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 filed 15 April 2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of Claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Examiner utilizes primary reference, Petty, to teach a power supply unit to supply power to the device, an applicator to produce magnetic fields, and a controller to receive and deliver instructions on the strength of the magnetic field to a device. Examiner then asserts that Casalino teaches adjusting the parameters in response to the amount of tissue being treated. Examiner interprets the controller to be able to perform the adjustment multiple times as each adjustment follows the same procedure as all the others.
In response to applicant's argument that Casalino is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Casalino is directed to the stimulation of muscles utilizing electromagnetic stimulation as stated in paragraphs 2, 21, 22, 147, & 154.
Applicant's arguments filed 15 April 2026 with respect to the addition of Claims 29 & 30 have been fully considered, and response in listed below.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0256704 hereinafter Petty in view of US 2021/0268299 hereinafter Casalino.
In regards to Claim 1: Petty teaches A muscle stimulation apparatus using a magnetic field pulse, comprising:
a power supply unit (Petty, Paragraph 26, Figure 1 Item 115);
an applicator comprising a magnetic field generator configured to generate a magnetic field pulse by receiving power from the power supply unit (Petty, Paragraph 25, Figure 1 Item 120); and
a controller configured to set a frequencies and an intensity of a magnetic field pulse generated by the magnetic field generator (Petty, Paragraph 29, Figure 1 Item 112),
wherein the controller adjusts a parameter for setting (Petty, Paragraph 65, Figure 13 Item 1320).
Petty does not teach of a value of the parameter is determined based on at least one of the amounts of muscle to be stimulated and the thickness of a fat layer outside the muscle of a user.
Casalino teaches a value of the parameter is determined based on at least one of the amounts of muscle to be stimulated and the thickness of a fat layer outside the muscle of a user (Casalino, Paragraph 45 & 79).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the parameter that is determined by muscle and fat layers taught by Casalino to the magnetic field therapy system taught in Petty, the motivation being to provide a measurement that can be used to better control and target the area of treatment since it is known that different types of tissue require different strengths to have an effect.
In regards to Claim 2: A modified Petty teaches wherein the controller adjusts a value of the parameter to adjust a target stimulation depth for the magnetic field to reach the inside of the muscle from the user’s epidermis based on the muscle mass and the thickness of the fat layer of the user (Casalino, Paragraph 45 & 55).
In regards to Claim 3: A modified Petty teaches wherein the controller adjusts a value of the parameter so that the target stimulation depth is deeper as the amount of the fat is greater (Casalino, Paragraph 79).
In regards to Claim 4: A modified Petty teaches wherein the controller adjusts a value of the parameter so that the target stimulation depth is shallower as the amount of the fat is less (Casalino, Paragraph 79).
In regards to Claim 5: A modified Petty teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the magnetic field generator to adjust the intensity and the frequency of a magnetic field generated during a preset operating time at least twice so as to cause various muscle response (Casalino, Paragraph 27 & 70).
In regards to Claim 6: A modified Petty teaches wherein the controller sets a first frequency that causes muscle contraction by stimulating the muscle based on the parameter, and controls the magnetic field generator based on the first frequency (Casalino, Paragraph 72).
In regards to Claim 7: A modified Petty teaches claims 1, 5, & 6; and wherein the controller generates the magnetic field pulse of the first frequency during a first section, which is an initial section of the operating time, and controls the magnetic field generator to gradually increase the intensity of the magnetic field pulse to a level that causes muscle contraction (Petty, Paragraph 61).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0256704 hereinafter Petty in view of US 2021/0268299 hereinafter Casalino in further view of US 2015/0140633 hereinafter Vladila.
In regards to Claim 8: A modified Petty teaches all of claims 1, 5, 6, & 7; but does not teach wherein the controller generates the magnetic field pulse of a second frequency lower than the first frequency during a second section after the first section of the operating time, and controls the magnetic field generator to maintain the intensity of the magnetic field pulse at the intensity that causes muscle contraction.
Vladila teaches wherein the controller generates the magnetic field pulse of a second frequency lower than the first frequency during a second section after the first section of the operating time, and controls the magnetic field generator to maintain the intensity of the magnetic field pulse at the intensity that causes muscle contraction (Vladila, Paragraphs 48-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the second frequency that is lower than the first frequency taught in Vladila to the magnetic field therapy system of a modified Petty, the motivation being to provide more physiological processes that are affected during the treatment and thus select an optimum frequency.
Claim(s) 9, 10 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0256704 hereinafter Petty in view of US 2021/0268299 hereinafter Casalino in further view of US 2015/0140633 hereinafter Vladila in furthest view of US 2018/0236254 hereinafter Schwarz.
In Regards to Claim 9: A modified Petty teaches all of claims 1, 5, 6, 7, & 8, the adjustment of frequencies (Casalino, Paragraph 12), and the reductions in frequency (Vladila, Paragraphs 48-49; it would be obvious to add an additional reduction in frequency described); but does not teach wherein the controller generates the magnetic field pulse of a third frequency lower than the second frequency during a third section after the second section of the operating time, and controls the magnetic field generator to gradually decrease the intensity of the magnetic field pulse.
Schwarz teaches wherein the controller generates the magnetic field pulse of a third frequency lower than the second frequency during a third section after the second section of the operating time, and controls the magnetic field generator to gradually decrease the intensity of the magnetic field pulse. (Schwarz, Figure 13; Paragraph 218).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the third section taught in Schwarz to the magnetic field therapy system taught in a modified Petty, the motivation being to provide a more comfortable experience when using the device by reducing the temperature that is applied to the patient.
In regards to Claim 10: A modified Petty teaches claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9; but does not teach wherein the first frequency is in the range of 30 to 60 Hz.
Schwarz teaches wherein the first frequency is in the range of 30 to 60 Hz (Schwarz, Paragraph 246).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to add the frequency of the magnetic field taught in Schwarz to the magnetic field therapy system taught by a modified Petty, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is frequency which achieves the recognized result of in muscle formation coinciding with adipose cells being reduced therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In regards to Claim 11: A modified Petty teaches claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9; but does not teach wherein the controller adjusts the parameter to set the first frequency to 35 Hz, the second frequency to 40 Hz, and the third frequency to 45 Hz.
Schwarz teaches wherein the controller adjusts the parameter to set the first frequency to 35 Hz, the second frequency to 40 Hz (Schwarz, Paragraph 224), and the third frequency to 45 Hz (Schwarz, Paragraph 223).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to add the frequency of the magnetic field taught in Schwarz to the magnetic field therapy system taught by a modified Petty, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is frequency which achieves the recognized result of in muscle formation coinciding with adipose cells being reduced therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0256704 hereinafter Petty in view of US 2021/0268299 hereinafter Casalino in further view of US 2015/0140633 in further view of US 2012/0101366 hereinafter Ruobonen.
In Regards to Claim 12: A modified Petty teaches claims 1 & 2; but does not teach of at least one sensor for electromyography, wherein the controller adjusts the parameter based on a value measured by the sensor.
Ruobonen teaches of at least one sensor for electromyography, wherein the controller adjusts the parameter based on a value measured by the sensor (Ruobonen, Paragraph 6 & 35; Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the EMG sensor taught in Ruobonen to the magnetic field therapy system taught by a modified Petty, the motivation being to provide a measurement device that the controller can read and react to.
Claim(s) 29 & 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0256704 hereinafter Petty in view of US 2021/0268299 hereinafter Casalino in further view of US 2018/0236254 hereinafter Schwarz.
In regards to Claim 29: A modified Petty teaches claim 1, but does not teach wherein the magnetic field pulse has a frequency in a range of 30 to 80 Hz.
Schwarz teaches wherein the magnetic field pulse has a frequency in a range of 30 to 80 Hz (Schwarz, Paragraph 140).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to add the frequency of pulses taught in Schwarz to the magnetic field therapy system taught by a modified Petty, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is pulse frequency in Hz which achieves the recognized result of providing a therapeutic effect on neurons and/or muscle fibers and/or endocrine cells (e.g. at least muscle contraction, action potential in cell) therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In regards to Claim 30: A modified Petty teaches all of claims 1, 29 , and wherein the applicator includes an RC resonance circuit and a switch, and the applicator is configured to generate the magnetic field pulse based on an on/off timing by the switch that is controlled by the controller.
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 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 /ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights