. 17 par. 3).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballikaya (WO 2021/197643).
Regarding claim 11, Ballikaya teaches the microwave generator emits power sufficient to eliminate pathogens including an output of 50 mW/cm2 and 1 W/cm2 (p. 21 par. 3) and that the power output affects the devices’ ability to destroy pathogens (p. 13 par. 1, p. 18 par. 5), thereby establishing the power output as a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device such that the microwave generator is configured to excite the antennas with a power of 7 to 11 watts to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to optimize the result-effective variable that is the power output of the microwave generator. This modification would be nothing more than the routine-optimization of a variable that is well-understood, and the results would be nothing more than predictable. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)-(B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1758