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 Amendment
The Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 26 May 2026. Claims 1-14 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-14.
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 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kafka (EP 2050481 A1) in view of Dommes (DE 1020171127353 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kafka teaches a device for influencing biological processes in a living tissue, the device applying a pulsating magnetic field to at least a part of the living tissue ("device for influencing biological processes in a living tissue...applying at least a part of the tissue with a pulsating magnetic field", claim 1),
with a field generating device for generating the pulsating magnetic field and a pulse generator for driving the field generating device ("magnetic field generating device such that the magnetic field consists of a plurality of basic pulses or main pulses", paragraph [0003])
A pulse repetition rate of which is between 0.1 and 1000 Hz ("main pulses…whos pulse frequency is usually between 0 and 1000 Hz", paragraph [0003]), or wherein the pulse repetition rate is between 3 and 300 Hz, and
An amplitude waveform of a main pulse comprises a function y(x) ("amplitude function y", paragraph [0034] and [0035]):
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 the main pulse;
k1 = offset value (“k1 = numerical value”, paragraph [0019]);
k2 = amplitude factor, k2
≠
0 (“k2 = multiplication factor for the function”, paragraph [0019]);
k3 = exponent of x, k3
≠
0 (“k3 = exponent of x”, paragraph [0019]);
k4 = multiplication factor of x, k4
≠
0 (“k4 = multiplication factor of x”, paragraph [0019]));
k5 = exponent of (x*k4), k5
≠
0 (“k5 = exponent of (x*k4)”, paragraph [0019]));
k6 = multiplication factor of x; and (“k6 = multiplication factor of x”, paragraph [0019])
wherein k1 – k6 are parameters which are selectable within certain limits to generate different shapes for the amplitude waveform (“k1-k6 are parameters which can be freely selected within certain limits in order to give the amplitude profile different shapes”, paragraph [0020]), each main pulse of the main pulses being modulated with sub-pulses by respective selection of the k1 – k6 parameters (“temporal modulation…of the signal…of the individual subpulses within a main pulse can be set”, paragraph [0021])
Kafka does not teach the pulse generator driving the field generating device with a signal sequence and a rhythmic signal comprising a sequence of signal events.
However, Dommes teaches a device for applying a pulsating magnetic field to at least a part of the living tissue (“coil arrangement…repositioned on the body…organs to be treated…device uses alternating current to generate the magnetic field”, paragraph [0002]),
a pulse generator for driving the field generating device with a signal sequence (“at least one generator unit comprises an acoustic signal generator”, paragraph [0020])
the pulse generator being adapted to output the signal sequence, which is formed from a superposition of at least one sequence of main pulses (“the direct current is superimposed with a carrier signal”, paragraph [0034]),
a rhythmic signal (“carrier signal is amplitude-modulated with variable frequency…through a wide variety of frequencies, such as music, tones, sound, or even noise”, paragraph [0036]), wherein the rhythmic signal comprises a sequence of signal events (“acoustic signals, i.e., sound and noise”, paragraph [0021]) organized in at least one regular stress pattern (“rhythmic and harmonic sounds in particular lead to stress reduction”, paragraph [0008])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the magnetic field generating device of Kafka with the device of Dommes, specifically the pulse generator being able to drive the field generating device with a signal sequence and output signal events such as an auditory sound to stimulate or influence the biological processes, given by the pulsating magnetic field and provide treatment for the patient.
Regarding claim 2, Kafka in view of Dommes teaches the at least one regular stress pattern being formed by a temporally defined occurrence of the signal events (“restriction of the biological activation possibilities formally predefined by the temporal sequence of amplitude”, paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 3, Kafka in view of Dommes teaches at least one group of similar signal events from the sequence of signal events occurs periodically (“main pulses 10, which form the pulsed magnetic field…periodically modulated therein”, paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 4, Kafka in view of Dommes teaches the at least one regular stress pattern defining a clock measure (“during the time interval between the beginning t1 and the end t2 of a main pulse”, paragraph [0020]), based on a selected signal events from the sequence of signal events (“basic time profile of the main pulses”, paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 5, Kafka in view of Dommes teaches a tempo of the clock measure varying be increasing or decreasing. It would be inherent that the tempo or beat of the clock measure of the stress pattern can be increased or decreased depending on what results are desired, for example a falling tempo for relaxing effects and a rising tempo for performance-enhancing effects.
Regarding claim 10, Kafka in view of Dommes teaches the computational substitute x depending linearly on the time t (“y(t), since t is a function of x”, paragraph [0037], “time interval from x=-5 to x=5”, paragraph [0038]).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kafka in view of Dommes and further in view of Heath (US 20200094066 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Kafka in view of Dommes teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach a wherein the at least one regular stress pattern in the rhythmic signal repeats at least 10 times per minute or at least 50 times per minute, and wherein the signal sequence comprises a length between 45 s and 20 min or a length between 90 s and 25 min.
However, Heath teaches various durations for delivering magnetic field treatment (“21 min…1 min”, paragraphs [0135]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Kafka in view of Dommes with the device of Heath and provide treatment where at least one regular stress pattern in the rhythmic signal repeats at least 10 times per minute or at least 50 times per minute, and wherein the signal sequence comprises a length between 45 s and 20 min or a length between 90 s and 25 min, as it is also known in the art to go by these time durations.
Claims 8, 9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kafka in view of Dommes and further in view of Dacey Jr. et al. (US 20100234793 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kafka in view of Dommes teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach the signal events comprising a frequency range such that a reproduction of the rhythmic signal via an electroacoustic transducer results in an audible sound and/or an infrasound.
However, Dacey Jr. et al. teaches the signal events comprising a frequency range (“radio frequency spectrum”, paragraph [0110]) such that a reproduction of the rhythmic signal via an electroacoustic transducer (“among energy emitters 302 examples include…transducers”, paragraph [0109]) results in an audible sound (“response includes generating…an audio”, paragraph [0242])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Kafka in view of Dommes with the device of Dacey Jr. in order to reproduce the rhythmic signals through an electroacoustic transducer to provide an audible sound for the patient.
Regarding claim 9, Kafka in view of Dommes teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach the signal events being formed by at least one: a breathing sound, a blood flow sound, a sound of a heartbeat, a sound of a percussion instrument, a sound of a stringed instrument, or a sound of a wind instrument.
However, Dacey Jr. teaches the signal events being formed by at least one:
A breathing sound, a blood flow sound, a sound of a heart beat (“among sensors 442 examples include…acoustic wave sensors…biosensors, blood volume pulse sensors…sound sensors”, paragraph [0191])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Kafka in view of Dommes with the device of Dacey Jr. et al. and utilize sensors to form the signal events based off of a breathing sound, a blood flow sound, or a sound of heartbeat in order to efficiently stimulate or influence biological processes within the body of a patient.
Regarding claim 11, Kafka in view of Dommes teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not each main pulse comprising a pulse length, and the computational substitute x for the time t defined as
x
=
x
1
+
x
2
-
x
1
T
i
∙
(
t
-
t
0
i
)
With
x1 = initial value for x
x2 = final value for x
Ti = pulse length of a main pulse
t0i = start time of the main pulse
Kafka in view of Dommes does teach x1 and x2 as initial and final values for x, as well as t1 and t2 being the time interval of a main pulse (“during the time interval between the beginning t1 and the end t2 of a main pulse, x passes through the values of x1 to x2, i.e. x1<x<2”, paragraph [0020], Kafka)
However, Dacey Jr. et al. teaches a control unit capable of detecting a pulse length of the main pulse (“one or more controllers 402 are configured to automatically control at least one waveform characteristic (e.g., intensity, frequency, pulse intensity, pulse duration, pulse ratio, pulse repetition rate, or the like) associated with the delivery of one or more energy stimuli”, paragraph [0152]; controllers 402), and is capable of calculating the computational substitute x for the time t based off the function y(x).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Kafka in view of Dommes with the device of Dacey Jr. et al. and determine the initial and final values of x, the pulse length of a main pulse, and the start time of the main pulse in order to find the computational substitute x for the function y(x).
Regarding claim 12, Kafka in view of Dommes teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as well as the signal sequence being formed from a superposition of a first sequence of main pulses, at least one second sequence of main pulses and the rhythmic signal wherein the amplitude waveform of the main pulses comprises of the function y(x), but does not teach each main pulse comprising a pulse length and 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 pulse repetition rate of the main pulses of the first sequence of main pulses.
However, Dacey Jr. et al. teaches each main pulse comprising a pulse length (“pulse duration”, paragraph [0152]);
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 (“one or more controllers 402 are configured to automatically control at least one waveform characteristic (e.g., intensity, frequency, pulse intensity, pulse duration, pulse ratio, pulse repetition rate, or the like) associated with the delivery of one or more energy stimuli”, paragraph [0152]; controllers 402)
Dacey Jr. et al. also teaches a control unit (controllers 402) capable of having the pulse length of the main pulses of the second sequence of main pulses change monotonically in a time-dependent course by decreasing monotonically or increasing monotonically and the pulse repetition rate of the main pulses of the second sequence of main pulses change monotonically in a time-dependent course opposite to a change in the pulse length by increasing monotonically or decreasing monotonically.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Kafka in view of Dommes with the device of Dacey Jr. et al. and determine the main pulses to be dependent on the pulse length and pulse repetition rate, adjusting for the patients’ needs.
Regarding claim 13, Kafka in view of Dommes and further in view of Dacey Jr. et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 12.
Furthermore, Dacey Jr. et al. teaches
The main pulses of the first sequence of main pulses following one another directly in the time-dependent course, without a pause
The main pulses of the second sequence of main pulses following one another directly in the time-dependent course, without a pause (“controller 402 is configured to control at least one parameter associated with a delivery of the energy stimulus…pulse frequency…an excitation pulse ratio, an excitation pulse intensity, an excitation pulse duration time, an excitation pulse repetition rate…delivery schedule, a delivery pattern”, paragraph [0153])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of Kafka in view of Dommes and further in view of Dacey Jr. et al. and configure the controller that is capable of delivering main pulses of the first and second sequence to be following one another directly in the time-dependent course in order to promote positive effects by the electromagnetic pulses.
Regarding claim 14, Kafka in view of Dommes and further in view of Dacey Jr. et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 12.
Furthermore, Dacey Jr. et al. teaches a control unit (controllers 402) capable of having the pulse length of the main pulses of the first sequence of main pulses change monotonically in a time-dependent course by decreasing monotonically or increasing monotonically and the pulse repetition rate of the main pulses of the first sequence of main pulses change monotonically in a time-dependent course opposite to a change in the pulse length by increasing monotonically or decreasing monotonically (paragraphs [0152] and [0153]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of Kafka in view of Dommes and further in view of Dacey Jr. et al. and configure the controller to have the pulse length and pulse repetition rate of the main pulses of the first sequence change monotonically depending on the needs of the patient.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 26 May 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see page 11, filed 26 May 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to claim 1, Kafka teaches a device for influencing biological processes in a living tissue by applying a pulsating magnetic field to at least a part of the living tissue, with a field generating device for generating the pulsating magnetic field and a pulse generator for driving the field generating device with a signal sequence. The Applicant argues that Kafka in view of Dommes does not teach a signal sequence formed by a superposition of at least one sequence of main pulses and a rhythmic signal, however the Examiner disagrees. Kafka in view of Dommes does teach a system capable of forming a superposition of at least one sequence of main pulses and a rhythmic signal (“the direct current is superimposed with a carrier signal”, paragraph [0034] of Dommes). Furthermore, the Applicant argues that “it does not involve the superposition of distinct pulse sequences as claimed”, however that is not commensurate with the scope of the claim, since the 'distinct pulse sequences' is not part of the claimed invention. However, it is suggested that the applicant should include the “superposition of distinct pulse sequences” in claim 1 to overcome the current rejection.
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 LARA LINH TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3598. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5:00pm M-F.
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 5712724233. 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.
/L.L.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights