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 Amendments
Entry of Amendments
Claim(s) 21, 27, 31, 36 have been amended.
Rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103 and NSDP
Applicant’s amendments filed 11/12/2025 with respect to Claim(s) 21-40 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments with respect to Claim(s) 21-40 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the reference(s) and/or ground(s) being used in the current rejection.
For further details see the rejections/objections for Claim(s) 21-40 herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 21, 31 and 36 have been amended with limitation that recite(s) “wherein the runners extend radially from the nodes in a spoke-like pattern”. Specification does not mention the claimed term “spoke-like pattern”. This is a new matter without proper antecedent basis in the specification. Regarding the Office requirement for antecedent basis in the specification, MPEP 608.01(i) states (quoting 35 CFR 1.75):
"The claim or claims must conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description (See 37 CFR § 1.58(a).)"
Furthermore, the examiner notes that the MPEP 608.01(o) also repeats the requirement for disclosed antecedent basis, especially for amendments to claim limitations, and cautions the examiner concerning clear support or antecedent basis:
"Usually the terminology of the original claims follows the nomenclature of the specification, but sometimes in amending the claims or in adding new claims, new terms are introduced that do not appear in the specification. The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted. New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification, Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm’r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01(i) and § 1302.01. Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner’s amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1)."
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(s) 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The rationale for this finding is explained below:
Claim(s) 21, 31 and 36 recitation of a phrase "spoke-like pattern" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) features not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. It is noted that bike Spoke patterns can come in various forms such as 3-cross, 2-cross, no cross or wacky patterns. Additionally. For like patterns, honeycomb structure, for example, can also be considered radial spoke-like pattern having 3-spokes. Therefore, it remains which spoke pattern for which the protection is being sought by the limitation of “like”. For NSDP consideration, this feature is disregarded when assessing amended claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Dependent Claim(s) 22-30, 32-35 and 37-40 not specifically addressed share the same 112 rejection(s) as the rejected base Claim(s). Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Langi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(1)(1) - 706.02(1)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to
www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claim(s) 21 and 31 of instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1 and 11, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 11813473 (prior1). Claim 36 of instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10537747 (prior2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as the prior claims are patentably indistinct to the instant application claims. Claims are related by genus (instant) and species (Prior) relationship. Claims are anticipated by or obvious over the prior claims, because instant application seems directed to broaden the scope of the subject matter claimed in the prior patent and lacking distinctive feature(s) compared to prior claims as seen below:
US Appl. No. 18502879 (instant)
US Pat. No. 11813473 (Prior1)
21. A web comprising:
nodes placed apart in a space and each having an effectively flat surface;
runners connected as exclusive connectors between the nodes;
the nodes each comprising a coil around a metal core and operable as an electromagnet;
the runners, each comprising a conductor connecting electrically to the nodes adjacent thereto and being free to bend repeatedly; and
the nodes and runners, being conformable to a portion of a body of a subject, and the flat surfaces are placed against the body.
1. A web comprising:
nodes placed apart in a space and each having an effectively flat surface;
runners connected as exclusive connectors between the nodes;
the nodes each comprising a coil around a metal core and operable as an electromagnet;
the runners, each comprising a conductor connecting electrically to the nodes adjacent thereto and being free to bend repeatedly in an arbitrary direction; and
the nodes and runners, being conformable to a portion of a body of a subject as a result of placing the flat surfaces against the body by bending the runners conformally about the body.
31. An apparatus as a web of polygons, the web comprising:
nodes operably connected as vertices of the polygons; runners operably connected as sides of the polygons, leaving empty space interior to the polygons;
each node comprising a coil wrapped around a central axis of a core of metal to form an electromagnet;
each runner comprising a conductor operably and exclusively connecting to the coils in the nodes adjacent thereto, wherein the conductor is comprised of stranded wire; and
the web being operable to produce a pulsed electromagnetic field in a body of a subject by bending the runners about a portion of the body.
11. An apparatus as a web of polygons, the web comprising:
nodes operably connected as vertices of the polygons; runners operably connected as sides of the polygons, leaving empty space interior to the polygons;
each node comprising a coil wrapped around a central axis of a core of metal to form an electromagnet;
each runner comprising a conductor operably and exclusively connecting to the coils in the nodes adjacent thereto; and
the web being operable to produce a pulsed electromagnetic field in a body of a subject along each central axis aimed at the body by bending the runners about a portion of the body.
US Appl. No. 18502879 (instant)
US Pat. No. 10537747 (Prior2)
36. A method for providing a Pulsed Electro-Magnetic Field (PEMF), the method comprising:
providing a web comprising nodes spaced apart from each other sufficiently to be magnetically independent from one another, each node connected mechanically and electrically by a runner between itself and another node adjacent thereto;
providing in each node a single electromagnet comprising a micro-coil surrounding a metal core as a flux guide defining a central axis;
selecting a subject, and a member of a body of the subject, for treatment;
positioning the electromagnet in close proximity to the member with the central axis directed into the cells of the body;
determining an effective dosing for pulsing the electromagnets;
setting a regimen comprising cycling alternately between an on condition corresponding to the pulsing and an off condition absent the pulsing; and
operating the micro-coils to create the Pulsed Electro-Magnetic Field (PEMF), guided by the metal cores, by pulsing a current at the frequency through the micro-coils of the electromagnets, based on the regimen.
1. A method for targeting cells by a Pulsed Electro-Magnetic Field (PEMF), the method comprising: providing a web comprising nodes spaced apart from each other sufficiently to be magnetically independent from one another, each node connected mechanically and electrically by a single runner between itself and another node adjacent thereto;
providing in each node a single electromagnet comprising a micro-coil surrounding a core, of a metal, as a flux guide defining an axis, axial direction, and radial direction;
selecting a subject, and a member of a body of the subject, containing cells targeted for treatment; positioning the electromagnet in close proximity to the member with the axis directed into the cells;
determining an effective dosing for pulsing the electromagnets;
setting a regimen comprising cycling alternately between an on condition corresponding to the pulsing and an off condition absent the pulsing;
operating the micro-coils to create the Pulsed Electro-Magnetic Field (PEMF), guided by the cores, by pulsing a current at the frequency through the micro-coils of the electromagnets, based on the regimen; cycling the electric current between an on condition and an off condition to create a response in the cells; and discontinuing the current after a time corresponding to the effective dosing
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 21- 27 and 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dissing et al. (US 6,561,968; hereinafter Dissing) in view of SCHMIDT et al. (US 20160172088).
Regarding claim 21, Dissing teaches in figure(s) 1-11 a web (col. 6 lines 39 - honeycomb structure) comprising:
nodes (coils 108:L1, 110:L2 and 112:L3 in figure 1B) placed apart in a space and each having an effectively flat surface (col. 6 lines 42-43: plurality of coils is embedded in a flat sheet of flexible material);
runners (coil connectors 114, 116 in figure 1B) connected as exclusive connectors (114 interconnections between L1, L2, L3 in figure 1B) between the nodes, wherein the runners extend radially from the nodes in a spoke-like pattern (clm. 1 - coils being arranged in a honeycomb configuration comprising a first coil and three coils adjacent to the first coil – interpreted as spoke-like pattern having 3 radially out spokes);
the nodes each comprising a coil around a metal core (col. 13 line 63 - insertion of iron in the center of the coil) and operable as an electromagnet (col. 17 lines 3-4: coil with pulsed electromagnetic fields);
the runners, each comprising a conductor connecting electrically to the nodes (abstract – coils to provide magnetic field gradients in the cells, micro-organisms or tissue) adjacent thereto; and
the nodes and runners, being conformable to a portion of a body of a subject (col.6 lines 53-56: coils positioned in one or more flexible sheets at least partly encircling the body part) the flat surfaces are placed against the body (col. 6 lines 45-46: bendable sheet is provided for surrounding a body part).
Dissing does not teach explicitly runners being free to bend repeatedly.
However, SCHMIDT teaches in figure(s) 1-14 runners being free to bend repeatedly (runners 16-17, 57,58; 88-89; figures 1, 5, 10-11; para. 3 – runner bodies may be arranged in a circular shape, a toroidal shape, and/or other shapes. One or more conductive wires may be spirally wound around one or more of a first runner, a second runner, and/or the toroidal structure; para. 23,39 – runners include material that is flexible);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Dissing by having runners being free to bend repeatedly as taught by SCHMIDT in order to provide positioning for more effective therapy as evidenced by "electrical system may be used to produce useful electromagnetic effects for various applications, including providing therapy" (abstract).
Regarding claim 22, Dissing in view of SCHMIDT teaches the web of claim 21, wherein the conductors are comprised of stranded wire (abs. of SCHMIDT - twisted conductive wires wound around both helical structures).
Regarding claim 23, Dissing in view of SCHMIDT teaches the web of claim 22, further comprising a source of electrical current (current source pulse generator 104 in figures 1B and 2).
Regarding claim 24, Dissing in view of SCHMIDT teaches the web of claim 23, comprising a controller operably connected between the source and the conductors (col. 12 lines 6-8: necessary power for the coils is either delivered by a handheld, battery operated pulse generator or from a power source).
Regarding claim 25, Dissing in view of SCHMIDT teaches the web of claim 24, comprising: wherein the controller (col. 12 lines 6-8: necessary power for the coils is either delivered by a handheld, battery operated pulse generator or from a power source) is operable to control a pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) thru the cores by pulsing the electrical current to the coils through the runners (col. 17 line 66 - current supplied from wire attached to the pulse generator to coils; col. 12 lines 43-57: electronic circuit includes a timing circuit that generates free running bipolar square pulse pairs).
Regarding claim 26, Dissing in view of SCHMIDT teaches the web of claim 24, wherein the controller (current source pulse generator 104 in figures 1B and 2) is operable to execute a program controlling a regimen of alternating "off' conditions and "on" conditions of the electrical current (col. 12 lines 43-57: electronic circuit includes a timing circuit that generates free running bipolar square pulse pairs).
Regarding claim 27, Dissing in view of SCHMIDT teaches the web of claim 21, wherein runners are conformable to enable the web to be molded to a user's body (paras. 38-39 :- a bendable sheet is provided for surrounding a container, a body part).
Regarding claim 31, Dissing teaches in figure(s) 1-11 An apparatus as a web of polygons (col. 6 lines 39 - honeycomb structure), the web comprising:
nodes (coils 108:L1, 110:L2 and 112:L3 in figure 1B) operably connected as vertices (coils positioned at vertices of each polygon 1101; figure 11) of the polygons (col. 6 lines 39 - honeycomb structure; col. 6 lines 42-43: plurality of coils is embedded in a fiat sheet of flexible material), wherein the runners extend radially from the nodes in a spoke-like pattern (clm. 1 - coils being arranged in a honeycomb configuration comprising a first coil and three coils adjacent to the first coil – interpreted as spoke-like pattern having 3 radially out spokes);
runners (coil connectors 114, 116 in figure 1B) operably connected as sides of the polygons, leaving empty space interior to the polygons;
each node comprising a coil wrapped around a central axis of a core of metal (col. 13 line 63 - insertion of iron in the center of the coil) to form an electromagnet (col. 17 lines 3-4: coil with pulsed electromagnetic fields);
each runner comprising a conductor operably connecting to the coils in the nodes (abstract – coils to provide magnetic field gradients in the cells, micro-organisms or tissue) adjacent thereto; and
the web being operable to produce a pulsed electromagnetic field (abstract - positioning of coils will provide a homogeneous electric field in the predetermined region) in a body of a subject (col.6 lines 53-56: coils positioned in one or more flexible sheets at least partly encircling the body part).
Dissing does not teach explicitly bending the runners about a portion of the body. wherein the conductor is comprised of stranded wire.
However, SCHMIDT teaches in figure(s) 1-14 bending the runners about a portion of the body (runners 16-17, 57,58; 88-89; figures 1, 5, 10-11; para. 3 – runner bodies may be arranged in a circular shape, a toroidal shape, and/or other shapes. One or more conductive wires may be spirally wound around one or more of a first runner, a second runner, and/or the toroidal structure; para. 23,39 – runners include material that is flexible); wherein the conductor is comprised of stranded wire (abs. - twisted conductive wires wound around both helical structures).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Dissing by having bending the runners about a portion of the body; wherein the conductor is comprised of stranded wire as taught by SCHMIDT in order to provide effective therapy as evidenced by "electrical system may be used to produce useful electromagnetic effects for various applications, including providing therapy" (abstract).
Regarding claim 32, Dissing in view of SCHMIDT teaches the apparatus of claim 31, comprising a source of electrical power operably connectable to drive current (current source pulse generator 104 in figures 1B and 2) to the coils through the runners.
Regarding claim 33, Dissing in view of SCHMIDT teaches the apparatus of claim 32, comprising a controller between the source and the runners (col. 12 lines 6-8: necessary power for the coils is either delivered by a handheld, battery operated pulse generator or from a power source).
Regarding claim 34, Dissing in view of SCHMIDT teaches the apparatus of claim 33, wherein the controller (col. 12 lines 6-8: necessary power for the coils is either delivered by a handheld, battery operated pulse generator or from a power source) is operable to control a sequence alternating an "on" condition and an "off' condition of the current (col. 17 line 66 - current supplied from wire attached to the pulse generator to coils; col. 12 lines 43-57: electronic circuit includes a timing circuit that generates free running bipolar square pulse pairs).
Regarding claim 35, Dissing teaches in figure(s) 1-11 the apparatus of claim 34, wherein a switch is operably connected to the web and the controller (col. 12 lines 25-30 :- An output switch can be made so that it selects different resistors placed in series with the coil in order to vary the output current).
Claim(s) 36- 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dissing et al. in view of CHORNENKY et al. (US 20140024882).
Regarding claim 36, Dissing teaches in figure(s) 1B, 2, 8 and 11 A method for providing a Pulsed Electro-Magnetic Field (PEMF), the method comprising:
providing a web (col. 6 lines 39 - honeycomb structure) comprising nodes (coils 108:L1, 110:L2 and 112:L3 in figure 1B) spaced apart from each other sufficiently to be magnetically independent from one another, each node connected mechanically and electrically by a runner (coil connectors 114, 116 in figure 1B) between itself and another node adjacent thereto (114 interconnections between L1, L2, L3 in figure 1B), wherein the runners extend radially from the nodes in a spoke-like pattern (clm. 1 - coils being arranged in a honeycomb configuration comprising a first coil and three coils adjacent to the first coil – interpreted as spoke-like pattern having 3 radially out spokes);
providing in each node a single electromagnet comprising a coil (col. 17 lines 3-4: coil wth pulsed electromagnetic fields; col. 22 line 6 - central axes of the coils are directed into the micro-organisms; coils L1, L2, L3 in figure 1B), as a flux guide defining a central axis (col. 5 lines 5-8: center axis of a coil inserted in soft material is asymmetry axis normally directed perpendicularly to a plane of a flat coil);
selecting a subject (col. 8 lines 6-8: use includes positioning of the coils at the upper or lower jaw of the human or the animal for inducing an enhanced bone growth), and a member of a body of the subject (abstract — coils to provide magnetic field gradients in the cells, micro-organisms or tissue), for treatment (col. 1 lines 27-28: Pulsed electromagnetic fields PEMF to treat delayed non-heating fractures);
positioning the electromagnet in close proximity to the member with the central axis directed into the cells (col.6 lines 53-56: coils positioned in one or more flexible sheets at least partly encircling the body part) of the body;
determining an effective dosing for pulsing the electromagnets (col. 7 lines 20-23 :- provide a treatment over a prolonged period of time, such as a period of time exceeding 15 minutes, such as exceeding 1/2 hour, preferably exceeding 1 hour; col. 12 lines 43-57: electronic circuit includes a timing circuit that generates free running bipolar square pulse pairs);
setting a regimen comprising cycling alternately between an on condition corresponding to the pulsing and an off condition absent the pulsing (clm. 25 - the pulse generator provides a delay of 0.01-10 ms between adjacent current pulses for the coils; figures 8,11); and
operating the coils to create the Pulsed Electro-Magnetic Field (PEMF), by pulsing a current at the frequency through the micro-coils of the electromagnets, based on the regimen (col. 6 lines 63-65 — generate pulses wth a frequency in the range from 1 to 300 Hz, such as 10-200 Hz, preferably 20--100 Hz).
Dissing does not teach explicitly micro-coil; guided by the metal cores.
However, CHORNENKY teaches in figure(s) 1-28 micro-coil (para. 137 - coils can be made of flexible multi strand conductors with diameters of the wires around 100-200 micrometers); guided by the metal cores (para. 21 - core comprises a magnetic shield layer of materials such as mu metal or soft iron).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Dissing by having micro-coil; guided by the metal cores as taught by CHORNENKY in order to provide simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results as evidenced by "One object of certain embodiments of the present invention is to increase the amplitude of pulsed electric field generated by PEMF systems. Another object of certain embodiments of the invention is to improve efficiency of PEMF therapy for arthritis by providing more uniform spatial distribution of the pulsed electric fields and eliminating dead zones in the treatment volume" (para. 24).
Regarding claim 37, Dissing in view of CHORNENKY teaches the method of claim 36, wherein each runner is comprised of stranded wire (para. 144 of CHORNENKY - flexible multi strand wire).
Regarding claim 38, Dissing in view of CHORNENKY teaches the method of claim 37, wherein the metal is iron (para. 21 of CHORNENKY - mu metal or soft iron).
Regarding claim 39, Dissing teaches in figure(s) <f2num_1> the method of claim 38, comprising selecting a frequency and pulsing the current at the frequency during the entire on condition (col. 13 lines 5-10 :- duration of the event can be as short as 2 ms. The frequency applied for sending pulses can then i.e. vary between 2 and 500 Hz).
Regarding claim 40, Dissing teaches in figure(s) <f2num_1> the method of claim 38, further comprising arranging the web to position the nodes to pass the respective central axes thereof through the member (col. 5 lines 30-35 :- adapted to conduct the current pulse in a counter clock-wise direction taken along the center axes of the coils in a direction toward the cells, micro organisms and/or tissue).
15. Claim(s) 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dissing in view of SCHMIDT, and further in view of Anderson et al. (US 11213692).
Regarding claim 28, Dissing in view of SCHMIDT teaches the web of claim 24,
Dissing does not teach explicitly wherein the web is substantially contained within a bed.
However, Anderson teaches in figure(s) 22-24 wherein the web (12) is substantially contained within a bed (bed 100; fig. 23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Dissing by having wherein the web is substantially contained within a bed as taught by Anderson in order to provide "an individual seated or in bed incapable of personal movement control may simply apply the web 12 in any manner suitable, including over or around a particular bodily member for which treatment is desired." (col. 18 lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 29, Dissing in view of SCHMIDT and Anderson teaches the web of claim 28, further comprising a switch (80) substantially contained within the bed and operably connected to the web (12) and the controller (70).
Regarding claim 30, Dissing in view of SCHMIDT and Anderson teaches the web of claim 29, wherein the switch is activated when the body lies on the bed (fig. 24).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKM ZAKARIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0664. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-5 PM (PST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JUDY NGUYEN can be reached on 571-272-2258. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/AKM ZAKARIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858