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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/29/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 2, 9, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 2, 9, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/29/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that “a medical professional could not determine where to place transducers on a patient relative to the patient's lung based on a tumor treating fields dosage determined by the medical professional because the required calculations and data manipulation are unable to performed in the human mind. As amended, claim 1 explicitly recites using a computer to perform the following steps, which are unable to be performed in the human mind … the recited invention cannot be performed in the human mind due to the required calculations needed for manipulating the large amount of data and solving the complex algorithms … In contrast to the claims in Synopsis, an individual is unable to perform the steps of claim 1 mentally or with pencil and paper because the recited invention cannot be performed in the human mind due to the required calculations needed for manipulating the large amount of data and solving the complex algorithms. As such, using the logic of Synopsys, claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “the required calculations and data manipulation are unable to performed in the human mind … claim 1 explicitly recites using a computer to perform the following steps, which are unable to be performed in the human mind,” Examiner takes the position that the required calculations and data manipulation are able to be performed in the human mind because the claims as currently written do not reflect Applicant’s mentioned calculations and data manipulation. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of Applicant’s claims, a human could spend any amount of time, with any amount of data, to determine the required transducer placements as well as necessary treatment dosage. Furthermore, the claims recite a general purpose computer with a processor and memory to perform the abstract steps. These components read on a computer implemented method that is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor, performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic computer limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Applicant further contends that “In explaining Step 2B, the M.P.E.P. was recently revised to state: ‘After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology or a technical field, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology.... That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification. M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(a),’” on Page 22 of Applicant’s Remarks dated 01/29/2026. states explicitly that the claim reflects the improvement in the tech. Examiner would like to note that M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(a) as cited by Applicant states that “the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology.... That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.” Although the claim does not need to explicitly recite the improvement, the improvement must still be reflected within the claim limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Based on Examiner’s current understanding of the claims, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they reflect the improvements as Applicant claims.
Applicant's arguments, filed 01/29/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Additionally, since the amendments to independent claim 1 changes the scope of claims 1-7 and do not merely incorporate limitations from previous dependent claims, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of previously applied references as explained in further detail below.
Applicant contends that “Shamir and Kirson fail to disclose or suggest ‘wherein the tumor treating fields are focused on the single lung of the subject instead of both lungs of the subject,’” and that “Kirson does not disclose that the locations of the four transducers 51, 52, 53, and 54 in FIGS. 5A and 5B can produce tumor treating fields that are focused on a single lung of the subject instead of both lungs of the subject. Instead, Kirson is directed to the exact opposite of the claimed features and is focused on applying a uniform field to both lungs. In particular, Kirson states that the transducer locations of Kirson ‘can provide a more uniform high field intensity throughout the lungs.’ Kirson, paragraph [0062]” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s argument that neither Shamir nor Kirson disclose or suggest that the tumor treating fields are focused on the single lung of the subject instead of both lungs of the subject, where Kirson is directed to applying a uniform field to both lungs, Examiner takes the position that Kirson teaches treatment of a single lung instead of both lungs. The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (setting forth test for implicit teachings); In re Eli Lilly & Co., 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (discussion of reliance on legal precedent); In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings); Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (examiner must present convincing line of reasoning supporting rejection); and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (reliance on logic and sound scientific reasoning). In this case, Kirson teaches that “when treating lung tumors using only conventional latitudinal arrays, the arrays on the sides of the subject have to be positioned below the armpits. As a result, the field intensity in the upper lobes of the lungs is relatively low.” (Kirson ¶[0062]). Examiner takes the position that it is obvious to treat a single lung since the device treats lung tumors, where said tumors may only be present in one lung, implying that a single lung is treated when the tumors are only present in the single lung. Although Applicant contends that Kirson teaches the opposite of the claimed features since Kirson can provide a more uniform high field intensity throughout the lungs, Examiner would like to note that this statement does not exclude treatment to a tumor within a single lung, and it would be logical to conclude treatment to a single lung when a single tumor is present in said single lung.
Applicant's arguments, filed 01/29/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 3-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In this case, Applicant contends that “Further, as per claim 3, Shamir and Kirson fail to disclose or suggest ‘wherein the third location is on the front of the thorax of the subject's body without being under an armpit of the subject … position 52 in FIG. 5A of Kirson is not ‘without being under an armpit of the subject,’ … Further, as per claim 4, Shamir and Kirson fail to disclose or suggest ‘wherein the third location is on the back of the thorax of the subject's body without being under an armpit of the subject … position 52 in FIG. 5A of Kirson is not ‘without being under an armpit of the subject,’” such that the arguments are moot in light of the new scope of the claims.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Eligibility Step 1 – The Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 fall within one of the four categories of statutory subject matter, where claims 1-7 are drawn to “a method” (i.e., a process), and thus fall within one of the four statutory categories.
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong One
Claims 1-7 recite an abstract idea:
Regarding independent claim 1, the limitation of “A computer-implemented method to determine locations of transducers to apply tumor treating fields to a target tissue of a subject's body, the computer- implemented method performed by a computer comprising one or more processors and memory accessible by the one or more processors, the memory storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer to perform the computer-implemented method” in independent claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
This claim language is identified as an abstract idea, because in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) III B. this language is similar to concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information in a way that can be performed mentally or are analogous to human mental work, and because they involve mathematical concepts. For example, Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Synopsys, the patentee claimed methods of logic circuit design, comprising converting a functional description of a level sensitive latch into a hardware component description of the latch. 839 F.3d at 1140; 120 USPQ2d at 1475. Although the patentee argued that the claims were intended to be used in conjunction with computer-based design tools, the claims did not include any limitations requiring computer implementation of the methods and thus do not involve the use of a computer in any way. 839 F.3d at 1145; 120 USPQ2d at 1478-79. The court therefore concluded that the claims “read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper,” and were directed to a mental process of “translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit.” 839 F.3d at 1149-50; 120 USPQ2d at 1482-83.
In the instant case, the identified abstract idea is similar to Synopsys because the language reads on a human performing the claimed observation and analysis of where to place transducers on a patient. The claims do not require the use of a computer beyond the recitation of a general-purpose computer and processor to gather information about a subject, therefore they are not self-evidently patent eligible. They appear to be directed to an abstract idea of gathering data for analysis and utilizing that data to mathematically calculate simulated electric fields. For instance, a medical professional could observe a patient to determine where to place transducers in relation to a patient’s lung. A patient’s anatomy could be determined through visual observation or by scanning the subject with means such as an X-ray or MRI, then the medical professional could utilize their judgment to determine where to place transducers on a patient relative to a lung.
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong Two
Claims 1-7 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
Regarding independent claim 1, the limitations of “obtaining, by the computer, a three-dimensional model of at least a portion of the subject's body,” “determining, by the computer, a first location on the three-dimensional model to place a first transducer,” “determining, by the computer, a second location on the three-dimensional model to place a second transducer,” “determining, by the computer, a third location on the three-dimensional model to place a third transducer,” “determining, by the computer, a fourth location on the three-dimensional model to place a fourth transducer,” “simulating, by the computer, administering tumor treating fields to the subject's body using the three-dimensional model of the subject, the first transducer at the first location, the second transducer at the second location, the third transducer at the third location, and the fourth transducer at the fourth location,” “determining, by the computer, a tumor treating fields dosage administered to the target tissue in the subject's body based on the simulated administration of tumor treating fields to the subject's body,” “determining, by the computer, to recommend the first, second, third, and fourth locations for administering tumor treating fields based on the determined tumor treating fields dosage,” and “outputting, by the computer, a representation of the first, second, third, and fourth locations on the subject's body” generally link the use of the mental process to a particular field and merely use a computer as a tool to perform the mental process.
Regarding dependent claim 5, the limitations of “a first alternating electric field is simulated as being generated by the first transducer at the first location and the second transducer at the second location” and “a second alternating electric field is simulated as being generated by the third transducer at the third location and the fourth transducer at the fourth location” are merely insignificant, extra-solution activity used for data gathering and that generally links the use of the mental process to a particular field of use or device.
Regarding dependent claim 7, the limitations of “the first and second transducers have a same number of electrode elements and have a same shape,” “the third and fourth transducers have a same number of electrode elements and have a same shape,” and “the first and second transducers have at least one of: a different number of electrode elements than the third and fourth transducers, or a different shape than the third and fourth transducers” generally links the use of the mental process to a particular field and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the mental process.
Eligibility Step 2B
Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas recited therein:
Regarding independent claim 1, the limitations of “a computer comprising one or more processors and memory accessible by the one or more processors,” “obtaining a three-dimensional model of at least a portion of the subject's body,” “determining a first location on the three-dimensional model to place a first transducer,” “determining a second location on the three-dimensional model to place a second transducer,” “determining a third location on the three-dimensional model to place a third transducer,” “determining a fourth location on the three-dimensional model to place a fourth transducer,” and “outputting a representation of the first, second, third, and fourth locations on the subject's body” generally link the use of the mental process to a particular field and merely use a computer as a tool to perform the mental process.
Regarding dependent claims 2-7, the limitations of these claims further define the limitations already indicated as being directed to the abstract idea as recited in claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 6 further define the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 5 and 7 further define the data gathering and abstract idea.
Therefore, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and the claimed subject matter appears to be ineligible under §101.
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.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shamir et al. (hereinafter “Shamir”) (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0299439 A1, IDS reference 2 from IDS dated 01/04/2024) in view of Kirson et al. (hereinafter “Kirson”) (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0001078 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shamir teaches a computer-implemented method to determine locations of transducers to apply tumor treating fields to a target tissue of a subject's body (Abstract, where “A method of assisting transducer placements on a subject's body for applying tumor treating fields includes: determining, based on one or more images associated with a portion of a subject's body, a first image data, wherein the first image data comprises one or more recommended transducer placement positions; determining, based on the one or more images, a second image data, wherein the second image data comprises one or more transducer placement positions,” ¶[0042], where “the methods and systems may take the form of an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment, or an embodiment combining software and hardware aspects. Furthermore, the methods and systems may take the form of a computer program product on a computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program instructions”), the computer- implemented method performed by a computer (¶[0042], where “the methods and systems may take the form of an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment, or an embodiment combining software and hardware aspects. Furthermore, the methods and systems may take the form of a computer program product on a computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program instructions”) comprising one or more processors and memory accessible by the one or more processors (¶[0006], where “The apparatus comprises: one or more processors; and a memory storing processor executable instructions”), the memory storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer to perform the computer-implemented method (¶[0006], where “The apparatus comprises: one or more processors; and a memory storing processor executable instructions,” ¶[0042], where “the methods and systems may take the form of an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment, or an embodiment combining software and hardware aspects. Furthermore, the methods and systems may take the form of a computer program product on a computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program instructions”), the computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining, by the computer, a three-dimensional model of at least a torso of the subject's body (¶[0005], where “The method comprises: generating, based on a first image data, a three-dimensional (3D) model of a portion of the subject's body, wherein the 3D model comprising a presentation of one or more recommended transducer placement positions; receiving a second image data of the portion of the subject's body, determining, based on the second image data, a representation of the one or more placement positions for one or more transducers in a three-dimensional (3D) space,” ¶[0049], where “Optimized transducer array placement positions may be determined and recommended to a patient/subject, for example, when the patient/subject is attempting to place one or more transducer arrays at/on any portion of the body (e.g., head, torso, etc.) of the patient/subject”), wherein the torso of the subject's body includes the target tissue (¶[0049], where “Optimized transducer array placement positions may be determined and recommended to a patient/subject, for example, when the patient/subject is attempting to place one or more transducer arrays at/on any portion of the body (e.g., head, torso, etc.) of the patient/subject. For example, a transducer array placement guidance/assistance tool may be used to compare, in real-time, image data (e.g., one or more images, video, a representation/avatar, etc.) of a portion of the body (e.g., head, torso, etc.) of a patient/subject that depicts the placement of one or more transducer arrays on the surface (skin) of the patient/subject, to a transducer array layout map that includes optimized and/or recommended areas for placement of one or more transducer arrays on the surface (skin) of the patient/subject”),
determining, by the computer, locations on the three-dimensional model to place transducers (¶[0083], where “The patient model may be modified, for example, based on the final transducer array layout map, to include an indication of the desired transducer array position. The resulting patient model, comprising the indication(s) of the desired transducer array position(s), may be referred to as the three-dimensional array layout map (e.g., three-dimensional array layout map 800). The three-dimensional array layout map may thus comprise a digital representation, in three-dimensional space, of the portion of the patient's body, an indication of tumor location, an indication of a position for placement of one or more transducer arrays”), where transducer locations include the front and back of the subject’s thorax (Figure 5A, where transducer arrays 104 are placed on the front and back of the chest, which is equivalent to the thorax) and the subject’s torso (Figure 5B, where transducer arrays 104 are placed on the torso, which includes the pelvic region),
simulating, by the computer, administering tumor treating fields to the subject's body using the three-dimensional model of the subject (¶[0005], where “The method comprises: generating, based on a first image data, a three-dimensional (3D) model of a portion of the subject's body, wherein the 3D model comprising a presentation of one or more recommended transducer placement positions”), the first transducer at the first location, the second transducer at the second location, the third transducer at the third location, and the fourth transducer at the fourth location (¶[0082], where “a first electrical field generated by a first transducer array may be simulated at a first position, a second electrical field generated by a second transducer array may be simulated at a second position opposite the first position, and, based on the first electrical field and the second electrical field, the simulated electrical field distribution may be determined. In some instances, a third electrical field generated by the first transducer array may be simulated at a third position, and a fourth electrical field generated by the second transducer array may be simulated at a fourth position opposite the third position, and, based on the third electrical field and the fourth electrical field, the simulated electrical field distribution may be determined”);
determining, by the computer, a tumor treating fields dosage administered to the target tissue in the subject's body based on the simulated administration of tumor treating fields to the subject's body (¶[0082], where “The method may include determining, for each pair of positions of the plurality of pairs positions on the modified plane, a simulated electrical field distribution, and determining, based on the simulated electrical field distributions, a dose metric for each pair of positions of the plurality of pairs positions”);
determining, by the computer, to recommend the first, second, third, and fourth locations for administering tumor treating fields based on the determined tumor treating fields dosage (¶[0082], where “Based on the dose metrics and the one or more sets of pairs of positions that satisfy the angular restriction, one or more candidate transducer array layout maps. A simulated orientation or a simulated position for at least one transducer array at least one position of the one or more candidate transducer array layout maps me be adjusted. Based on adjusting the simulated orientation or the simulated position for the at least one transducer array, a final transducer array layout map may be determined.”); and
outputting, by the computer, a representation of the transducer locations on the subject's body as recommended locations for administering tumor treating fields (¶[0049], where “Optimized transducer array placement positions may be determined and recommended to a patient/subject … For example, a transducer array placement guidance/assistance tool may be used to compare, in real-time, image data (e.g., one or more images, video, a representation/avatar, etc.) of a portion of the body (e.g., head, torso, etc.) of a patient/subject that depicts the placement of one or more transducer arrays on the surface (skin) of the patient/subject, to a transducer array layout map that includes optimized and/or recommended areas for placement of one or more transducer arrays on the surface (skin) of the patient/subject”).
Although Shamir teaches that the target tissue includes a torso of a patient, Shamir does not explicitly teach that a single lung and not both lungs of the subject's body includes the target tissue. Furthermore, although Shamir teaches determining locations on the three-dimensional model to place one or more transducers, where one or more transducers teaches multiple transducers, that the transducer locations include the front and back of the subject’s thorax and the subject’s torso, and outputting a representation of the transducer locations on the subject's body, Shamir does not explicitly teach a first location with a first transducer, wherein the first location is a front of a thorax of the subject's body, a second location with a second transducer, wherein the second location is a back of the thorax of the subject's body, wherein the single lung of the subject is located between the first transducer and the second transducer, a third location with a third transducer, wherein the third location is on a torso of the subject's body, a fourth location with a fourth transducer, wherein the fourth location is on the torso of the subject's body, nor that the tumor treating fields are focused on the single lung of the subject instead of both lungs of the subject.
Kirson teaches a first method of treating a target region in a subject's body with TTFields, the target region being located in a portion of the subject's body that has a longitudinal axis (Abstract), and further teaches that a single lung and not both lungs of the subject's body includes the target tissue (¶[0062], where “Depending on the anatomic location at which they are used, longitudinal arrays may provide one or more of the following advantages. First, longitudinal arrays may enable coverage of certain target regions with higher field intensities than latitudinal arrays. For instance, when treating lung tumors using only conventional latitudinal arrays, the arrays on the sides of the subject have to be positioned below the armpits. As a result, the field intensity in the upper lobes of the lungs is relatively low.” Examiner takes the position that since the device treats lung tumors, where tumors may only be present in one lung, that a single lung, and not both lungs, are implied to be treated.),
a first location with a first transducer, wherein the first location is a front of a thorax of the subject's body (¶[0074], which teaches “a third electrode array placed at a position 41 on the subject's chest”),
a second location with a second transducer, wherein the second location is a back of the thorax of the subject's body (¶[0074], which teaches “a fourth electrode array placed at a position 42 on the subject's back”), wherein the single lung of the subject is located between the first transducer and the second transducer (¶[0074], where “a third electrode array placed at a position 41 on the subject's chest, and a fourth electrode array placed at a position 42 on the subject's back, in order to generate a first latitudinal field with field lines that run from front to back.” Examiner takes the position that since the lungs are between the chest and back of a subject, that a single lung will be located between the first and second transducers.),
a third location with a third transducer, wherein the third location is on a torso of the subject's body (¶[0074], where “a sixth electrode array placed at position 52 on the left side of the subject body”),
a fourth location with a fourth transducer, wherein the fourth location is on the torso of the subject's body (¶[0074], where “a third latitudinal array is provided with a fifth electrode array placed at position 51 on the right side of the subject's body”), and
wherein the tumor treating fields are focused on the single lung of the subject instead of both lungs of the subject (¶[0062], where “Depending on the anatomic location at which they are used, longitudinal arrays may provide one or more of the following advantages. First, longitudinal arrays may enable coverage of certain target regions with higher field intensities than latitudinal arrays. For instance, when treating lung tumors using only conventional latitudinal arrays, the arrays on the sides of the subject have to be positioned below the armpits. As a result, the field intensity in the upper lobes of the lungs is relatively low.” Examiner takes the position that since the device treats lung tumors, where tumors may only be present in one lung, that a single lung, and not both lungs, are implied to be treated by the tumor treating fields.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Kirson, which teaches that a single lung and not both lungs of the subject's body includes the target tissue, a first location with a first transducer, wherein the first location is a front of a thorax of the subject's body, a second location with a second transducer, wherein the second location is a back of the thorax of the subject's body, wherein the single lung of the subject is located between the first transducer and the second transducer, a third location with a third transducer, wherein the third location is on a torso of the subject's body, and a fourth location with a fourth transducer, wherein the fourth location is on the torso of the subject's body, and wherein the tumor treating fields are focused on the single lung of the subject instead of both lungs of the subject, with the invention of Shamir since longitudinal arrays may enable coverage of certain target regions with higher field intensities than latitudinal arrays (Kirson ¶[0062]), in order to generate a first latitudinal field with field lines that run from front to back, and in order to generate a second latitudinal field with field lines that run from side to side (Kirson ¶[0074]).
Regarding claim 2, Shamir in combination with Kirson teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kirson teaches that the third location is under a left armpit of the subject (Figure 5A, position 52, ¶[0074], where “a sixth electrode array placed at position 52 on the left side of the subject body”) and the fourth location is under a right armpit of the subject (Figure 5A, position 51, ¶[0074], where “a third latitudinal array is provided with a fifth electrode array placed at position 51 on the right side of the subject's body”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Kirson, which teaches that the third location is under a left armpit of the subject and the fourth location is under a right armpit of the subject, with the invention of Shamir in order to generate a second latitudinal field with field lines that run from side to side (Kirson ¶[0074]).
Regarding claim 3, Shamir in combination with Kirson teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kirson teaches that the third location is on the front of the thorax of the subject's body without being under an armpit of the subject (Figure 5C, position 57, where the electrode array is positioned on the front of the subject’s thorax without being under an armpit, ¶[0075], where “FIG. 5C/D embodiment is similar to the FIG. 5A/B embodiment, except that the third and fourth electrode arrays are placed at positions 55 and 56 on the subject's front and back, respectively; and the fifth and sixth electrode arrays are placed at positions 57 and 58 on the subject's front and back, respectively,” ¶[0076], where “in addition to the two embodiments described above in connection with FIGS. 5A-5D, a wide variety of alternative configurations that combine a pair of longitudinally positioned arrays with two pairs of latitudinally positioned arrays can be readily envisioned for use at a wide range of anatomic locations, as will be apparent to persons skilled in the relevant arts.” Examiner interprets that since a wide variety of alternative configurations that combine a pair of longitudinally positioned arrays with two pairs of latitudinally positioned arrays can be readily envisioned for use at a wide range of anatomic locations, as will be apparent to persons skilled in the relevant arts, such that either of the placements of figures 5A-5D may be used, that the electrode array is placeable in Applicant’s claimed position of being on a front thorax but not under an armpit.), and the fourth location is under the armpit of the subject (Figure 5A, position 51), wherein the third location is not overlapping with the first location (Figure 4A, position 41, which is the first location, Figure 5C, position 57, which is the third location that may be positioned on the front thorax but not under an armpit. Examiner interprets that the locations are not overlapping since they are in different locations.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Kirson, which teaches that the third location is on the front of the thorax of the subject's body without being under an armpit of the subject and the fourth location is under an armpit of the subject, wherein the third location is not overlapping with the first location, with the invention of Shamir in order to generate a second latitudinal field (Kirson ¶[0074]).
Regarding claim 4, Shamir in combination with Kirson teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kirson teaches that the third location is on the back of the thorax of the subject's body without being under an armpit of the subject (Figure 5D, position 58, where the electrode array is positioned on the back of the subject’s thorax without being under an armpit, ¶[0075], where “FIG. 5C/D embodiment is similar to the FIG. 5A/B embodiment, except that the third and fourth electrode arrays are placed at positions 55 and 56 on the subject's front and back, respectively; and the fifth and sixth electrode arrays are placed at positions 57 and 58 on the subject's front and back, respectively,” ¶[0076], where “in addition to the two embodiments described above in connection with FIGS. 5A-5D, a wide variety of alternative configurations that combine a pair of longitudinally positioned arrays with two pairs of latitudinally positioned arrays can be readily envisioned for use at a wide range of anatomic locations, as will be apparent to persons skilled in the relevant arts.” Examiner interprets that since a wide variety of alternative configurations that combine a pair of longitudinally positioned arrays with two pairs of latitudinally positioned arrays can be readily envisioned for use at a wide range of anatomic locations, as will be apparent to persons skilled in the relevant arts, such that either of the placements of figures 5A-5D may be used, that the electrode array is placeable in Applicant’s claimed position of being on a front thorax but not under an armpit.), and the fourth location is under the armpit of the subject (Figure 5A, position 51), wherein the third location is not overlapping with the second location (Figure 4B, position 42, which is the second location, Figure 5D, position 58, which is the third location that may be positioned on the back thorax but not under an armpit. Examiner interprets that the locations are not overlapping since they are in different locations.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Kirson, which teaches that the third location is on the back of the thorax of the subject's body without being under an armpit of the subject and the fourth location is under the armpit of the subject, wherein the third location is not overlapping with the second location, with the invention of Shamir in order to generate a second latitudinal field (Kirson ¶[0074]).
Regarding claim 5, Shamir in combination with Kirson teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Shamir teaches that a first alternating electric field is simulated as being generated by the first transducer at the first location and the second transducer at the second location (¶[0002], where “Tumor Treating Fields, or TTFields, are low intensity (e.g., 1-3 V/cm) alternating electrical fields within the intermediate frequency range (100-300 kHz),” ¶[0082], where “a first electrical field generated by a first transducer array may be simulated at a first position, a second electrical field generated by a second transducer array may be simulated at a second position opposite the first position, and, based on the first electrical field and the second electrical field, the simulated electrical field distribution may be determined”),
wherein a second alternating electric field is simulated as being generated by the transducer at the third location and the transducer at the fourth location (¶[0082], where “In some instances, a third electrical field generated by the first transducer array may be simulated at a third position, and a fourth electrical field generated by the second transducer array may be simulated at a fourth position opposite the third position, and, based on the third electrical field and the fourth electrical field, the simulated electrical field distribution may be determined”),
wherein for the simulated first alternating electric field and the simulated second alternating electric field, the tumor tissue has a higher average electric field intensity (¶[0082], where “An average electrical field strength generated by transducer arrays placed at multiple locations on the patient may be determined by the patient modeling application 608 for one or more tissue types. In an aspect, the transducer array position that corresponds to the highest average electrical field strength in the tumor tissue type(s) may be selected as a desired (e.g., optimal) transducer array position for the patient”).
Although Shamir teaches simulation of a third electrical field generated at a third position and a fourth electrical field generated at a fourth position opposite the third position, and, based on the third electrical field and the fourth electrical field, determination of the simulated electrical field distribution (¶[0082]) and delivery of a maximal electrical field intensity to the tumor site (¶[0068], where “combinations of paired array layouts may be assessed in order to generate the configuration which delivers maximal electrical field intensity to the tumor site”), where the simulated transducer array position corresponds to the highest average electrical field strength in the tumor tissue type (¶[0082]), Shamir does not teach the third transducer at the third location and the fourth transducer at the fourth location, nor that the single lung has a higher average electric field intensity than another lung.
Kirson teaches that the design of the array layout could be performed with the assistance of finite element simulations, which could be used to calculate the expected field distribution that any specific design of longitudinal arrays will yield, since such designs may be optimized to deliver a maximal field intensity to a target region (¶[0094]), and further teaches the third transducer at the third location (¶[0074], where “a sixth electrode array placed at position 52 on the left side of the subject body”) and the fourth transducer at the fourth location (¶[0074], where “a third latitudinal array is provided with a fifth electrode array placed at position 51 on the right side of the subject's body”) and that the single lung has a higher average electric field intensity than another lung (¶[0062], where “Depending on the anatomic location at which they are used, longitudinal arrays may provide one or more of the following advantages. First, longitudinal arrays may enable coverage of certain target regions with higher field intensities than latitudinal arrays ... longitudinal arrays positioned around the waist and around the neck (as depicted in FIG. 3A) can provide a more uniform high field intensity throughout the lungs (as described below in connection with FIGS. 8 and 9A-9B),” ¶[0094], where “the design of the array layout could be performed with the assistance of finite element simulations … Such designs may be optimized to deliver a maximal field intensity to a target region.” Examiner takes the position that since the transducers can be placed such that they apply to a single lung, and since a high field intensity is applied to the target region, that the single lung being treated will have a higher field intensity than the untreated lung.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Kirson, which teaches the third transducer at the third location and the fourth transducer at the fourth location and that the single lung has a higher average electric field intensity than another lung, wherein the third location is not overlapping with the second location, with the invention of Shamir in order to target solid tumors by disrupting mitosis (Kirson ¶[0002]).
Regarding claim 6, Shamir in combination with Kirson teaches all limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Shamir teaches that the single lung has a simulated average electric field intensity of at least 1.0 V/cm (¶[0002], where “Tumor Treating Fields, or TTFields, are low intensity (e.g., 1-3 V/cm) alternating electrical fields within the intermediate frequency range (100-300 kHz). This non-invasive treatment targets solid tumors,” ¶[0052], where “voltages are such that the electrical field intensity in tissue to be treated is in the range of about 0.1 V/cm to about 10 V/cm”), and wherein the other lung has a simulated average electric field intensity of less than 1.0 V/cm (¶[0052], where “voltages are such that the electrical field intensity in tissue to be treated is in the range of about 0.1 V/cm to about 10 V/cm”).
Regarding claim 7, Shamir in combination with Kirson teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Shamir teaches that the transducers are uniformly shaped (¶[0050], where “the one or more transducer arrays 104 are uniformly shaped”) and that the number of electrodes varies based on the size of the transducer array, where transducers with the same shape will have the same number of electrode elements (¶[0059], where “The one or more transducer arrays 104 may vary in size and may comprise varying numbers of electrodes 116, based on patient body sizes and/or different therapeutic treatments. For example, in the context of the chest of a patient, small transducer arrays may comprise 13 electrodes each, and large transducer arrays may comprise 20 electrodes each.” Examiner takes the position that if the transducers are the same shape, which also means they are the same size, that the transducers will have the same number of electrode elements.).
Although Shamir teaches that the transducers are uniformly shaped and that the number of electrodes varies based on the size of the transducer array, where transducers with the same shape will have the same number of electrode elements, Shamir does not explicitly teach a first, second, third, and forth transducer, where the first and second transducers have a same number of electrode elements and have a same shape, where the third and fourth transducers have a same number of electrode elements and have a same shape, and where the first and second transducers have at least one of: a different number of electrode elements than the third and fourth transducers, or a different shape than the third and fourth transducers.
As described in the rejection of claim 1 above, Kirson teaches a first, second, third, and fourth transducer (See ¶[0074], where positions 41, 42, 52, and 51 correlate to a first, second, third, and fourth transducer, respectively). Kirson further teaches that the first and second transducers have a same number of electrode elements and have a same shape (Figure 4A, position 41, Figure 4B, position 42, where transducers in positions 41 and 42 are the same shape and size. Examiner takes the position that since the transducers are the same size, that they have the same number of electrode elements since Shamir teaches transducers of the same size having the same number of electrode elements.),
that the third and fourth transducers have a same number of electrode elements and have a same shape (Figure 5A, position 52, position 51, where transducers in positions 52 and 51 are the same shape and size. Examiner takes the position that since the transducers are the same size, that they have the same number of electrode elements since Shamir teaches transducers of the same size having the same number of electrode elements.),
and that the first and second transducers have at least one of: a different number of electrode elements than the third and fourth transducers, or a different shape than the third and fourth transducers (Figure 4A, position 41, Figure 4B, position 42, Figure 5A, position 52, position 51, where positions 41 and 42 have a different shape and size from positions 52 and 51. Furthermore, Examiner takes the position that since the transducers pairs are a different shape and size, that they have a different number of electrode elements since Shamir teaches transducers of different sizes having a different number of electrode elements.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Kirson, which teaches that the first and second transducers have a same number of electrode elements and have a same shape, that the third and fourth transducers have a same number of electrode elements and have a same shape, and that the first and second transducers have at least one of: a different number of electrode elements than the third and fourth transducers, or a different shape than the third and fourth transducers, with the invention of Shamir in order to have a proper number of electrodes for a chosen area based on a patient body shape or size.
Regarding claim 8, see the rejection of claim 1 above. However, claim 8 adds a system to apply tumor treating fields to a subject's body, a voltage generator adapted to provide a first voltage to the first transducer, a second voltage to the second transducer, a third voltage to the third transducer, and a fourth voltage to the fourth transducer, a controller coupled to the voltage generator, wherein the controller is adapted to instruct the voltage generator to induce a first alternating electric field between at least part of the first transducer and at least part of the second transducer and a second alternating electric field between at least part of the third transducer and at least part of the fourth transducer.
Shamir teaches a system to apply tumor treating fields to a subject's body (See Title), the system comprising:
a voltage generator adapted to provide voltages to each transducer (¶[0050], where “The apparatus 100 may comprise an electrical field generator 102 and one or more transducer arrays 104. The apparatus 100 may be configured to generate tumor treatment fields (TTFields) (e.g., at 150 kHz) via the electrical field generator 102 and deliver the TTFields to an area of the body through the one or more transducer arrays 104,” where Examiner takes the position that since the electrical field generator delivers fields through one or more transducer arrays that this correlates to an electrical field being delivered through each array, ¶[0051], where “The electrical field generator 102 may comprise a processor 106 in communication with a signal generator 108,” ¶[0052], where “The signal generator 108 may be configured to generate an alternating voltage waveform at frequencies in the range from about 50 KHz to about 500 KHz (preferably from about 100 KHz to about 300 KHz) (e.g., the TTFields)”);
and a controller coupled to the voltage generator (¶[0051], where “The electrical field generator 102 may comprise a processor 106 in communication with a signal generator 108. The electrical field generator 102 may comprise control software 110 configured for controlling the performance of the processor 106 and the signal generator 108,” ¶[0053], where “After determining a desired (e.g., optimal) treatment frequency, the control software 110 may cause the processor 106 to send a control signal the signal generator 108 that causes the signal generator 108 to output the desired treatment frequency to the one or more transducer arrays 104”), wherein the controller is adapted to instruct the voltage generator to induce alternating electric fields between transducer pairs (¶[0047], where “one pair of the three transducer arrays may deliver alternating electrical fields and then another pair of the three transducer arrays may deliver the alternating electrical fields,” ¶[0053], where “Output parameters of the signal generator 108 may comprise, for example, an intensity of the field, a frequency of the waves (e.g., treatment frequency), … output parameters may be set and/or determined by the control software 110 in conjunction with the processor 106. After determining a desired (e.g., optimal) treatment frequency, the control software 110 may cause the processor 106 to send a control signal the signal generator 108 that causes the signal generator 108 to output the desired treatment frequency to the one or more transducer arrays 104”).
Although Shamir teaches a voltage generator adapted to provide voltages to each transducer and that the controller is adapted to instruct the voltage generator to induce alternating electric fields between transducer pairs, Shamir does not teach a first transducer, a second transducer, a third transducer, nor a fourth transducer, nor inducing a first alternating electric field between at least part of the first transducer and at least part of the second transducer and a second alternating electric field between at least part of the third transducer and at least part of the fourth transducer.
Kirson teaches a first transducer, a second transducer, a third transducer, and a fourth transducer (See the rejection of claim 1 and ¶[0074], where positions 41, 42, 52, and 51 correlate to a first, second, third, and fourth transducer, respectively), inducing a first alternating electric field between at least part of the first transducer and at least part of the second transducer (¶[0073], where “(b) an AC voltage is applied between the third and fourth set of electrodes that are arranged latitudinally in order to impose a first latitudinal field in the target region”) and a second alternating electric field between at least part of the third transducer and at least part of the fourth transducer (¶[0073], where “(c) an AC voltage is applied between the fifth and sixth set of electrodes that are arranged latitudinally in order to impose a second latitudinal field in the target region”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Kirson, which teaches inducing a first alternating electric field between at least part of the first transducer and at least part of the second transducer and a second alternating electric field between at least part of the third transducer and at least part of the fourth transducer, with the invention of Shamir in order to impose first and second latitudinal fields in the target region (Kirson ¶[0073]).
Regarding claim 9, Shamir in combination with Kirson teaches all limitations of claim 8 as described in the rejection above. Furthermore, regarding claim 9, see the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 10, Shamir in combination with Kirson teaches all limitations of claim 8 as described in the rejection above. Furthermore, regarding claim 10, see the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 11, Shamir in combination with Kirson teaches all limitations of claim 8 as described in the rejection above. Furthermore, regarding claim 11, see the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 12, Shamir in combination with Kirson teaches all limitations of claim 8 as described in the rejection above.
Shamir teaches that when the first and second alternating electric fields are induced, the tumor tissue has a higher average electric field intensity (¶[0082], where “An average electrical field strength generated by transducer arrays placed at multiple locations on the patient may be determined by the patient modeling application 608 for one or more tissue types. In an aspect, the transducer array position that corresponds to the highest average electrical field strength in the tumor tissue type(s) may be selected as a desired (e.g., optimal) transducer array position for the patient”).
Although Shamir teaches delivery of a maximal electrical field intensity to the tumor site (¶[0068], where “combinations of paired array layouts may be assessed in order to generate the configuration which delivers maximal electrical field intensity to the tumor site”), where the simulated transducer array position corresponds to the highest average electrical field strength in the tumor tissue type (¶[0082]), Shamir does not teach that the single lung has a higher average electric field intensity than another lung.
Kirson teaches that the design of the array layout could be performed with the assistance of finite element simulations, which could be used to calculate the expected field distribution that any specific design of longitudinal arrays will yield, since such designs may be optimized to deliver a maximal field intensity to a target region (¶[0094]), and further teaches that the single lung has a higher average electric field intensity than another lung (¶[0062], where “Depending on the anatomic location at which they are used, longitudinal arrays may provide one or more of the following advantages. First, longitudinal arrays may enable coverage of certain target regions with higher field intensities than latitudinal arrays ... longitudinal arrays positioned around the waist and around the neck (as depicted in FIG. 3A) can provide a more uniform high field intensity throughout the lungs (as described below in connection with FIGS. 8 and 9A-9B),” ¶[0094], where “the design of the array layout could be performed with the assistance of finite element simulations … Such designs may be optimized to deliver a maximal field intensity to a target region.” Examiner takes the position that since the transducers can be placed such that they apply to a single lung, and since a high field intensity is applied to the target region, that the single lung being treated will have a higher field intensity than the untreated lung.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Kirson, which teaches that the single lung has a higher average electric field intensity than another lung, with the invention of Shamir in order to target solid tumors by disrupting mitosis (Kirson ¶[0002]).
Regarding claim 13, Shamir in combination with Kirson teaches all limitations of claim 8 as described in the rejection above.
Shamir teaches that the at least one electrode element of the first, the second, the third, or the fourth transducer comprises at least one ceramic disk that is adapted to generate an alternating electric field (¶[0047], where “one pair of the three transducer arrays may deliver alternating electrical fields and then another pair of the three transducer arrays may deliver the alternating electrical fields, and the remaining pair of the three transducer arrays may deliver the alternating electrical fields,” such that the transducer arrays deliver an alternating electric field, ¶[0055], where “The one or more transducer arrays 104 arrays may comprise one or more electrodes 116. The one or more electrodes 116 may be made from any material with a high dielectric constant. The one or more electrodes 116 may comprise, for example, one or more insulated ceramic discs.” Examiner takes the position that the ceramic disk that is adapted to generate an alternating electric field since the ceramic disk is a component of the transducer array that delivers the alternating electrical field.).
Regarding claim 14, Shamir in combination with Kirson teaches all limitations of claim 8 as described in the rejection above.
Shamir teaches that the at least one electrode element of the first, the second, the third, or the fourth transducer comprises a polymer film that is adapted to generate an alternating field (¶[0047], where “one pair of the three transducer arrays may deliver alternating electrical fields and then another pair of the three transducer arrays may deliver the alternating electrical fields, and the remaining pair of the three transducer arrays may deliver the alternating electrical fields,” such that the transducer arrays deliver an alternating electric field, ¶[0055], where “The one or more transducer arrays 104 arrays may comprise one or more electrodes 116 … electrodes 116 may be configured so as to not come into direct contact with the skin as the electrodes 116 are separated from the skin by a layer of conductive hydrogel.” Examiner interprets that a layer of conductive hydrogel is a polymer film. Furthermore, Examiner takes the position that the polymer film that is adapted to generate an alternating electric field since the polymer film is a component of the transducer array that delivers the alternating electrical field.).
Regarding claim 15, see the rejection of claims 1 and 8 above. However, claim 15 adds a method of applying tumor treating fields to a subject's body.
Shamir teaches a method of applying tumor treating fields to a subject's body (Abstract, which teaches “A method of assisting transducer placements on a subject's body for applying tumor treating fields”).
Regarding claims 16-20, the claims are directed to a method comprising substantially the same subject matter of claims 2-6, respectively, and are rejected under substantially the same sections of Shamir in combination with Kirson.
Regarding claim 21, Shamir in combination with Kirson teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Shamir teaches that the recommended locations for administering tumor treating fields are used to locate four transducers on the subject and administer tumor treating fields to the subject (¶[0049], where “The transducer array placement guidance/assistance tool may be used to guide/instruct the patient/subject on where/how to place and/or move transducer arrays for optimal TTFields treatment,” ¶[0082], where “a first electrical field generated by a first transducer array may be simulated at a first position, a second electrical field generated by a second transducer array may be simulated at a second position opposite the first position, and, based on the first electrical field and the second electrical field, the simulated electrical field distribution may be determined. In some instances, a third electrical field generated by the first transducer array may be simulated at a third position, and a fourth electrical field generated by the second transducer array may be simulated at a fourth position opposite the third position, and, based on the third electrical field and the fourth electrical field, the simulated electrical field distribution may be determined … Based on adjusting the simulated orientation or the simulated position for the at least one transducer array, a final transducer array layout map may be determined,” ¶[0083], where “The resulting patient model, comprising the indication(s) of the desired transducer array position(s), may be referred to as the three-dimensional array layout map (e.g., three-dimensional array layout map 800). The three-dimensional array layout map may thus comprise a digital representation, in three-dimensional space, of the portion of the patient's body, an indication of tumor location, an indication of a position for placement of one or more transducer arrays, combinations thereof, and the like”).
Regarding claim 22, Shamir in combination with Kirson teaches all limitations of claim 21 as described in the rejection above.
Kirson teaches that the single lung of the subject receives a higher average electric field intensity of tumor treating fields than the other lung of the subject (¶[0062], where “Depending on the anatomic location at which they are used, longitudinal arrays may provide one or more of the following advantages. First, longitudinal arrays may enable coverage of certain target regions with higher field intensities than latitudinal arrays. For instance, when treating lung tumors using only conventional latitudinal arrays, the arrays on the sides of the subject have to be positioned below the armpits. As a result, the field intensity in the upper lobes of the lungs is relatively low.” Examiner takes the position that since the device treats lung tumors, where tumors may only be present in one lung, that a single lung, and not both lungs, are implied to be treated. Consequently, since only one lung is being treated, this implies a higher field intensity in the treated lung since the electric field is directed to the single lung with the lung tumor.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Kirson, which teaches that the single lung of the subject receives a higher average electric field intensity of tumor treating fields than the other lung of the subject, with the invention of Shamir in order to enable coverage of certain target regions with higher field intensities (Kirson ¶[0062]).
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 SEFRA D. MANOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 AM - 3:30 PM ET.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/SEFRA D. MANOS/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/ALLEN PORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights