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 § 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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. The claim reads “…have a magnetic field intensity… corresponding to a distance between the patient’s body and said EM distributor”. It is unclear how magnetic field intensity corresponds to distance between patient’s body and EM distributor.
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.
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 1, 2, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (US 2021/0370085) in view of Paschal (US 8245713).
Ko teaches a coronavirus resonance treatment system (of claim 1) and a method (of claim 12) for treating a patient infected with coronavirus comprising; providing a coronavirus resonance treatment system having a chamber, a platform, an electromagnetic (EM) pulse generator; an EM distributor; and a frequency controller; wherein said chamber is comprised of a platform that is sized and configured to receive a prone placement of a patient/placing the patient in a prone position; wherein said EM pulse generator generates/generating EM pulses; and further wherein said EM distributor distributes/distributing said EM pulses to said chamber and around the patient for treating a coronavirus. (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0035], “FIG. 1 shows a patient 10 within an MRI system 12 containing magnets that produce a SMF of about 3 to about 10 Tesla. Various magnetic field configurations, alternating and static, may be used.”) The examiner is interpreting a standard MRI system to have magnets that would be the electromagnetic (EM) pulse generator, coils that would distribute the EM pulse to the chamber and around a patient, and a connection to a computer system that would control the frequency of the EM pulse. The examiner is interpreting Fig. 1 to show a chamber in element 12 and a user in prone positioning on a platform in element 10.)
However, Ko does not teach that the chamber is sealed and enclosed space (of claim 2 and 12)
Paschal teaches a chamber that is a sealed and enclosed space (of claim 2 and 12). (Fig. 1. Column 4, line 42. “Referring now to the figures and, in particular, to FIG. 1 there is shown an emergency personal isolation and containment (EPIC) pod 10 according to the invention.” Column 4, line 51. “The tube 12 is constructed from transparent, preferably colorless, air impervious polymeric sheet material 11, as, for example, as a heat-sealed vinyl coated polymeric sheet of the type use in an X-Ray transparent, lightweight films or substantially gas impervious polyethylene. Performance criteria of the material of sheet 11 includes tear and puncture resistance proof in field use situations, but also that the material be relatively lightweight, easily collapsible, flexible, and generally translucent but preferably transparent to conventional non-invasive diagnostic instrumentalities (X-Ray, MRI, ultrasound, etc.).”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the chamber taught in Ko to be the sealed enclosed chamber of Paschal. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize that caregiver ready access to the isolated patient is important for interventions such as advanced airway management, regardless of the particular environment of the caregivers. Likewise, the prudent location of the blower unit/control valves/also ensures against contaminant saturation particularly around the patient's face and minimizes contamination saturation in "dead zones" commonly found in the use of chemical wraps. Furthermore, patient isolation can be achieved rapidly and easily with the invention which contemplates the use of an air impermeable zipper(s) that allows for the patient to be isolated once sealed. Furthermore, the pod according to this invention may include handles (plastic, fabric, etc.) integrated with the patient support to facilitate patient manipulation particularly in the case of field use in a hostile environment without the need of ancillary equipment such as a stretcher. See column 2, line 28 of Paschal. However, Ko fails to teach an air conditioner (of claim 1 and 12)).
Paschal teaches an air conditioner (of claim 1 and 12). (Column 6, line 1. “Air is positively directed through the pod 10 by a portable electrically actuated blower 24 which is depicted in FIG. 5. The blower 24 comprises an electric motor driven pump located within an appropriate housing which incorporates an intake port adapted for a filter cartridge 26 and an exhaust nozzle 25. Preferably, for field use, the blower 24 is battery powered but may be a conventional plug-in type (illustrated).”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the MRI system in Ko and to have an air conditioner taught in Paschal for the comfort of the patient and to filter the air of pathogens.
Claims 3-11, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Paschal further in view of Richards (US 11187422).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Ko and Paschal fail to disclose the flow of said air is at a temperature ranging from about 60°F to about 80°F. Richards teaches wherein the flow of said air is at a temperature ranging from about 60°F to about 80°F. (Column 5, lines 65-66 the conditioned air is 68°F, Column 6 line 53-54 “target conditions of 50% relative humidity and 68 F”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the air conditioner taught in Ko and Paschal to have an air flow of 60 to 80 degrees F as taught in Richards. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize that a standard MRI machine uses a cooling liquid for magnet stability but the surrounding electronics produce heat into the environment so it would be desirable to have an air flow of between 60-80 degrees to maintain functionality of the MRI machine.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Ko teaches wherein said coronavirus is COVID-19. (paragraph [0003] “Viruses such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID19) that invade the body often cannot be totally killed or have their metabolic processes totally disrupted or disabled by microbiology (Mi) such as antibodies and/or deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)/ribonucleic acid (RNA) manipulations or by insertion of pharmacological drugs (Pcl)”.)
Regarding claim 5, Ko teaches wherein said platform is comprised of a flat bench. (Fig. 1. Depicts a user laying prone on a platform comprised of a flat bench.)
Regarding claim 6 and 15, Ko teaches wherein said EM pulses are Pulsed Electro-Magnetic Field (PEMF) pulses for expelling the coronavirus particles from a human body and for stimulating cells of the patient. (Fig. 1. A standard MRI machine uses both static and pulsed electromagnetic fields, ([0034] using low frequency “select a magnetic field frequency (e.g. 3, 8, 20 Hz)”).) The examiner is interpreting the use of a standard MRI machine to provide EM pulses that are pulsed electro-magnetic field pulses. ([0025]-[0029]). The examiner is interpreting the various discussions of the field disrupting, realigning, puncturing, destroying, and killing of the viral particles as expelling the coronavirus and the changing ion channels to enhance different applied therapy chemistries and enabling infused chemistry to work more effectively as stimulating cells. In the alternative Ko applies a magnetic field with the same parameters as applicant (see claims 8, 9 and 18 below) so absent any other further details of what causes the expelling and stimulating, the magnetic field with the same parameters would therefore have the same effect.
Regarding claims 7, 8, and 16, Ko teaches wherein said frequency controller is integrated with said EM pulse generator for adjusting a frequency of said plurality of EM pulses to coincide with a frequency of the coronavirus inside the human body of the patient (of claims 7 and 16) and wherein a frequency of said plurality of EM pulses is in a range from about 4 Hz to about 10 Hz (of claim 8). (Claim 8 of Ko: “The method of claim 7, wherein the alternating magnetic field has a frequency of from about 3 Hertz to about 40 Hertz.”, where according to applicants’ paragraph [0023] in the disclosed specification and applicants claim 8, is a frequency that coincides with a frequency of the coronavirus inside the human body.) The examiner is interpreting a standard MRI system to have a computer that would function as the frequency controller and be integrated with the EM pulse generator (magnets) for adjusting the frequency of said plurality of EM pulses (see claim 1 rejection). Since the prior art teaches a larger range than the claimed range, there is an embodiment of Ko’s system that provides a plurality of EM pulses in the range of about 4 Hz to 10 Hz.
Regarding claim 9, Ko teaches wherein said PEMF pulses have a magnetic field intensity in the range from about 0.5 T to about 2 T, corresponding to a distance between the patient’s body and said EM distributor in the range from about 1 foot to about 4 feet. (paragraph [0028] “The present invention therapeutically exposes viruses to static magnetic fields (aka direct current [DC] magnetics) up to about 5 Tesla…” The examiner is interpreting that a standard MRI machine is about 2 feet in diameter, indicating the magnetic field intensity would be provided within the range claimed. Additionally, as the prior art states, this device would generate a magnetic field up to about 5 tesla which would cover the range claimed.)
Regarding claims 10 – 11, Richards teaches further comprises a fluid disinfectant container for storing a disinfectant solution to disinfect said chamber (of claim 10) and wherein said fluid disinfectant container receives air from said chamber, disinfects said air, and expels said air to the surrounding area (of claim 11). (Figure 5. Column 3, line 9. “a housing 1 in which a combination of return air 2 from a building (or other facility) enters through duct 3 and is combined with fresh air 4 through fresh duct fan 5 by fresh air fan 22 to produce source air 6. An aqueous solution 7, chilled to a prescribed temperature, is introduced through pipe 8 and used to produce a spray of electrically charged drops 9 by drop charger 10….and the treated source air 12 exits housing 1 to produce liquid-free, cleaned and conditioned air 14.” The examiner is interpreting the housing as the fluid disinfectant container and disinfectant solution as the aqueous solution.)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the chamber taught in Ko and Paschal to have the fluid disinfectant system taught by Richards. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that using electrically charged drops destroys pathogens and toxic gases immediately upon capture. HEPA filters trap aerosols, but the trapped aerosol matter resides on the filter fibers for days, until the filter is replaced. This allows the trapped aerosol matter to evaporate, if it is liquid. In which case, if there are virons or other pathogens with a diameter less than 0.3 microns in the aerosol matter, they will escape the filter and be re-entrained into the air flow. See column 4, lines 17 – 42 of Richards.
Regarding claim 17, Ko teaches a method for treating a patient infected with coronavirus, the method comprising the steps of: a coronavirus resonance treatment system having an electromagnetic (EM) pulse generator, an electromagnetic (EM) distributor, and a frequency controller, placing a patient in said chamber in a prone position onto a platform and generating EM pulses with said EM pulse generator, wherein a frequency of said plurality of EM pulses is in a range from about 4 Hz to about 10 Hz; and distributing said EM pulses with said EM distributor to said chamber and around the patient for treating the coronavirus. (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0035], “FIG. 1 shows a patient 10 within an MRI system 12 containing magnets that produce a SMF of about 3 to about 10 Tesla. Various magnetic field configurations, alternating and static, may be used.” And Claim 8 of Ko. “The method of claim 7, wherein the alternating magnetic field has a frequency of from about 3 Hertz to about 40 Hertz”.) The examiner is interpreting a standard MRI system to have magnets that would be the electromagnetic (EM) pulse generator, coils that would distribute the EM pulse to the chamber and around a patient, and a connection to a computer system that would control the frequency of the EM pulse. The examiner is interpreting Fig. 1 to show a chamber in element 12 and a user in prone positioning on a platform in element 10. Since the prior art teaches a larger range than the claimed range, there is an embodiment of Ko’s system that provides a plurality of EM pulses in the range of about 4 Hz to 10 Hz.
However, Ko fails to teach wherein said chamber is a sealed enclosed space; activating said air conditioner to supply a flow of air to said chamber.
Paschal teaches wherein said chamber is a sealed enclosed space; activating said air conditioner to supply a flow of air to said chamber. (Fig. 1. Column 4, line 42. “Referring now to the figures and, in particular, to FIG. 1 there is shown an emergency personal isolation and containment (EPIC) pod 10 according to the invention.” Column 4, line 51. “The tube 12 is constructed from transparent, preferably colorless, air impervious polymeric sheet material 11, as, for example, as a heat-sealed vinyl coated polymeric sheet of the type use in an X-Ray transparent, lightweight films or substantially gas impervious polyethylene. Performance criteria of the material of sheet 11 includes tear and puncture resistance proof in field use situations, but also that the material be relatively lightweight, easily collapsible, flexible, and generally translucent but preferably transparent to conventional non-invasive diagnostic instrumentalities (X-Ray, MRI, ultrasound, etc.).” Column 6, line 1. “Air is positively directed through the pod 10 by a portable electrically actuated blower 24 which is depicted in FIG. 5. The blower 24 comprises an electric motor driven pump located within an appropriate housing which incorporates an intake port adapted for a filter cartridge 26 and an exhaust nozzle 25. Preferably, for field use, the blower 24 is battery powered but may be a conventional plug-in type (illustrated).”))
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the MRI system in Ko to have the chamber be a sealed enclosed space and have an air conditioner as taught in Paschal. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize that caregiver ready access to the isolated patient is important for interventions such as advanced airway management, regardless of the particular environment of the caregivers. Likewise, the prudent location of the blower unit/control valves/also ensures against contaminant saturation particularly around the patient's face and minimizes contamination saturation in "dead zones" commonly found in the use of chemical wraps. Furthermore, patient isolation can be achieved rapidly and easily with the invention which contemplates the use of an air impermeable zipper(s) that allows for the patient to be isolated once sealed. Furthermore, the pod according to this invention may include handles (plastic, fabric, etc.) integrated with the patient support to facilitate patient manipulation particularly in the case of field use in a hostile environment without the need of ancillary equipment such as a stretcher. See column 2, line 28 of Paschal.
However, Ko in view of Paschal fails to teach wherein said flow of air has a temperature ranging from about 60°F to about 80°F.
Richards teaches wherein the flow of said air is at a temperature ranging from about 60°F to about 80°F. (Column 5, lines 65-66 the conditioned air is 68°F, Column 6 line 53-54 “target conditions of 50% relative humidity and 68”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the air conditioner taught in Ko and Paschal to have an air flow of 60 to 80 degrees F as taught in Richards. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize that a standard MRI machine uses a cooling liquid for magnet stability but the surrounding electronics produce heat into the environment so it would be desirable to have an air flow of between 60-80 degrees to maintain patient comfort.
Regarding claim 18, Ko teaches wherein said EM pulses are Pulsed Electro-Magnetic Field (PEMF) pulses for expelling coronavirus from a human body and for stimulating cells of the patient, and further wherein said PEMF pulses have a magnetic field intensity in the range from about 0.5 T to about 2 T. ((Fig. 1. A standard MRI machine uses both static and pulsed electromagnetic fields, ([0034] using low frequency “select a magnetic field frequency (e.g. 3, 8, 20 Hz)”).) The examiner is interpreting the use of a standard MRI machine to provide EM pulses that are pulsed electro-magnetic field pulses. ([0025]-[0029]). The examiner is interpreting the various discussions of the field disrupting, realigning, puncturing, destroying, and killing of the viral particles as expelling the coronavirus and the changing ion channels to enhance different applied therapy chemistries and enabling infused chemistry to work more effectively as stimulating cells. In the alternative Ko applies a magnetic field with the same parameters as applicant (see claims 8, 9 and 18 below) so absent any other further details of what causes the expelling and stimulating, the magnetic field with the same parameters would therefore have the same effect, paragraph [0028] “The present invention therapeutically exposes viruses to static magnetic fields (aka direct current [DC] magnetics) up to about 5 Tesla…” The examiner is interpreting that a standard MRI machine is about 2 feet in diameter, indicating the magnetic field intensity would be provided within the range claimed. Additionally, as the prior art states, this device would generate a magnetic field up to about 5 tesla which would cover the range claimed.)
Regarding claims 19-20, Richards teaches a fluid disinfectant container for storing a disinfectant solution to disinfect said chamber and wherein said fluid disinfectant container receives air from said chamber, disinfects said air, and expels said air to the surrounding area (see above rejection for claims 10 and 11).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gandel (US 2019/0329065) teaches a system consisting of the elements comprising the coronavirus resonance treatment system of claim 1. Even though this system is intended to target aesthetic conditions such as weight loss, structurally this system meets the criteria claimed.
Meinke et al (US 9826996) teaches a system that can apply electromagnetic field intensity of 0.01 to 5 T using an MRI machine design. Even though this system is intended to treat blood clots, it can be applied similarly to treat coronavirus infection.
Zabara (US 8684901) teaches a system that can apply electromagnetic field intensity of 0.5 to 10 T using an MRI machine design. Even though this system is intended to treat cancer, it can be applied similarly to treat coronavirus infection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIANA JOY LACAY DECASTRO whose telephone number is (571)272-8316. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:30.
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at 571-272-5596. 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.
/A.L.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791