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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1,2, & 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,020,603 hereinafter Ansari in view of US 2010/0172842 hereinafter Israeli.
In regards to Claim 1: Ansari teaches a driving method of a transcranial magnetic stimulation 3D coil device, adapted to a driving device, wherein the transcranial magnetic stimulation 3D coil device comprises a plurality of coils (Ansari, Figures 18a-b Item 1805a-b), and central axes of each of the coils are perpendicular to each other (Ansari, Figure 8 Item 805), the method comprising:
determining a first signal peak and a second signal peak corresponding to a specified rotating magnetic field direction, wherein the first signal peak and the second signal peak respectively correspond to a first coil and a second coil in the coils (Ansari, Column 18 Lines 46-50, 55-58, 65-66; Column 19 Lines 27-33);
providing a first pulse current signal having the first signal peak to the first coil, wherein the first pulse current signal stimulates the first coil to provide a first magnetic field (Ansari, Column 18 Lines 46-50, 55-58, 65-66; Column 19 Lines 27-33);
providing a second pulse current signal having the second signal peak to the second coil, wherein the second pulse current signal stimulates the second coil to provide a second magnetic field (Ansari, Column 18 Lines 46-50, 55-58, 65-66; Column 19 Lines 27-33).
However, Ansari does not teach the first magnetic field and the second magnetic field form a rotating magnetic field having the specified rotating magnetic field direction.
Israeli teaches the first magnetic field and the second magnetic field form a rotating magnetic field having the specified rotating magnetic field direction (Israeli, Paragraph 58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the rotating magnetic field taught in Israeli to the method of modulating electrical impulses in a brain, the motivation being to reduce disruption of blood-brain barrier of a subject during treatment.
In regards to Claim 2: A modified Ansari teaches of claim 1, and determining a third signal peak, wherein the third signal peak corresponds to a third coil in the coils (Ansari, Column 18 Lines 46-50, 55-58, 65-66; Column 19 Lines 27-33);
providing a third pulse current signal having the third signal peak to the third coil, wherein the third pulse current signal stimulates the third coil to provide a third magnetic field (Ansari, Column 18 Lines 46-50, 55-58, 65-66; Column 19 Lines 27-33), and the third magnetic field shifts the rotating magnetic field towards a specified magnetic field shift position (Israeli, Paragraph 58).
In regards to Claim 6: A modified Ansari teaches all of claim 1, wherein a first current change rate of the first pulse current signal is 13.67 A/ms to 136.67 A/ms (Ansari, Column 4 Lines 49-51; Examiner interprets the pulsing magnetic field described in Ansari to pulse between 12 A/ms and 125 A/ms).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to add the current change taught in a modified Ansari, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is current which achieves the recognized result of treating a wide range of disorders therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In regards to Claim 7: A modified Ansari teaches all of claim 1, wherein a second current change rate of the second pulse current signal is 12.89 A/ms to 128.93 A/ms (Ansari, Column 4 Lines 49-51; Examiner interprets the pulsing magnetic field described in Ansari to pulse between 12 A/ms and 125 A/ms).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to add the current change taught in a modified Ansari, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is current which achieves the recognized result of treating a wide range of disorders therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In regards to Claim 8: A modified Ansari teaches all of claim 1, and wherein the specified rotating magnetic field direction is selected from K candidate rotating magnetic field directions, and each of the K candidate rotating magnetic field directions has a corresponding first reference signal peak and a second reference signal peak, wherein K is a positive integer, and the first reference signal peak and the second reference signal peak corresponding to a ja candidate rotating magnetic field direction in the K candidate rotating magnetic field directions are represented as I1j(A) and I2j(A) (Ansari, Column 19 Line 27-52; Examiner interprets the at least four vectors of variation to be the candidates described in the claim by K and ja, thus the selected vector would then be represented by I1j(A)).
In regards to Claim 9: A modified Ansari teaches all of claim 8, and wherein
-
1
≤
I
1
j
A
I
1
,
m
a
z
A
≤
1
,
-
1
≤
I
2
j
A
I
2
,
m
a
z
A
≤
1
wherein I1,max(A) is a maximum value in the first reference signal peaks I2,max(A) corresponding to the each of the candidate rotating magnetic field directions, and I2,max(A) is a maximum value in the second reference signal peaks corresponding to the each of the candidate rotating magnetic field directions (Ansari, Column 4 Lines 49-51; the pulse described in Ansari is interpreted as oscillating between a value of 1 and -1 when the value is divided by the max value).
In regards to Claim 10: A modified Ansari teaches the driving method according to claim 8, wherein
-
1.414
≤
I
1
j
A
I
1
,
m
a
z
A
+
I
2
j
A
I
2
,
m
a
z
A
≤
1.414
, wherein I1,max(A) is a maximum value in the first reference signal peaks I2,max(A) corresponding to the each of the candidate rotating magnetic field directions, and (A) is a maximum value in the second reference signal peaks corresponding to the each of the candidate rotating magnetic field directions (Ansari, Column 4 Lines 49-51; Examiner interprets that it would be obvious to modified the sinusoidal stimulation parameters to be modified such that the peak signal values in the first and second direction to result in the summed ratios between the claimed range.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to add the directional parameters taught by Ansari, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is summed ratios of the first and second directions which achieves the recognized result of treating specific diseases afflicted on the body therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,020,603 hereinafter Ansari in view of US 2010/0172842 hereinafter Israeli in further view of US 2007/0027504 hereinafter Barrett.
In regards to Claim 3: A modified Ansari teaches all of claim 2 and 1, but does not teach wherein the third pulse current signal is a single-phase pulse current signal or a biphasic pulse current signal.
Barrett teaches wherein the third pulse current signal is a single-phase pulse current signal or a biphasic pulse current signal (Barrett, Paragraph 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the multi-phasic pulse current signal taught by Barrett to the method of modulating electrical pulses in a brain taught by a modified Ansari, the motivation being to provide variations in the pulse width, amplitude, pulse-shape, polarity, etc.
In regards to Claim 5: A modified Ansari teaches all of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the third pulse current signal is a single-phase pulse current signal or a biphasic pulse current signal.
Barrett teaches wherein the third pulse current signal is a single-phase pulse current signal or a biphasic pulse current signal (Barrett, Paragraph 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the multi-phasic pulse current signal taught by Barrett to the method of modulating electrical pulses in a brain taught by a modified Ansari, the motivation being to provide variations in the pulse width, amplitude, pulse-shape, polarity, etc.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,020,603 hereinafter Ansari in view of US 2010/0172842 hereinafter Israeli in further view of US 2019/0374773 hereinafter Simon.
In regards to Claim 4: A modified Ansari teaches all of claim 2, but does not teach wherein a third current change rate of the third pulse current signal is 12.53 A/ms to 125.33 A/ms.
Simon teaches wherein a third current change rate of the third pulse current signal is 12.53 A/ms to 125.33 A/ms (Simon , Paragraph 121; Examiner interprets the pulsing magnetic field described in Simon to pulse between 12 A/ms and 125 A/ms).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to add the current change taught in Simon to a method of modulating electrical pulses in the brain taught be a modified Ansari, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is current which achieves the recognized result of treating a wide range of disorders therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOE R DIETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1135. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 5pm.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571)-272-4233. 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.
/N.R.D./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights