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 .
Drawings
Figure 15 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 1 recites “the wire inductor” in line 3. Examiner recommends amending to –the two lead single length wire inductor—
-Claims 2-14 recite “the device” in line 1. Examiner recommends amending to –the therapeutic device—
-Claim 4 recites “the two lead wire inductor” in line 3. Examiner recommends amending to –the two lead single length wire inductor—
-Claim 5 recites “inductor are inserted” in line 1. Examiner recommends amending to –the inductor is inserted—
-Claim 6 recites “the coil” in line 2. Examiner recommends amending to –the at least one integrated Helmholtz coil—
-Claim 7 recites “the two lead wire inductor” in line 2. Examiner recommends amending to –the two lead single length wire inductor—
-Claim 12 recites “the two lead wire inductor” in line 1. Examiner recommends amending to –the two lead single length wire inductor—
-Claim 13 recites “the electrode base coupler” in line 1. Examiner recommends amending to –the electrode coupler base—
-Claim 15 recites “the wire inductor” in line 3. Examiner recommends amending to –the two lead single length wire inductor—
-Claim 15 recites “the two lead wire inductor” in line 4. Examiner recommends amending to –the two lead single length wire inductor—
-Claim 16 recites “electrode base coupler” in line 1. Examiner recommends amending to –electrode coupler base—
-Claim 17 recites “the two lead wire inductor” in line 3. Examiner recommends amending to –the two lead single length wire inductor—
-Claim 18 recites “inductor are inserted” in line 1. Examiner recommends amending to –inductor is inserted—
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 4, 5, 7-10 and 13-19 are 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.
Claims 13 and 16 contains the trademark/trade name Bondic Ultraviolet activated glue. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a magnetic coil configuration and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
-Claim 4 recites “the electrode coupler” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 5 recites “the attraction of sodium ions” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 7 recites “the length” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 8 recites “the two lead wire inductors” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 10 recites “the one lead of the wire inductor” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 10 recites “ a sharp ninety degree left bend” in line 2. It is unclear what sharp encompasses in terms of a ninety degree bend. It is also unclear what a left bend is in reference to in terms of the structure. Further clarification should be provided to identify whether other bends (aside from ninety degrees) would fulfill the requirement of sharp ninety degree left bend and whether left bend is in reference to the electrode coupler base, two lead single length inductor, coil or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 13 recites “two lead wire inductor” in line 2. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the two lead single length wire inductor referenced in claim 1, line 3. Should possibly read –the two lead single length wire inductor—
-Claims 13 and 16 recite “…a method selected from the group consisting of…combinations thereof.” This recitation is indefinite as none of the recited options are considered to be methods except “metal alloy soldering”. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claims 14 and 19 recite “…a method selected from the group consisting of…combinations thereof.”. This recitation is indefinite as none of the recited options are considered to be methods. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 15 recites “the skin” and “the subject” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
-Claim 16 recites “two lead wire inductor” in line 2. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the two lead single length wire inductor referenced in claim 15, lines 2-3. Should possibly read –the two lead single length wire inductor—
-Claim 18 recites “the attraction of sodium ions” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 19 recites “a subject” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether the subject is the same or different from the subject originally referenced in claim 15, line 1.
-Claim 19 recites “wherein…or combinations thereof”. It is unclear whether this product-by-process claim actually includes methods of making the product since the recited limitations includes only manufacturing materials “an adhesive bandage tape, an appendage fabric material, a fabric hook and loop belt material”. Further clarification should be provided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
-Claim 14 recites “fixed to the skin of a subject” in line 1. Examiner recommends amending to –configured to be fixed to the skin of a subject—
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burnett (U.S. 20130072746).
Regarding Claim 1, Burnett teaches a therapeutic device for pain relief [0104] comprising: an electrode coupler base [0081]—reference to an electrode patch, and a two lead single length wire inductor [Fig. 4, elements 56 (controller) and 54 (sensor)] and [0080-0081]—describing the connections between these elements and the coils, wherein the wire inductor comprises at least one integrated Helmholtz coil [Fig. 4, element 52 (coil)] and [0080; “coil may be configured…Helmholtz coil”].
Regarding Claim 3, Burnett teaches wherein the electrode coupler base is made from a material selected from the group consisting of: alloys of stainless steel, iron, zinc, nickel chromium, high carbon steel, low carbon steel, silver sheets and combinations thereof [Fig. 4, element 54]—depicting a round shape of the electrode patch.
Regarding Claim 6, Burnett teaches wherein the at least one integrated Helmholtz coil comprises at least one turn in the coil [0146; “The coil body…any suitable number of turns…2 to 25…14 to 17 turns.”]
Regarding Claim 7, Burnett teaches wherein the at least one integrated Helmholtz coil is positioned anywhere on the length of the two lead wire inductor [0078]—describes the coil positioning within the cradle, [Fig. 4, element 48 (cradle)].
Regarding Claim 8, Burnett teaches wherein the two lead wire inductors further comprise a securing clasp positioned at each end of the two lead wire inductors and is configured to secure the electrode coupler base to the two lead wire inductors [0166]—describing male and female connecting portions between the coils of the Helmholtz coil.
Regarding Claim 13, Burnett teaches wherein the electrode base coupler is attached to two lead wire inductor via a method selected from the group consisting of: high strength epoxy adhesives, metal alloy soldering, Bondic [TM] Ultraviolet activated glue, and combinations thereof [0163]—reference to connecting adjacent portions of the device with an epoxy wedge, where epoxy wedge is interpreted to be of high strength to achieve connection between described parts.
The claimed phrase “via a method selected from…and combinations thereof.” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is, that the structure is made with the described manufacturing materials and components. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 14, Burnett teaches wherein the device is fixed to the skin of a subject by a method selected from the group consisting of: an adhesive bandage tape, an appendage fabric material, a fabric hook and loop belt material or combinations thereof [0100]—describes a band wrapped around an arm and retained using different engagements of fabric or other material and [0121; “the patch may be attached to a subject’s skin”].
The claimed phrase “by a method selected from…or combinations thereof.” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is, that the structure is made with the described manufacturing materials and components. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 15, Burnett teaches a method of providing pain relief to a subject [0104] comprising the steps of: providing a device having an electrode coupler base [0081]—reference to an electrode patch, and a two lead single length wire inductor [Fig. 4, elements 56 (controller) and 54 (sensor)] and [0080-0081]—describing the connections between these elements and the coils, wherein the wire inductor comprises at least one integrated Helmholtz coil [Fig. 4, element 52 (coil)] and [0080; “coil may be configured…Helmholtz coil”]; attaching the two lead wire inductor to the electrode coupler base [0076; “a Helmholtz coil configuration,…the therapy in progress.”] and [0078; “Coils 52, sensor 54 and logic controller 56 may be arranged in different configurations, in the same manner as in the preceding embodiments.”]; and affixing the device to the skin of the subject [0121].
Regarding Claim 16, Burnett teaches wherein the electrode base coupler is attached to two lead wire inductor via a method selected from the group consisting of: high strength epoxy adhesives, metal alloy soldering, Bondic [TM] Ultraviolet activated glue, and combinations thereof [0163]—reference to connecting adjacent portions of the device with an epoxy wedge, where epoxy wedge is interpreted to be of high strength to achieve connection between described parts.
The claimed phrase “via a method selected from…and combinations thereof.” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is, that the structure is made with the described manufacturing materials and components. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 19, Burnett teaches wherein the device is fixed to the skin of a subject by a method selected from the group consisting of: an adhesive bandage tape, an appendage fabric material, a fabric hook and loop belt material or combinations thereof [0100]—describes a band wrapped around an arm and retained using different engagements of fabric or other material and [0121; “the patch may be attached to a subject’s skin”].
The claimed phrase “by a method selected from…or combinations thereof.” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is, that the structure is made with the described manufacturing materials and components. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnett (U.S. 20130072746) in view of Shah (WO 2018089895).
Regarding Claim 2, Burnett is silent on wherein the electrode coupler base is made from a material selected from the group consisting of: alloys of stainless steel, iron, zinc, nickel chromium, high carbon steel, low carbon steel, silver sheets and combinations thereof. Shah teaches wherein the electrode coupler base is made from a material selected from the group consisting of: alloys of stainless steel, iron, zinc, nickel chromium, high carbon steel, low carbon steel, silver sheets and combinations thereof [0047]—outlines the various metals including silver, stainless steel, nickel used to form the electrodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a stainless steel, silver, or nickel material for the electrodes as taught by Shah to maintain a conductive environment as suggested by Burnett, as Burnett discusses the sensor including a conductive electrode patch [0081] with Shah because Shah teaches the use of conductive materials to allow for nerve stimulation by delivery of electrical impulses [0047].
Regarding Claim 12, Burnett is silent on wherein the two lead wire inductor is made from a material selected from the group consisting of: alloys of stainless steel, iron, zinc, nickel chromium, high carbon steel, low carbon steel, silver sheets and combinations thereof. Shah teaches wherein the two lead wire inductor is made from a material selected from the group consisting of: alloys of stainless steel, iron, zinc, nickel chromium, high carbon steel, low carbon steel, silver sheets and combinations thereof [0054]—reference to the conductor material of the lead connector being made of stainless steel or nickel-cobalt.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a stainless steel, silver, or nickel material for the inductor lead wires as taught by Shah to maintain a conductive environment as suggested by Burnett, as Burnett discusses the patient placing a conductive wrap to provide required pulsed magnetic field [0111] with Shah because Shah teaches the use of conductive materials to allow for nerve stimulation by delivery of electrical impulses [0047].
Claim(s) 4, 5, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnett (U.S. 20130072746) in view of Mashiach (U.S. 11298549).
Regarding Claim 4, Burnett is silent on wherein the electrode coupler base further comprises at least two slot openings, configured to allow attachment of the electrode coupler to the two lead wire inductor. Mashiach teaches wherein the electrode coupler base further comprises at least two slot openings, configured to allow attachment of the electrode coupler to the two lead wire inductor [Fig. 8b, element 1806 (recesses)] and [Col 14, lines 35-50]—describing the housing, electrical connections, recesses and flexibility of the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design slots or openings within the housing as taught by Mashiach to allow for electrical connection and flexibility as suggested by Burnett, as Burnett discusses connectors designed to provide secure electrical connection between coil portions [0166] with Mashiach because Mashiach teaches design of the housing including both rigid portions to ensure contact between electrical connections and flexible portions to conform to the contours of the patient’s body [Col 14, lines 47-57].
Regarding Claim 5, Burnett is silent on wherein the two lead wire inductor are inserted within the at least two slot openings and completing a closed loop electromagnetic circuit, allowing the attraction of sodium ions. Mashiach teaches wherein the two lead wire inductor are inserted within the at least two slot openings [Fig. 8b, element 1806 (recesses)] and [Col 14, lines 35-50]—describing the housing, electrical connections, recesses and flexibility of the device, and completing a closed loop electromagnetic circuit [Col 8, lines 5-7]—describing the creation of an electromagnetic field [Col 28, lines 1-8]—describing electric fields created to achieve neural modulation and [Fig. 3, element 120 showing a closed circuit with a feedback circuit (element 148)], allowing the attraction of sodium ions [Col 28, lines 9-41]—describes balancing sodium ions to maintain an effective ion channel to propagate an action potential along the neuron.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design slots or openings within the housing as taught by Mashiach to create a closed circuit and allow for attraction of sodium ions as suggested by Burnett, as Burnett discusses returning portions of the device to a closed configuration to consider placement and positioning on the nerve to concentrate magnetic flux [0159 and 0162] with Mashiach because Mashiach teaches advantages of this configuration in pain management to use an ion channel to recruit and block without actually causing an initial action potential to propagate [Col 29, lines 2-6].
Regarding Claim 17, Burnett is silent on wherein the electrode coupler base further comprises at least two slot openings, configured to allow attachment of the electrode coupler to the two lead wire inductor. Mashiach teaches wherein the electrode coupler base further comprises at least two slot openings, configured to allow attachment of the electrode coupler to the two lead wire inductor [Fig. 8b, element 1806 (recesses)] and [Col 14, lines 35-50]—describing the housing, electrical connections, recesses and flexibility of the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design slots or openings within the housing as taught by Mashiach to allow for electrical connection and flexibility as suggested by Burnett, as Burnett discusses connectors designed to provide secure electrical connection between coil portions [0166] with Mashiach because Mashiach teaches design of the housing including both rigid portions to ensure contact between electrical connections and flexible portions to conform to the contours of the patient’s body [Col 14, lines 47-57].
Regarding Claim 18, Burnett is silent on wherein the two lead wire inductor are inserted within the at least two slot openings and completing a closed loop electromagnetic circuit, allowing the attraction of sodium ions. Mashiach teaches wherein the two lead wire inductor are inserted within the at least two slot openings [Fig. 8b, element 1806 (recesses)] and [Col 14, lines 35-50]—describing the housing, electrical connections, recesses and flexibility of the device and completing a closed loop electromagnetic circuit [Col 8, lines 5-7]—describing the creation of an electromagnetic field [Col 28, lines 1-8]—describing electric fields created to achieve neural modulation and [Fig. 3, element 120 showing a closed circuit with a feedback circuit (element 148)], allowing the attraction of sodium ions [Col 28, lines 9-41]—describes balancing sodium ions to maintain an effective ion channel to propagate an action potential along the neuron.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design slots or openings within the housing as taught by Mashiach to create a closed circuit and allow for attraction of sodium ions as suggested by Burnett, as Burnett discusses returning portions of the device to a closed configuration to consider placement and positioning on the nerve to concentrate magnetic flux [0159 and 0162] with Mashiach because Mashiach teaches advantages of this configuration in pain management to use an ion channel to recruit and block without actually causing an initial action potential to propagate [Col 29, lines 2-6].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnett (U.S. 20130072746) in view of Jeffery (U.S. 20150335876).
Regarding Claim 9, Burnett is silent on wherein the securing clasp has a length ranging between approximately 3 - 5 mm. Jeffery teaches wherein the securing clasp has a length ranging between approximately 3 - 5 mm [0103; “In this example, two connectors 1315, 1317 (snaps that act as both electrical and mechanical connectors) extend proud from the front of the cantilever electrode apparatus a few mm (e.g., between 1-5 mm).”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select these length dimensions as taught by Jeffery to allow for securing and adjustability as suggested by Burnett, as Burnett discusses the use of buckles in a shoulder strap to adjust lengths at which the coils are disposed at along an appendage [0100] with Jeffery because Jeffery teaches connection of the electrodes to the connectors to be placed and adapted to fit on an anatomical region of the subject [0084].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnett (U.S. 20130072746) in view of Sage (U.S. 20150032193).
Regarding Claim 10, Burnett is silent on wherein the one lead of the wire inductor further comprises a sharp ninety degree left bend. Sage teaches wherein the one lead of the wire inductor further comprises a sharp ninety degree left bend [Fig. 14, element 14]—depicting a sharp left ninety degree bend relative to element 12 where the bottom inductor/lead includes the sharp left bend. See annotated Fig. 4 below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a ninety degree bend in the inductor as taught by Sage to include properties related to flexibility and conductivity as suggested by Burnett, as Burnett discusses the coils being made of conductive materials that include pivoting or rotating mechanisms [0170] with Sage because Sage teaches the use of various connectors to ensure redundancy in connections since different manufacturers use different connectors at the ends of stimulation leads [0053].
PNG
media_image1.png
276
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnett (U.S. 20130072746) in view of Sage (U.S. 20150032193) and in further view of Dassos (U.S. 20220401728).
Regarding Claim 11, Burnett is silent on wherein the electrode coupler base is shaped as an arched half round and half rectilinear with two triangular shape cutouts that are used as compression hems. Sage teaches wherein the electrode coupler base is shaped as an arched half round and half rectilinear [Fig. 4A, elements 12 and 14]—element 12 includes the half rectilinear shape and element 14 includes the ached half round shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include these rectilinear and arched shapes as taught by Sage to consider for various aspects of the design as suggested by Burnett, as Burnett discusses foot cradle and coil shapes [0094 and 0100] with Sage because Sage teaches shape considerations for the housing and coils [0062 and 0065].
Burnett and Sage are silent on with two triangular shape cutouts that are used as compression hems. Dassos teaches with two triangular shape cutouts that are used as compression hems [0088]—describes triangular cutouts for use with a band that is interpreted to cause compression.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include these cutouts as taught by Dassos to align with the patient’s anatomy as suggested by Burnett and Sage, as Burnett discusses allowing for components of the device to be positioned onto, around or to accommodate anatomical structures [0157] and Sage which discloses positioning therapy delivery elements at a target location [0082] with Dassos because Dassos teaches the use of the cutouts by the user to align the band without a mirror or in the dark [0088].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Kuphal (DE 102006015550)—depicts a rectilinear and half arched shape for coupling an electrical field
-Ansari (U.S. 20210016101)—includes coil configurations including that of Helmholtz that include two leads extending from
-Wong (U.S. 20210008381)—discloses a wearable electromagnetic emitter
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/B.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights