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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/6/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. This action is responsive to the amendments filed 7/6/2026. Claims 1 and 12 have been amended. No claims were canceled or newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response with respect to art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 6, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Palti et al. (US Pub.: 2007/0225766 A1) and further in view of Moffitt et al. (US Pub.: 2016/0096025 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Palti teaches a system for generating tumor treating fields (TTFields) (e.g. paragraph 0003), comprising:
a first port operable to connect to a first transducer array (e.g. Fig. 5 – the first electrode of electrode pair 11 connects to switch/amplifier 42);
a second port operable to connect to a second transducer array (e.g. Fig. 5 – the second electrode of electrode pair 11 connects to another switch/amplifier 42);
and an electric field generator (e.g. Fig. 5 – square wave generator 43) having a first circuit configured to receive an input voltage and generate a first output signal having a positive voltage and a ground voltage (e.g. Fig. 2 – waveform 21; Fig. 5; paragraph 0016);
a second circuit configured to receive the input voltage and generate a second output signal having a negative voltage and the ground voltage (e.g. Fig. 2 – waveform 22; Fig. 5; paragraph 0016);
alternatingly enable the first output signal to the first port and the second output signal to the second port to generate an alternating current square wave in a frequency range from 50 kHz to 1MHz between the first port and the second port (e.g. paragraph 0016, – 100-200 kHz);
and wherein the first output signal and the second output signal are direct current signals (e.g. Fig. 2 – waveforms 21 and 22; paragraph 0010).
However, Palti does not explicitly teach a processor executing processor executable instructions.
Moffitt, in a same field of endeavor of electrical stimulation systems, discloses a processor executing processor executable instructions (e.g. Fig. 1 – processor 110; paragraph 0046).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Palti to incorporate a processor, as taught and suggested by Moffitt, in order to automate the control of the timing, frequency, strength, duration, and waveform of the pulses (Moffitt, paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 6, Palti in view of Moffitt teaches the system of claim 1 as discussed above, and Palti further teaches wherein the electric field generator is devoid of any oscillator circuitry providing a reference signal to the first circuit and the second circuit (e.g. paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 12, Palti teaches a system for generating tumor treating fields (TTFields) (e.g. paragraph 0003), comprising:
a first transducer array having a first lead (e.g. Fig. 5 – first electrode of electrode pair 11);
a second transducer array having a second lead (e.g. Fig. 5 – second electrode of electrode pair 11;
a first port operable to receive the first lead of the first transducer array (e.g. Fig. 5 – the first electrode of electrode pair 11 connects to switch/amplifier 42);
a second port operable to receive the second lead of the second transducer array (e.g. Fig. 5 – the second electrode of electrode pair 11 connects to another switch/amplifier 42);
and an electric field generator (e.g. Fig. 5 – square wave generator 43) having a first circuit receiving an input voltage and generating a first output signal having a positive voltage (e.g. Fig. 2 – waveform 21; Fig. 5; paragraph 0016);
a second circuit receiving an input voltage and generating a second output signal having a negative voltage (e.g. Fig. 2 – waveform 22; Fig. 5; paragraph 0016);
alternatingly enable the first output signal to the first port and the second output signal to the second port to generate an alternating current square wave in a frequency range from 50 kHz to 1 MHz between the first transducer array coupled to the first port and the second transducer array coupled to the second port (e.g. paragraph 0016, – 100-200 kHz) when the first transducer array and the second transducer array are affixed to a patient's body (e.g. paragraph 0011); and wherein the first output signal and the second output signal are direct current signals (e.g. Fig. 2 – waveforms 21 and 22; paragraph 0010).
However, Palti does not explicitly teach a processor executing processor executable
instructions.
Moffitt, in a same field of endeavor of electrical stimulation systems, discloses a processor executing processor executable instructions (e.g. Fig. 1 – processor 110; paragraph 0046).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Palti to incorporate a processor, as taught and suggested by Moffitt, in order to automate the control of the timing, frequency, strength, duration, and waveform of the pulses (Moffitt, paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 17, Palti in view of Moffitt teaches the system of claim 12 as discussed above, and Palti further teaches wherein the electric field generator is devoid of any oscillator circuitry providing a reference signal to the first circuit and the second circuit (e.g. paragraph 0016).
Claims 2-4 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Palti and further in view of Moffitt and further in view of Palti et al. (US Pub.: 2011/0137229 A1, hereafter referred to as “Palti ‘229”).
Regarding claim 2, Palti in view of Moffitt teaches the system of claim 1 as discussed above, and Palti further teaches wherein the first output signal is a direct current square wave (e.g. Fig. 2; paragraph 0016), the alternating current square wave having a period (e.g. paragraph 0016), and the positive voltage, the ground voltage and the negative voltage occurring within the period (e.g. Fig. 2; paragraph 0016), the positive voltage, the ground voltage and the negative voltage each being held for a predetermined and non-transitory period of time (e.g. paragraph 0016).
However, Palti in view of Moffitt does not explicitly teach the square wave having a duty cycle between 15% to 40%.
Palti ‘229, in a same field of endeavor of electrical stimulation systems, discloses waveforms having a duty cycle between 15% to 40% (e.g. paragraph 0108 – duty cycle of 33%).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Palti and Moffitt to incorporate the waveform having a duty cycle between 15% to 40%, as taught and suggested by Palti ‘229, in order to reduce heating on the patient’s skin during therapy as well as to improve the comfort of the patient (Palti ‘229, paragraph 0108).
Regarding claim 3, Palti in view of Moffitt in view of Palti ‘229 teaches the system of claim 2 as discussed above, and Palti further teaches wherein the first output signal is a first direct current waveform having a first portion having a first voltage and a second portion having a second voltage lower than the first voltage (e.g. Fig. 2; paragraph 0016), the second output signal being a second direct current waveform having a third portion having a third voltage, and a fourth portion having a fourth voltage higher than the third voltage (e.g. Fig. 2; paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 4, Palti in view of Moffitt in view of Palti ‘229 teaches the system of claim 3 as discussed above, and Palti further teaches wherein the first direct current waveform and the second direct current waveform are out of phase such that the first and fourth portions overlap, and the second and third portions overlap (e.g. paragraphs 0012, 0016).
Regarding claim 13, Palti in view of Moffitt teaches the system of claim 12 as discussed above, and Palti further teaches wherein the first output signal is a direct current square wave (e.g. Fig. 2; paragraph 0016).
However, Palti in view of Moffitt does not explicitly teach the square wave having a duty cycle between 15% to 40%.
Palti ‘229, in a same field of endeavor of electrical stimulation systems, discloses waveforms having a duty cycle between 15% to 40% (e.g. paragraph 0108 – duty cycle of 33%).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Palti and Moffitt to incorporate the waveform having a duty cycle between 15% to 40%, as taught and suggested by Palti ‘229, in order to reduce heating on the patient’s skin during therapy as well as to improve the comfort of the patient (Palti ‘229, paragraph 0108).
Regarding claim 14, Palti in view of Moffitt in view of Palti ‘229 teaches the system of claim 13 as discussed above, and Palti further teaches wherein the first output signal is a first direct current waveform having a first portion having a first voltage and a second portion have a second voltage lower than the first voltage (e.g. Fig. 2; paragraph 0016), the second output signal being a second direct current waveform having a third portion having a third voltage, and a fourth portion having a fourth voltage higher than the third voltage (e.g. Fig. 2; paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 15, Palti in view of Moffitt in view of Palti ‘229 teaches the system of claim 14 as discussed above, and Palti further teaches wherein the first direct current waveform and the second direct current waveform are out of phase such that the first and fourth portions overlap, and the second and third portions overlap (e.g. paragraphs 0012, 0016).
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Palti and further in view of Moffitt and further in view of Wasserman et al. (US Pub.: 2020/0155835 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Palti in view of Moffitt teaches the system of claim 1 as discussed above, and Palti further teaches wherein the second output signal is a direct current square wave (e.g. Fig. 2; paragraph 0016), the alternating current square wave having a period (e.g. paragraph 0016), and the positive voltage, the ground voltage and a negative voltage occurring within the period (e.g. Fig. 2; paragraph 0016), the positive voltage, the ground voltage and the negative voltage of the alternating current square wave each being held for a predetermined and non-transitory period of time (e.g. paragraph 0016).
However, Palti in view of Moffitt does not explicitly teach the square wave having a duty cycle between 60% to 85%.
Wasserman, in a same field of endeavor of electrical stimulation systems, discloses waveforms having a duty cycle between 60% to 85% (e.g. paragraph 0047 – duty cycle of 75%).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Palti and Moffitt to incorporate the waveform having a duty cycle between 60% to 85%, as taught and suggested by Wasserman, for the purpose of reducing the temperature of the electrode elements in order to prevent overheating (Wasserman, paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 16, Palti in view of Moffitt teaches the system of claim 12 as discussed above, and Palti further teaches wherein the second output signal is a direct current square wave (e.g. Fig. 2; paragraph 0016).
However, Palti in view of Moffitt does not explicitly teach the square wave having a duty cycle between 60% to 85%.
Wasserman, in a same field of endeavor of electrical stimulation systems, discloses waveforms having a duty cycle between 60% to 85% (e.g. paragraph 0047 – duty cycle of 75%).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Palti and Moffitt to incorporate the waveform having a duty cycle between 60% to 85%, as taught and suggested by Wasserman, for the purpose of reducing the temperature of the electrode elements in order to prevent overheating (Wasserman, paragraph 0047).
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Palti and further in view of Moffitt and further in view of Sturman et al. (US Pub.: 2003/0187485 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Palti in view of Moffitt teaches the system of claim 1 as discussed above.
However, Palti in view of Moffitt does not explicitly teach a battery coupled to the electric field generator, the battery comprising a battery voltage, and wherein the positive voltage of the first output signal is within a range of 5% from the battery voltage.
Sturman, in a same field of endeavor of electrical stimulation systems, discloses a battery coupled to the electric field generator, the battery comprising a battery voltage, and wherein the positive voltage of the first output signal is within a range of 5% from the battery voltage (e.g. Fig. 2 – battery supply 8; paragraphs 0011, 0031).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Palti and Moffitt to incorporate a battery coupled to the electric field generator, the battery comprising a battery voltage, and wherein the positive voltage of the first output signal is within a range of 5% from the battery voltage, as taught and suggested by Sturman, in order to increase the portability of the system as well as to maintain the therapeutic benefit of the system (Sturman, paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 19, Palti in view of Moffitt teaches the system of claim 12 as discussed above.
However, Palti in view of Moffitt does not explicitly teach a battery coupled to the electric field generator, the battery comprising a battery voltage, and wherein the positive voltage of the first output signal is within a range of 5% from the battery voltage.
Sturman, in a same field of endeavor of electrical stimulation systems, discloses a battery coupled to the electric field generator, the battery comprising a battery voltage, and wherein the positive voltage of the first output signal is within a range of 5% from the battery voltage (e.g. Fig. 2 – battery supply 8; paragraphs 0011, 0031).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Palti and Moffitt to incorporate a battery coupled to the electric field generator, the battery comprising a battery voltage, and wherein the positive voltage of the first output signal is within a range of 5% from the battery voltage, as taught and suggested by Sturman, in order to increase the portability of the system as well as to maintain the therapeutic benefit of the system (Sturman, paragraph 0031).
10. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Palti and further in view of Moffitt and further in view of Sturman and further in view of Rynerson et al. (US Pub.: 2024/0325743 A1 – Previously Cited).
Regarding claim 20, Palti in view of Moffitt in view of Sturman teaches the system of claim 19 as discussed above. However, Palti in view of Moffitt in view of Sturman does not explicitly teach wherein the battery has the battery voltage in a range from 20V to 40V.
Rynerson, in a same field of endeavor of electrical stimulation, discloses wherein the battery has the battery voltage in a range from 20V to 40V (e.g. paragraph 0030, – 25 volts).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Palti, Moffitt, and Sturman to incorporate a battery that has the battery voltage in a range from 20V to 40V, as taught and suggested by Rynerson, because it is a simple substitution of known battery/power source for an electrical stimulation system for another in order to obtain the predictable results of effectively providing power to operate the system to provide treatment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL TEHRANI whose telephone number is (571)270-0697. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights