DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the communicated dated 18 March 2026 concerning application number 18/485,717 effectively filed on 12 October 2023.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 18 March 2026 has been considered by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
4. Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 1-3, 5-6, and 16 have been amended; and claims 1-20 are under consideration for patentability.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments dated 18 March 2026, referred to herein as “the Arguments”, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informality.
Claim 18, line 1: The Examiner suggests changing “reducing systolic blood pressure” to “reducing systolic blood pressure (SBP)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the difference between an initial volume of mesenteric fat and a remeasured volume of mesenteric fat" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner respectfully submits that it is unclear whether the initial volume or the remeasured volume of mesenteric fat is the same measurement as the “current measurement” which indicates a volume of mesenteric fat (see lines 3-5 of claim 1). Furthermore, it is unclear whether the initial volume or the remeasured volume of mesenteric fat is a different measurement from the “current measurement” which indicates a volume of mesenteric fat (see lines 3-5 of claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
9. Claim 1, 3-5, 10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avram et al. (US 2013/0190744 A1) in view of Agha (US 2020/0246054 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Avram teaches a surgical method of treating insulin resistance in a patient (the cooling treatment (e.g., cryolipolysis) is configured to reduce the presence of visceral fat (e.g., mesenteric fat) in the peritoneal or abdominal cavity 170 which results in a lower insulin resistance [0011, 0059, 0105, 0117]. The Examiner respectfully submits that mesenteric fat is known to be layer of visceral fat that is located within the peritoneal and abdominal cavity [0011, 0059]) comprising:
obtaining a current measurement of at least one of a plurality of insulin resistance indicators (the temperature of the visceral fat (e.g., mesenteric fat) is measured during the cooling treatment (e.g., cryolipolysis) [0011, 0070, 0117]. Furthermore, the visceral fat may be cooled to a threshold temperature of 2 °C for 5 or 10 minutes to ensure that the insulin resistance is minimized or prevented [0070, 0117]. Although the insulin and glucose levels were measured in mice, it is noted that similar beneficial effects are obtainable in humans [0105, 0117]. Specifically, the cooling treatment is primarily focused on disrupting and/or reducing the visceral fat (e.g., mesenteric fat) that is present in regions (e.g., peritoneal or abdominal cavity 170) of the human body [0011, 0059]);
accessing mesenteric fat of the patient (the catheter 140 is inserted into the peritoneal or abdominal cavity 170 to provide cryolipolysis to the visceral fat (e.g., mesenteric fat) [0011, 0059]); and
performing a first stage of cryolipolysis with a cryodevice on the mesenteric fat sufficient to cause the at least one of the plurality of insulin resistance indicators to reach a threshold amount, thereby reducing insulin resistance (the cryodevice 100 comprises a catheter 140 that is inserted into the peritoneal or abdominal cavity 170 to provide a cooling treatment (e.g., cryolipolysis) that reduces the presence of the visceral fat (e.g., mesenteric fat) [0011, 0059]. Specifically, the temperature of the visceral fat (e.g., mesenteric fat) is measured during the cooling treatment (e.g., cryolipolysis) [0011, 0070, 0117]. Furthermore, the visceral fat may be cooled to a threshold temperature of 2 °C for 5 or 10 minutes to ensure that the insulin resistance is minimized or prevented [0070, 0117]. Although the insulin and glucose levels were measured in mice, it is noted that similar beneficial effects are obtainable in humans [0105, 0117]).
Avram does not explicitly teach at least one of the plurality of insulin resistance indicators is volume of mesenteric fat, and is measured using CT or MRI.
The Examiner respectfully submits that claim 1 also recites performing a second stage of cryolipolysis if the difference between an initial volume of mesenteric fat and a remeasured volume of mesenteric fat is less than a reduced fat threshold amount. However, this limitation is contingent and is not required to be performed (MPEP 2111.04(II)).
The prior art by Agha is analogous to Avram, as they both teach a cooling device that is inserted into the abdomen to remove mesenteric visceral fat ([0029, 0032-0033, 0038]).
Agha teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of insulin resistance indicators is volume of mesenteric fat, and is measured using CT (the volume of mesenteric visceral fat is scanned using CT [0032-0033, 0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effective filed to modify the Avram’s surgical method of treating insulin resistance to consist of using CT to measure the volume of mesenteric fat, as taught by Agha. This modification is beneficial, as the CT scan can identify how much mesenteric visceral fat is removable (see paragraphs [0032-0033, 0038] by Agha).
Regarding claim 3, Avram suggests the surgical method of claim 2. Avram does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one of the plurality of insulin resistance indicators is volume of mesenteric fat, and is measured using CT or MRI.
The prior art by Agha is analogous to Avram, as they both teach a cooling device that is inserted into the abdomen to remove mesenteric visceral fat ([0029, 0032-0033, 0038]).
Agha teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of insulin resistance indicators is volume of mesenteric fat, and is measured using CT (the volume of mesenteric visceral fat is scanned using CT [0032-0033, 0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effective filed to modify the Avram’s surgical method of treating insulin resistance to consist of using CT to measure the volume of mesenteric fat, as taught by Agha. This modification is beneficial, as the CT scan can identify how much mesenteric visceral fat is removable (see paragraphs [0032-0033, 0038] by Agha).
Regarding claim 4, Avram in view of Agha suggests the surgical method of claim 3. Avram teaches performing the second stage of cryolipolysis (the cooling treatment (e.g., cryolipolysis) can be provided for various stages or cycles until a total amount of cooling has been achieved [0011, 0060, 0077]).
The Examiner respectfully submits that claim 4 also recites wherein the second stage of cryolipolysis is performed if the difference between the initial volume of mesenteric fat and remeasured volume of mesenteric fat is less than a reduced fat threshold amount. However, this limitation is contingent and is not required to be performed (MPEP 2111.04(II)).
Regarding claim 5, Avram teaches wherein volume of mesenteric fat is reduced (the cooling treatment is primarily focused on disrupting and/or reducing the visceral fat (e.g., mesenteric fat) that is present in regions (e.g., peritoneal or abdominal cavity 170) of the human body [0011, 0059]).
Although claim 5 recites the reduced fat threshold of 30%, the Examiner respectfully submits that the reduced fat threshold is not required based on the contingent limitation of claim 1 (MPEP 2111.04(II)).
Regarding claim 10, Avram teaches wherein the cryodevice is a handheld probe (the cryodevice 100 comprises a probe or catheter 140 that is inserted into the peritoneal or abdominal cavity 170 to provide a cooling treatment (e.g., cryolipolysis) that reduces the presence of the visceral fat (e.g., mesenteric fat) [0011, 0056, 0059-0060, FIG. 1B]).
Regarding claim 13, Avram teaches the step of creating an incision in the abdomen to provide open-surgery type access to the mesenteric fat (the surgeon may utilize a laparoscopic approach (e.g., incision) to guide the catheter 140 into the peritoneal or abdominal cavity to treat the visceral fat (e.g., mesenteric visceral fat) [0011, 0059]).
Regarding claim 14, Avram teaches wherein the cryolipolysis is performed via a laparoscopic approach (the surgeon may utilize a laparoscopic approach (e.g., incision) to guide the catheter 140 into the peritoneal or abdominal cavity to provide a cooling treatment (e.g., cryolipolysis) to the visceral fat (e.g., mesenteric visceral fat) [0011, 0059]).
Regarding claim 15, Avram teaches wherein the cryolipolysis is performed such that tissue ablative temperatures are avoided (the Examiner respectfully submits that Avram teaches a cryolipolysis treatment [0011]. However, Avram does teach the cryolipolysis treatment to consist of any ablative temperatures within the disclosure [0011]. Furthermore, Avram does not teach any form of tissue ablation within the disclosure [0011]).
10. Claims 2, 6-7, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avram et al.
Regarding claim 2, Avram teaches a surgical method of treating insulin resistance in a patient (the cooling treatment (e.g., cryolipolysis) is configured to reduce the presence of visceral fat (e.g., mesenteric fat) in the peritoneal or abdominal cavity 170 which results in a lower insulin resistance [0011, 0059, 0105, 0117]. The Examiner respectfully submits that mesenteric fat is known to be layer of visceral fat that is located within the peritoneal and abdominal cavity [0011, 0059]) comprising:
obtaining a current measurement of at least one of a plurality of insulin resistance indicators (the temperature of the visceral fat (e.g., mesenteric fat) is measured during the cooling treatment (e.g., cryolipolysis) [0011, 0070, 0117]. Furthermore, the visceral fat may be cooled to a threshold temperature of 2 °C for 5 or 10 minutes to ensure that the insulin resistance is minimized or prevented [0070, 0117]. Although the insulin and glucose levels were measured in mice, it is noted that similar beneficial effects are obtainable in humans [0105, 0117]. Specifically, the cooling treatment is primarily focused on disrupting and/or reducing the visceral fat (e.g., mesenteric fat) that is present in regions (e.g., peritoneal or abdominal cavity 170) of the human body [0011, 0059]);
accessing mesenteric fat of the patient (the catheter 140 is inserted into the peritoneal or abdominal cavity 170 to provide cryolipolysis to the visceral fat (e.g., mesenteric fat) [0011, 0059]); and
performing a first stage of cryolipolysis with a cryodevice on the mesenteric fat sufficient to cause the at least one of the plurality of insulin resistance indicators to reach a threshold amount, thereby reducing insulin resistance (the cryodevice 100 comprises a catheter 140 that is inserted into the peritoneal or abdominal cavity 170 to provide a cooling treatment (e.g., cryolipolysis) that reduces the presence of the visceral fat (e.g., mesenteric fat) [0011, 0059]. Specifically, the temperature of the visceral fat (e.g., mesenteric fat) is measured during the cooling treatment (e.g., cryolipolysis) [0011, 0070, 0117]. Furthermore, the visceral fat may be cooled to a threshold temperature of 2 °C for 5 or 10 minutes to ensure that the insulin resistance is minimized or prevented [0070, 0117]. Although the insulin and glucose levels were measured in mice, it is noted that similar beneficial effects are obtainable in humans [0105, 0117]); and
evaluating for whether the at least one of the plurality of insulin resistance indicators reaches the threshold amount is performed at least 4 months from the first stage of cryolipolysis (the temperature of the visceral fat (e.g., mesenteric fat) is measured during the cooling treatment (e.g., cryolipolysis) [0011, 0070, 0117]. Furthermore, the visceral fat may be cooled to a threshold temperature of 2 °C for 5 or 10 minutes to ensure that the insulin resistance is minimized or prevented [0070, 0117]. Specifically, the insulin resistance may be measured 4 months after the cooling treatment [0039, 0070, 0117]).
Avram does not explicitly teach evaluating for whether the at least one of the plurality of insulin resistance indicators reaches the threshold amount is performed at least 6 months from the first stage of cryolipolysis. However, the Examiner respectfully submits that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to evaluate whether at least one of the plurality of insulin resistance indicators reaches the threshold amount at least 6 months from the first stage of cryolipolysis. The advantage of such modification will the clinician to determine if the first stage of cryolipolysis reduces the insulin resistance over a longer period of time ([0011, 0039, 0070, 0117]). The Examiner further submits that the skilled artisan could arrive at the claimed limitation via routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 6, Avram teaches a surgical method of treating insulin resistance in a patient (the cooling treatment (e.g., cryolipolysis) is configured to reduce the presence of visceral fat (e.g., mesenteric fat) in the peritoneal or abdominal cavity 170 which results in a lower insulin resistance [0011, 0059, 0105, 0117]. The Examiner respectfully submits that mesenteric fat is known to be layer of visceral fat that is located within the peritoneal and abdominal cavity [0011, 0059]) comprising:
obtaining a current measurement of at least one of a plurality of insulin resistance indicators (the temperature of the visceral fat (e.g., mesenteric fat) is measured during the cooling treatment (e.g., cryolipolysis) [0011, 0070, 0117]. Furthermore, the visceral fat may be cooled to a threshold temperature of 2 °C for 5 or 10 minutes to ensure that the insulin resistance is minimized or prevented [0070, 0117]. Although the insulin and glucose levels were measured in mice, it is noted that similar beneficial effects are obtainable in humans [0105, 0117]. Specifically, the cooling treatment is primarily focused on disrupting and/or reducing the visceral fat (e.g., mesenteric fat) that is present in regions (e.g., peritoneal or abdominal cavity 170) of the human body [0011, 0059]);
accessing mesenteric fat of the patient (the catheter 140 is inserted into the peritoneal or abdominal cavity 170 to provide cryolipolysis to the visceral fat (e.g., mesenteric fat) [0011, 0059]); and
performing a first stage of cryolipolysis with a cryodevice on the mesenteric fat sufficient to cause the at least one of the plurality of insulin resistance indicators to reach a threshold amount, thereby reducing insulin resistance (the cryodevice 100 comprises a catheter 140 that is inserted into the peritoneal or abdominal cavity 170 to provide a cooling treatment (e.g., cryolipolysis) that reduces the presence of the visceral fat (e.g., mesenteric fat) [0011, 0059]. Specifically, the temperature of the visceral fat (e.g., mesenteric fat) is measured during the cooling treatment (e.g., cryolipolysis) [0011, 0070, 0117]. Furthermore, the visceral fat may be cooled to a threshold temperature of 2 °C for 5 or 10 minutes to ensure that the insulin resistance is minimized or prevented [0070, 0117]. Although the insulin and glucose levels were measured in mice, it is noted that similar beneficial effects are obtainable in humans [0105, 0117]).
The Examiner respectfully submits that claim 6 also recites wherein a second stage of cryolipolysis is performed if a difference between an initial fasting glucose level and a remeasured fasting glucose level is less than a fasting glucose threshold amount.
However, this limitation is contingent and is not required to be performed (MPEP 2111.04(II)).
Regarding claim 7, Avram teaches the measurement of fasting glucose levels and fasting insulin levels ([0103, 0109, 0117]).
Although claim 7 recites wherein the fasting glucose threshold amount is 20%, the Examiner respectfully submits that the fasting glucose threshold amount is not required based on the contingent limitation of claim 6 (MPEP 2111.04(II)).
Regarding claim 16, Avram teaches performing a second stage of cryolipolysis (the cooling treatment (e.g., cryolipolysis) can be provided for various stages or cycles until a total amount of cooling has been achieved [0011, 0060, 0077]).
Regarding claim 17, Avram teaches a wherein the evaluation is performed by a computer processor (the sensed data or measurements are communicated to the processor [0011, 0039, 0058, 0117]).
11. Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avram et al. in view of Agha, further in view of Salma et al. (US 2022/0133531 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Avram in view of Agha suggests the surgical method of claim 1. However, Avram and Agha do not explicitly teach wherein the first stage of cryolipolysis comprises visually observing the tissue surface for changes in appearance, and terminating the first stage based on the observed changes in tissue appearance.
The prior art by Salma is analogous to Avram, as they both teach a cooling treatment that is configured to reduce the adipose tissue (e.g., mesenteric visceral fat) within the patient’s abdomen ([0001, 0064-0065]).
Salma teaches visually observing the tissue surface for changes in appearance, and terminating the first stage based on the observed changes in tissue appearance (the first cooling treatment (e.g., cryolipolysis) is terminated when the adipose tissue (e.g., mesenteric visceral fat) within the abdomen turns brown [0001, 0037, 0064-0065]. Furthermore, one or more imaging techniques may be used to detect the browning of the adipose tissue [0078]. Specifically, this treatment causes a reduction in the adipose tissue (e.g., mesenteric visceral fat) within the abdomen [0064-0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the surgical method suggested by Avram in view of Agha to consist of terminating the first stage of cryolipolysis after the tissue’s appearance has changed, as taught by Salma. The advantage of such modification will cause a reduction in the adipose tissue (e.g., mesenteric visceral fat) within the patient’s abdomen (see paragraphs [0001, 0037, 0064-0065] by Salma).
Regarding claim 9, Avram in view of Agha and Salma suggests the surgical method of claim 8. Salma teaches wherein the visually observing comprises observing for fold (the tissue surface is observed for folding while being contacted by the cooling element [0044]) and color changes (the first cooling treatment (e.g., cryolipolysis) is terminated when the adipose tissue (e.g., mesenteric visceral fat) within the abdomen turns brown [0001, 0037, 0064-0065]. Furthermore, one or more imaging techniques may be used to detect the browning of the adipose tissue [0078]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the surgical method suggested by Avram in view of Agha and Salma to consist of observing for folds and color changes, as taught by Salma. This modification is beneficial, as the changes in the appearance of the tissue indicates modulation metabolism, weight loss, and/or improved metabolic function (see paragraphs [0035, 0044, 0078] by Salma).
12. Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avram et al. in view of Agha, further in view of Kim (US 2021/0007883 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Avram in view of Agha suggests the surgical method of claim 10. Avram teaches wherein the cryodevice is operable to cool the mesenteric fat by releasing a cooling fluid through a nozzle aimed at the mesenteric fat (the distal end of the probe or catheter 140 comprises a plurality of holes or nozzles that are configured to eject cooling fluid at the visceral fat (e.g., mesenteric visceral fat) within the abdominal cavity 170 [0060-0061]).
Avram does not explicitly teach wherein the cooling fluid consist of a gas.
The prior art by Kim is analogous to Avram, as they both teach a cooling device that is configured to provide a cryogenic treatment to reduce the amount of adipose or fat tissue within a patient ([0131, 0137, 0234-0235]).
Kim teaches wherein the cooling fluid consist of a gas (The cooling device 10000 comprises a spraying unit 4000 which includes nozzle unit 4100 that ejects a cryogen consisting of a gas [0234-0235, FIG. 23, FIG. 44]. Specifically, the cryogen is ejected through the guide unit 4210 and onto the target region TR (e.g., fat layer) [0130, 0242, FIG. 23, FIG. 44]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Avram’s cooling fluid to consist of a gas that is provided through the nozzle, as taught by Kim. The advantage of such modification will improve the process for reducing fat in a target site (see paragraphs [0131, 0234-0235, 0242] by Kim).
Regarding claim 12, Avram in view of Agha and Kim suggests the surgical method of claim 11. Kim teaches wherein the nozzle has a circular shower head-like shape (figure 44 illustrates the spraying unit 4200 comprising a nozzle unit 4100 that has circular shower head-like shape [0234-0235, FIG. 44]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the nozzle suggested by Avram in view of Agha and Kim to have a circular shower head-like shape, as further taught by Kim. The advantage of such modification will provide the nozzle (e.g., nozzle unit 4100) with an arrangement of holes that affects the extent at which the target region is cooled (see paragraphs [0131, 0234-0235, 0242, 0247] and [FIG. 44] by Kim).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
13. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
14. Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) and (a) (2) as being anticipated by Avram.
Regarding claim 18, Avram teaches a surgical method (the cooling treatment (e.g., cryolipolysis) is configured to reduce the presence of visceral fat (e.g., mesenteric fat) in the peritoneal or abdominal cavity 170 which results in a lower insulin resistance [0011, 0059, 0105, 0117]. The Examiner respectfully submits that mesenteric fat is known to be layer of visceral fat that is located within the peritoneal and abdominal cavity [0011, 0059]) comprising:
initially measuring at least one insulin resistance indicator in the patient (the temperature of the visceral fat (e.g., mesenteric fat) is measured during the cooling treatment (e.g., cryolipolysis) [0011, 0070, 0117]. Furthermore, the visceral fat may be cooled to a threshold temperature of 2 °C for 5 or 10 minutes to ensure that the insulin resistance is minimized or prevented [0070, 0117]. Although the insulin and glucose levels were measured in mice, it is noted that similar beneficial effects are obtainable in humans [0105, 0117]. Specifically, the cooling treatment is primarily focused on disrupting and/or reducing the visceral fat (e.g., mesenteric fat) that is present in regions (e.g., peritoneal or abdominal cavity 170) of the human body [0011, 0059]);
accessing mesenteric fat of the patient (the catheter 140 is inserted into the peritoneal or abdominal cavity 170 to provide cryolipolysis to the visceral fat (e.g., mesenteric fat) [0011, 0059]); and
carrying out a first stage of cryolipolysis of the mesenteric fat using a cryodevice such that the at least one insulin resistance indicator is reduced by a threshold amount (the cryodevice 100 comprises a catheter 140 that is inserted into the peritoneal or abdominal cavity 170 to provide a cooling treatment (e.g., cryolipolysis) that reduces the presence of the visceral fat (e.g., mesenteric fat) [0011, 0059]. Specifically, the temperature of the visceral fat (e.g., mesenteric fat) is measured during the cooling treatment (e.g., cryolipolysis) [0011, 0070, 0117]. Furthermore, the visceral fat may be cooled to a threshold temperature of 2 °C for 5 or 10 minutes to ensure that the insulin resistance is minimized or prevented [0070, 0117]. Although the insulin and glucose levels were measured in mice, it is noted that similar beneficial effects are obtainable in humans [0105, 0117]).
The Examiner respectfully submits that Avram’s method for reducing the insulin resistance indicator to a threshold amount during the first stage of cryolipolysis would inherently result in the reduction of SBP (see the explanation above for the reduction of insulin resistance during cryolipolysis). Specifically, the claimed method does not recite any parameters (e.g., temperature or duration) or additional steps for the first stage of cryolipolysis that differentiates from Avram’s method. Thus, the Examiner respectfully submits that Avram’s method can achieve the reduction of SBP during normal operation (MPEP 2112.02).
Regarding claim 19, Avram teaches wherein the threshold amount is measured at least 3 months after the first stage (the temperature of the visceral fat (e.g., mesenteric fat) is measured during the cooling treatment (e.g., cryolipolysis) [0011, 0070, 0117]. Furthermore, the visceral fat may be cooled to a threshold temperature of 2 °C for 5 or 10 minutes to ensure that the insulin resistance is minimized or prevented [0070, 0117]. Specifically, the insulin resistance may be measured 4 months after the cooling treatment [0039, 0070, 0117]).
Regarding claim 20, Avram teaches wherein the at least one insulin resistance indicator is selected from the group consisting of fasting glucose, mesenteric fat volume, and fasting insulin ([0011, 0103, 0109, 0117]).
Conclusion
15. This office action is NON-FINAL due to the new ground(s) of rejection which was not necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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 JOSHUA BRENDON SOLOMON whose telephone number is (571)270-7208. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am -4:30pm.
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, Niketa Patel can be reached on (571)272-4156. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA BRENDON SOLOMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights