DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 05/26/2026. Claims 1 and 3-20 are acknowledged as pending with claims 1, 3-7, 11-14, and 16-20 being currently amended and claim 2 being cancelled.
The claim objections and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b) are withdrawn as having been overcome by the amendment. The amendment of claim 1 introduces news claim limitations that changes the scope of the claim. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 mailed in the Non-Final Rejection on 02/26/2026 are maintained, but have been adjusted as necessitated by the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8, para. 3 of Applicant’s response, applicant argues that the combination of Boynton et al. (US 2003/0095022) and Chen et al. (CN 108607162) would render the prior art invention inoperable and unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Applicant argues that Chen et al. fails to teach the following limitation recited in claim 1, “a static magnetic field generator for treatment of cancer wherein the formed static magnetic field is configured to not substantially act on normal cells in the space and is configured to act on cancer cells to be killed”. Instead, Applicant argues that Chen et al. teaches superimposing static magnetic fields and alternating magnetic fields to achieve the desired suppression of tumor cells. Applicant further argues that Chen et al.’s superimposed alternating and static magnetic fields are incompatible with Boynton et al.’s directive of using generally uniform static magnetic fields. Referring to page 4, para. 4 of Chen et al.’s disclosure, Chen et al. teaches a device configured to generate 1) an alternating magnetic field overlapped with a static magnetic fields, 2) a single alternating magnetic field, or 3) a single static magnetic field to “generate obvious inhibiting effect to various human tumor cell growth” wherein the “inhibiting effect intensity and magnetic field radiation time is directly related to length,” such that there is “little effect on normal cells”. Page 4, para. 4 of Chen et al.’s disclosure also discloses that the targeted tumor cells are human kidney carcinoma cells and human lung cancer cells. Therefore, Chen et al. does specifically teach a static magnetic field generator for treatment of cancer wherein the formed static magnetic field is configured to not substantially act on normal cells in the space and is configured to act on cancer cells to be killed. As stated in MPEP § 2145(III), combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton, and in many cases will be able to fit teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle (See MPEP § 2141.03). That is, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to combine the teachings of Boynton et al. of the static magnetic field generator comprising a static magnetic field generating unit and a space in which a static magnetic field is formed by the static magnetic field generating unit with the static magnetic field configured to kill cancerous cells and not act on normal cells in the space of Chen et al. Given this creativity and the ability to fit teachings of multiple patents together like the pieces of a puzzle, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to combine the teachings in such a way that it would not render the prior art devices inoperable for their intended purpose, as there are more ways than those proposed by Applicant to combine the references. Thus, the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Boynton et al. in view of Chen et al. is maintained.
On page 9, para. 2 of Applicant’s response, applicant argues that the Examiner’s rationale “does not provide a proper or adequate motivation to combine these references because it ignores the fundamental difference in the type of magnetic field being generated.” The argument that Chen et al. does not teach a static magnetic field configured to kill cancerous cells without substantially acting on normal cells has been addressed above with regards to Applicant’s response on page 8, para. 3. Therefore, both Boynton et al. and Chen et al. disclose a static magnetic field generator configured to generate static magnetic fields with an intensity of 0.5-2 mT (Boynton et al., Fig. 4 and para. 0052) and 0-50mT (Chen et al., Abstract), respectively. In the previous Office Action, the examiner has provided the motivation to combine references, stating that “because the intensity range of the magnetic field [disclosed by Chen et al.] is analogous for wound repair and cancer, it would be advantageous to disclose that the static magnetic field generator is capable of tarting and inhibiting cancer cell activity. This additional feature may broaden the magnetic fields generator’s pertinent clinical applications”. The rationale to combine the references is reasoned from common knowledge in the art, as one of common knowledge in the art would understand that a magnetic field generator that is configured to generate magnetic fields with a strength ranging from zero to fifty milliTesla could be used in a wide range of clinical applications. Thus, the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Boynton et al. in view of Chen et al. is maintained.
With respect applicant’s arguments on page 8, para. 5, the combination of Boynton et al. in view of Chen et al. teaches all the limitations recited in previously presented claim 1 for the reasons stated above. Independent claims 1, 11, and 16 recite comparable and similar limitations; likewise, the rejection of independent claims 11 and 16 as obvious over Boynton et al. in view of Chen et al. is also maintained for the reasons stated above.
With respect to the combination of Boynton et al. in view of Chen et al. and Sokolowski (KR 2015/0058102) (See applicant’s response, page 9, “Boynton in view of Chen and Sokolowski”), applicant argues that the references are non-analogous because Boynton et al. is directed to a static field generator configured generate uniform static magnetic fields, Chen et al. is directed to superimposed alternating and static magnetic fields, (this argument is rebutted above), and Sokolowski is directed to a repetitive nerve stimulation apparatus that utilizes a pulsed magnetic field to induce non-contact electric fields through a targeted tissue. Therefore, there is no suggestion to combine Boynton et al. in view of Chen et al. with Sokolowski. MPEP § 2141.01(a) states that in order for a reference to be used in an obviousness rejection, it must be analogous art to the claimed invention. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention when it is either from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, or is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. In response to the applicant’s argument that Sokolowski discloses a pulsed magnetic field, not a static magnetic field, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, even though Sokolowski’s magnetic field is pulsed, Sokolowski’s magnetic field nerve stimulator directed to magnetically stimulating a living body’s nerves and/or tissue to produce a desired physiological effect is in the same field of applicant’s endeavor. Therefore, Boynton et al., Chen et al., and Sokolowski are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention and the rationale to combine, provided in the most recent office action, is considered to be proper. The rejection of claim 10 as obvious over Boynton et al. in view of Chen et al., further in view of Sokolowski is maintained.
Because the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 16 are maintained over Boynton et al. in view of Chen et al., the rejection of dependent claims 3-9, 12-15, and 17-20, though not specifically addressed, are maintained thereon.
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) 1-9 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boynton et al. (US 20030095022) in view of Chen et al. (CN 108607162).
Regarding claim 1, Boynton et al. teaches a static magnetic field generator for enhancing the health of an organism, the static magnetic field generator (Abstract; para. 0062) comprising:
a static magnetic field generating unit (Fig. 1, magnetic field generating means 12); and
a space in which a static magnetic field is formed by the static magnetic field generating unit (para. 0060, “volume of space”; Fig. 1, volume 28),
wherein the space is configured to receive cells (para. 0001; Abstract; wherein the volume of space comprises a resting surface configured to receive an afflicted organism (i.e., cells) during extended habitation within the volume containing the uniform magnetic field”),
wherein the static magnetic field generating unit is configured to form the static magnetic field with a magnitude range of 0.1 mT to 4 T (Boynton et al., Fig. 4; paras. 0070 and 0072).
Boynton et al. fails to specifically disclose a static magnetic field generator for treatment of cancer, wherein the static magnetic field is configured to not substantially act on normal cells in the space and is configured to act on cancer cells to be killed.
Chen et al. teaches an analogous static magnetic field generator for treatment of cancer (page 2, para. 7, "the device can generate external magnetic field has inhibiting effect for tumour in the body"), wherein the formed static magnetic field is configured to not substantially act on normal cells in the space and is configured to act on cancer cells to be killed (page 4, para. 4, “inhibiting effect to various human tumour cell growth, inhibiting effect intensity and magnetic field radiation time is directly related to length, then little effect on normal cells”).
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 static magnetic field generator of Boynton et al. with the disclosed treatment of cancer, wherein the formed static magnetic field generator targets cancer cells, of Chen et al. Because the intensity range of the magnetic field is analogous for wound repair and cancer, it would be advantageous to disclose that the static magnetic field generator is capable of targeting and inhibiting cancer cell activity. This additional feature may broaden the magnetic field generator’s pertinent clinical applications (Chen et al., page 2, para. 3, “bone wound repair” and page 2, para. 3, “tumour cell outer growth has obvious inhibiting effect”).
Regarding claim 3, Boynton et al., in view of Chen et al., teaches the static magnetic field generator according to claim 1 as stated above wherein the static magnetic field generating unit is configured to use a direct current to form the static magnetic field (Boynton et al., para. 0062; Fig. 1, direct current 24).
Regarding claim 4, Boynton et al., in view of Chen et al., teaches the static magnetic field generator according to claim 3 as stated above wherein the static magnetic field generating unit has at least one of a solenoid structure, a vertical or horizontal Helmholtz structure (Boynton et al., para. 0062-0064 and 0069; Fig. 2, where the structure has two identical Helmholtz-like outer coils 50 and inner coils 60), a core coil structure, a multi-stage set coil multi-phase structure, an upper or lower coil selection Helmholtz magnetic field focusing structure, a multi-stage multiple coil multi-phase structure, a core coil multi-frequency application rotation structure, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 5, Boynton et al., in view of Chen et al., teaches the static magnetic field generator according to claim 3 as stated above wherein the static magnetic field generating unit includes a plurality of coil units (Boynton et al., para. 0063; Fig. 1, coils 20), and
a space in which the static magnetic field is formed is between the plurality of coil units (Boynton et al., paragraphs 0052 and 0058-0060; Fig. 1, static magnetic field 26 and volume 28).
Regarding claim 6 Boynton et al., in view of Chen et al., teaches the static magnetic field generator according to claim 5 as stated above wherein the plurality of coil units comprises:
a first coil unit comprising a first cylindrical coil wound multiple times around a first central axis (Boynton et al., paragraphs 0062-0063; Fig. 1, longitudinal axis 13); and
a second coil unit separated from the first coil unit by a preset distance and comprising a second cylindrical coil wound multiple times around a second central axis coaxial with the first central axis (Boynton et al., Fig. 2; paragraphs 0062-0063; Fig. 1, longitudinal axis 13; claim 9 recites “conductive coaxial coils”).
Regarding claim 7, Boynton et al., in view of Chen et al., teaches the static magnetic field generator according to claim 6 as stated above wherein currents of a same magnitude flow through the first coil unit and the second coil unit in the same direction (Boynton et al., para. 0062; Fig. 1, direct current 24; claim 2), and
a space between the first coil unit and the second coil unit is configured to receive a treatment region of a body (Boynton et al., paragraphs 0052, 0059, and 0071; Fig. 2, where the patient would be disposed on the therapeutic bed).
Regarding claim 8, Boynton et al., in view of Chen et al., teaches the static magnetic field generator according to claim 7 as stated above wherein the first coil unit and the second coil unit have coils of a same thickness which are wound around a same area in a same number of turns with same inner and outer diameters (Boynton et al., Fig. 2; paragraphs 0065-0066 and 0069-0070).
Regarding claim 9, Boynton et al., in view of Chen et al., teaches the static magnetic field generator according to claim 6 as stated above further comprising:
a first coil housing configured to surround and support the first coil unit (Boynton et al., para. 0063); and
a second coil housing configured to surround and support the second coil unit (Boynton et al., para. 0063).
Regarding claim 11, Boynton et al. teaches a static magnetic field generator for enhancing the health of an organism, the static magnetic field generator (Abstract; para. 0062) comprising:
a plurality of coil units configured to generate a static magnetic field (Fig. 1, coils 20 and static magnetic field 26; para. 0059),
wherein a space between the plurality of coil units is configured to receive a treatment region of a body (paragraphs 0052, 0059, and 0071; Fig. 2, where the patient would be disposed on the therapeutic bed), and
wherein the plurality of coil units is configured to generate the static magnetic field to have a magnitude in a range of 0.1 mT to 4T (Fig. 4; paragraphs 0070 & 0072).
Boynton et al. fails to specifically disclose a static magnetic field generator for treatment of cancer.
Chen et al. teaches an analogous static magnetic field generator for treatment of cancer (page 2, para. 7, "the device can generate external magnetic field has inhibiting effect for tumour in the body").
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 static magnetic field generator of Boynton et al. with the disclosed treatment of cancer of Chen et al. Because the intensity range of the magnetic field is analogous for wound repair and cancer, it would be advantageous to disclose that the static magnetic field generator is capable of targeting and inhibiting cancer cell activity. This additional feature may broaden the magnetic field generator’s pertinent clinical applications (Chen et al., page 2, para. 3, “bone wound repair” and page 2, para. 3, “tumour cell outer growth has obvious inhibiting effect”).
Regarding claim 12, Boynton et al., in view of Chen et al., teaches a static magnetic field generator according to claim 11 as stated above wherein:
a space in which the static magnetic field is formed is between the plurality of coil units (Boynton et al., paragraphs 0052 and 0058-0060; Fig. 1, static magnetic field 26 and volume 28).
Regarding claim 13, Boynton et al., in view of Chen et al., teaches the static magnetic field generator according to claim 12 as stated above wherein the plurality of coil units comprises:
a first coil unit comprising a first cylindrical coil wound multiple times around a first central axis (Boynton et al., paragraphs 0062-0063; Fig. 1, longitudinal axis 13); and
a second coil unit separated from the first coil unit by a preset distance and comprising a second cylindrical coil wound multiple times around a second central axis coaxial with the first central axis (Boynton et al., Fig. 2; paragraphs 0062-0063; Fig. 1, longitudinal axis 13; claim 9 recites “conductive coaxial coils”).
Regarding claim 14, Boynton et al., in view of Chen et al., teaches the static magnetic field generator according to claim 13 as stated above wherein currents of a same magnitude flow through the first coil unit and the second coil unit in the same direction (Boynton et al., para. 0062; Fig. 1, direct current 24; claim 2), and
a space between the first coil unit and the second coil unit is configured to receive a treatment receive of a body (Boynton et al., paragraphs 0052, 0059, and 0071; Fig. 2, where the patient would be disposed on the therapeutic bed).
Regarding claim 15, Boynton et al., in view of Chen et al., teaches the static magnetic field generator according to claim 14 as stated above wherein the first coil unit and the second coil unit have coils of a same thickness which are wound around a same area in a same number of turns with same inner and outer diameters (Boynton et al., Fig. 2; paragraphs 0065-0066 and 0069-0070).
Regarding claim 16, Boynton et al. teaches a static magnetic field generator for enhancing the health of an organism, the static magnetic field generator (Abstract; para. 0062) comprising:
a static magnetic field generating unit (Fig. 1, magnetic field generating means 12); and
a space in which a static magnetic field is formed by the static magnetic field generating unit (paragraphs 0052 and 0058-0060; Fig. 1, static magnetic field 26 and volume 28),
wherein the static magnetic field generating unit is configured to form the static magnetic field to have a magnitude in a range of 0.1 mT to 4 T (Fig. 4; paragraphs 0070 & 0072).
Chen et al. teaches an analogous static magnetic field generator for treatment of cancer (page 2, para. 7, "the device can generate external magnetic field has inhibiting effect for tumour in the body").
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 static magnetic field generator of Boynton et al. with the disclosed treatment of cancer of Chen et al. Because the intensity range of the magnetic field is analogous for wound repair and cancer, it would be advantageous to disclose that the static magnetic field generator is capable of targeting and inhibiting cancer cell activity. This additional feature may broaden the magnetic field generator’s pertinent clinical applications (Chen et al., page 2, para. 3, “bone wound repair” and page 2, para. 3, “tumour cell outer growth has obvious inhibiting effect”).
Regarding claim 17, Boynton et al., in view of Chen et al., teaches the static magnetic field generator according to claim 16 as stated above wherein the static magnetic field generating unit is configured to use a direct current to generate the static magnetic field (Boynton et al., para. 0062; Fig. 1, direct current 24).
Regarding claim 18, Boynton et al., in view of Chen et al., teaches the static magnetic field generator according to claim 17 as stated above wherein the static magnetic field generating unit includes a plurality of coil units (Boynton et al., para. 0063; Fig. 1, coils 20), and
a space in which the static magnetic field is formed is between the plurality of coil units (Boynton et al., paragraphs 0052 and 0058-0060; Fig. 1, static magnetic field 26 and volume 28).
Regarding claims 19, Boynton et al., in view of Chen et al., teaches the static magnetic field generator according to claim 18 as stated above wherein the plurality of coil units comprises:
a first coil unit comprising a first cylindrical coil wound multiple times around a first central axis (Boynton et al., paragraphs 0062-0063; Fig. 1, longitudinal axis 13); and
a second coil unit separated from the first coil unit by a preset distance and comprising a second cylindrical coil wound multiple times around a second central axis coaxial with the first central axis (Boynton et al., Fig. 2; paragraphs 0062-0063; Fig. 1, longitudinal axis 13; claim 9 recites “conductive coaxial coils”).
Regarding claim 20, Boynton et al., in view of Chen et al., teaches the static magnetic field generator according to claim 19 as stated above wherein currents of a same magnitude flow through the first coil unit and the second coil unit in the same direction (Boynton et al., para. 0062; Fig. 1, direct current 24; claim 2), and
a space between the first coil unit and the second coil unit is configured to receive a treatment region of a body (Boynton et al., paragraphs 0052, 0059, and 0071; Fig. 2, where the patient would be disposed on the therapeutic bed).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boynton et al. in view of Chen et al., further in view of Sokolowski (KR 2015/0058102), citing to attached translation.
Regarding claim 10, Boynton et al., in view of Chen et al., teaches the static magnetic field generator according to claim 1 as stated above. Boynton et al., in view of Chen et al., fails to disclose a camera configured to image the space in which the static magnetic field is formed.
Sokolowski teaches an analogous magnetic field generator further comprising: a camera (Fig. 1, camera 6) configured to image the space in which the static magnetic field is formed (page 2, para. 2, “body part detected by the camera 6”).
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 static magnetic field generator of Boynton et al., in view of Chen et al., with the camera of Sokolowski. By incorporating a camera, a healthcare professional operating the magnetic field generator may monitor the concentrated stimulations in real-time (Sokolowski, page 2, para. 6, “A rotatable camera 6… for monitoring the resulting muscle contractions”).
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 BROGAN R LANDEEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 6:00pm.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights