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 amendments filed 2/20/2026 are acknowledged. Claims 1-16 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 2/20/2026 have been considered.
As to the rejection of claim 1, an electromagnetic wave by definition is an oscillating electric and magnetic field that both oscillate at the frequency of the wave. Thus, by applying an electromagnetic wave from the emitters a magnetic field as claimed is applied. Further, Norling specifically states that the emitters 106 apply an electromagnetic wave at the resonant frequency to destroy the bacteria (para [0053]; see also [0043], [0045]). Destroying the cell membrane reduces microbial activity (killed). Norling thus anticipates the claim as amended.
The second point appears to contradict the express teachings of Norling above. Further, teaching away is not relevant to a 102 rejection.
As to the 103 rejections, Malak, Heckerman, and Lin are related to both the instant application and primary reference Norling. The instant application and Norling both teach applying magnetic waves to kill bacteria using resonance as previously discussed. Malak as set forth in the previous action teaches a pertinent improvement to using electromagnetic waves to kill bacteria with the addition of metal nanoparticles. Heckerman teaches determining ideal frequencies for use in damaging bacteria and viruses. Thus both Malak and Heckerman are relevant to improving upon the teachings of Norling.
Lin is also relavant as it teaches an improved way to connect electrical components. This is something that is needed in both Norling and the instant application for connecting the emitters. Thus, there is no improper hindsight and the modifications all have motivation derived from the teachings of the prior art.
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 15 is 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.
With regards to claim 15, the structure of the claim with multiple different lists of options coordinated in the alternative by their own “or” conjunction along with multiple “as well as” makes it unclear exactly how many different uses are required or what uses would be enough to meet the claim. Prior art is applied as best as possible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Norling (US 2019/0314537).
With regards to claim 1, Norling teaches a method of exciting mechanical resonance in a structural component of a microorganism (para [0053]), the method comprising exposing the microorganism to an oscillating magnetic field (abstract; an electromagnetic wave is an oscillating electric and magnetic field that are perpendicular to each other which oscillates at a first frequency (the frequency of the wave), characterized in that the first frequency corresponds to a frequency of a mechanical resonance of the structural component (para [0053]).
Given that Norling teaches the applied electromagnetic wave and thus oscillating magnetic field kills the microorganism (para [0053]), then the characteristics of the magnetic field applied including its duration and strength are selected to reduce microbial activity (destroyed).
With regards to claim 2, Norling teaches that the first frequency is within the claimed ranges (para [0053]).
With regards to claim 7, Norling teaches that a combination of duration and field strength of the oscillating magnetic field is selected such that microbicidal activity is reduced, in particular such that the structural component of the microorganism is damaged (the cell membrane is torn apart by the application of resonant frequency EM wave; para [0053]).
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 3-6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norling (US 2019/0314537).
With regards to claim 3, Norling teaches that the oscillating magnetic field is generated by driving an alternating current of said first frequency through an emitter (106) (para [0045]; to make an electromagnetic wave the current is alternating current also Norling describes the amperage as +/- para [0044; the frequency of the current, wave, and magnetic field are all the same; fig 1 and 2a). Norling does not teach that the emitter is a coil.
In another embodiment a coil shaped wire is used to generate electromagnetic waves (para [0007]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used coil shaped emitters motivated by an expectation of successfully providing an emitter for the desired electromagnetic wave generation.
With regards to claim 4, Norling teaches a pair of emitters (multiple emitters 106 shown) wherein the pair of coils are arranged on a common axis (opposing ones are on the same axis) and spaced apart along the axis, and wherein the microorganism is placed in a space between the coils (para [0039]; fig 2a and 2b). The combination above results in the emitters being coils. Fig 2A showing the arrangement of the opposing common axis emitters 106:
PNG
media_image1.png
348
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 5, the direction of the current in the opposing pair of emitter coils arranged as above in fig 2a would leave the only options of the current being parallel or opposite.
With regards to claim 6, Norling does not teach that the frequency in the first coil and the second coil are different (as stated above the current is alternating current as that is what generates electromagnetic waves). Norling teaches that different frequencies target different pathogens (para [0053]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used different frequencies so that different pathogens can be targeted at the same time.
With regards to claim 15, Norling teaches the method as set forth in claim 1 as discussed above. Norling, in general teaches a method of sanitizing fluids and articles. It would thus be obvious to apply the methods to various field in order to destroy the desired specific pathogens.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norling (US 2019/0314537) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Malak (US 2004/0253138).
With regards to claims 8 and 9, Norling does not teach the use of magnetic nanoparticles. Malak teaches metal nanoparticles that enhance the destruction of bacteria when exposed to electromagnetic radiation (abstract; claim 1, 5, and 20). The nano particles can be coated with a biorecognitive site to target the killing of specific bacteria (para [0033]; fig 2). The metal nanoparticles include metallic ones (at least iron; claim 6). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used metal nanoparticles with biorecognitive sites as taught by Malak in order to enhance electromagnetic energy sterilization and target specific bacteria.
The combination results in bringing the microorganism into contact with magnetic nanoparticles (iron) at least while exposing the microorganism to said oscillating magnetic field wherein the nanoparticles are designed to attach themselves (via biorecognition sites) to said structural component of the microorganism.
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norling (US 2019/0314537) in view of Heckerman (US 2010/0113983).
With regards to claim 10, Norling teaches a method of exciting mechanical resonance in a structural component of a microorganism (para [0053]), the method comprising exposing the microorganism to an oscillating magnetic field (abstract; an electromagnetic wave is an oscillating electric and magnetic field that are perpendicular to each other which oscillates at a first frequency (the frequency of the wave), characterized in that the first frequency corresponds to a frequency of a mechanical resonance of the structural component (para [0053]). Different target bacteria, viruses, and pathogens are targeted with different frequencies (para [0053]).
While Norling teaches different frequencies for different things, Norling does not specify how to determine the optimal frequencies for the desired targets. Heckerman teaches using resonant frequencies to destroy various pathogens including viruses and bacteria (para [0015]). Heckerman teaches testing the effect of a frequency on a target by taking a culture of the target material, exposing the culture to the desired frequency, and then observing the effects on growth and function (para [0058]). From this, an ideal frequency can be determined (para [0058]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have tested frequency effects/efficacy using a process as set forth in Heckerman in order to scientifically determine the optimal frequency for resonant frequency destruction of pathogens.
The combination results in - observing a pre-treatment activity of a first microorganism (in order to compare the effects of growth rate and activity one needs to have observed a baseline), - exposing said first microorganism to an oscillating magnetic field oscillating at said first frequency (frequency being tested for optimality in Norling), - observing a post-treatment activity of said first microorganism (observe the effect on growth and activity), - determining a rating of efficacity for said first frequency in dependence of the difference between said post-treatment activity and said pre-treatment activity (selects an optimal one for the desired effect of the treatment).
With regards to claims 11 and 12, Heckerman also tracks characteristics such as amplitude, mode, and intensity of the applied frequency (para [0058]). The set of parameters being tracked includes the first frequency.
With regards to claim 13, Norling and Heckerman teach the method of claim 10 to determine the efficacy of a target pathogen as discussed above. In order to determine the best, one would have to test multiple different frequencies and thus perform multiple methods of claim 10. Additionally, both teach multiple different target pathogens (para [0053] of Norling and [0015] of Heckerman). Thus it would be obvious to apply the methods to multiple different targets in order to determine the best frequency for each target. Heckerman shows results in tables (page 5). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have formed tables with the results in order to easily organize the data collected by trying different frequencies on different targets. One would select the best frequency for the desired result and thus have a species specific frequency (such as table 2 of Heckerman or as in paragraph 53 of Norling with ranges).
With regards to claim 14, Norling teaches selecting multiple frequencies to form a frequency range (para [0053]). Heckerman as above teaches determining the efficacy on growth and function which both include observing movements of the microorganism (movement as the size changes and functionality includes movement of different components of the microorganism). Thus the combination as above would determine a frequency and frequency range based on observed movements.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norling (US 2019/0314537) in view of Lin (US 6,346,009).
With regards to claim 16, Norling as modified above teaches the method of claim 3. The modification to have each emitter be a coil shape results in a coil arrangement of a number of mutually isolated loops (spaced apart on opposing sides) of flexible wire (a coil is made of wire flexed into a coil shape), wherein the loops surround a free space (in the middle; fig 2a and 2b showing target 212) into which the microorganism can be placed.
Norling does not specify that the loops are connected in series through a multiple connector pair as claimed. Lin teaches a multiple connector assembly that forms an integral unit between multiple connectors (32) using a mounting bracket (34) which allows for mounting electrical connectors in a compact and sturdy manner (column 3, line 65 to column 4, line 2; fig 2, 4, and 5). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used a multiple connector pair as taught by Lin in order to allow for mounting electrical connectors in a compact and sturdy manner.
The combination would be capable of the intended use of connecting and disconnecting several loops simultaneously (one could unplug them at the same time).
The combination does not teach whether the loops are connected in series or in sequence. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected between the finite options of series or sequence motivated by an expectation of successfully connecting and powering the coils as desired.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DONALD R SPAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9-5.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571)272-1374. 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.
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799