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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “thus cooled” appears to be redundant. Examiner recommends deleting “thus cooled”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "Temperature detector" in claim 2. Examiner notes the word detector to be a generic (nonce) placeholder and is interpreting the it as a module/unit for detecting temperature.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0367668 hereinafter Kirscher.
In regards to Claim 1: A cancer treatment apparatus, comprising:
a magnetic field generator including a coil configured to generate an alternating magnetic field to be applied to a living body (Kirscher, Paragraph 44); and
a cooler configured to cool a magnetic field application part of the living body in which a temperature rises in response to application of the alternating magnetic field (Kirscher, Paragraph 170 & 243).
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) 2-6 & 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0367668 hereinafter Kirscher in view of 2005/0124846 hereinafter Pasula.
In regards to Claim 2: Kirscher teaches all of claim 1 and further comprising: a temperature detector configured to detect a temperature of the coil or the temperature in the magnetic field application part (Kirscher, Paragraph 240), but does not teach wherein the cooler cools the coil based on the temperature detected by the temperature detector, to cool the magnetic field application part via the coil thus cooled.
Pasula teaches wherein the cooler cools the coil based on the temperature detected by the temperature detector, to cool the magnetic field application part via the coil thus cooled (Pasula, Paragraph 33-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the cooler reacting to the temperature sensor taught by Pasula to the systems for treatment of disease taught by Kirscher, the motivation being to provide a more adaptive control over the temperature of the device.
In regards to Claim 3: A modified Kircher teaches all of claims 1 & 2, and wherein the coil has a shape of a pipe including a hollow portion, and the cooler supplies a fluid for cooling the coil into the hollow portion (Kirscher, Paragraph 172; Examiner interprets the coil generator to be a tube that is hollow; “One or more field generators can be shaped (e.g., as described above, including flat beds, tubes, half-tubes, etc.) and/or arranged to provide an effective working volume of nanoparticle rotation over a desired region of the subject, e.g., during treatment”), but does not teach controls either or both of a temperature and a flow rate of the fluid based on the temperature detected by the temperature detector.
Pasula teaches controls either or both of a temperature and a flow rate of the fluid based on the temperature detected by the temperature detector (Pasula, Paragraph 33-34; Examiner interprets being able to turn off and on the cooling unit as being able to regulate the flow rate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the control over either the temperature and the flow rate based on the temperature detected taught in Pasula to the systems for treatment of disease taught in Kirscher, the motivation being to provide real time feedback to keep the device in optimal operating temperature.
In regards to Claim 4: A modified Kirscher teaches all of claims 1, 2, & 3, but does not teach wherein the coil has a rectangular transverse-sectional shape having longer sides and shorter sides, and the coil is shaped such that the living body is faced by one of two external surfaces of the coil, the two external surfaces being surfaces having a dimension that is formed by the longer sides (Pasula, Figure 3 Item 34; Paragraph 30).
Pasula teaches wherein the coil has a rectangular transverse-sectional shape having longer sides and shorter sides, and the coil is shaped such that the living body is faced by one of two external surfaces of the coil, the two external surfaces being surfaces having a dimension that is formed by the longer sides (Pasula, Figure 3 Item 34; Paragraph 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the position of the coils when being applied to the user taught in Pasula to the systems for treatment of disease taught by Kirscher, the motivation being to provide an equal application to the whole body of the user.
In regards to Claim 5: A modified Kirscher teaches all of claims 1, 2, & 3, but does not teach wherein the coil has a wound shape conforming to a shape of the magnetic field application part.
Pasula teaches wherein the coil has a rectangular transverse-sectional shape having longer sides and shorter sides, and the coil is shaped such that the living body is faced by one of two external surfaces of the coil, the two external surfaces being surfaces having a dimension that is formed by the longer sides (Pasula, Figure 3 Item 34; Paragraph 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the coil having a rectangular transverse-sectional shape and the positioning of the coil in the applicator taught in Pasula to the systems for treatment of disease taught by Kirscher, the motivation being to provide a defined application area that remains consistent.
In regards to Claim 6: A modified Kirscher teaches all of claims 1, 2, & 3, and wherein the temperature detector detects the temperature of the fluid flowing through the coil, the temperature in the magnetic field application part, or the temperature of the coil (Kirscher, Paragraph 240).
In regards to Claim 8: A modified Kircher teaches all of claims 1 & 2, but does not teach wherein the cooler includes a fan configured to generate an airflow toward the magnetic field application part, and controls a rotation rate of the fan based on the temperature detected by the temperature detector.
Pasula teaches wherein the cooler includes a fan configured to generate an airflow toward the magnetic field application part, and controls a rotation rate of the fan based on the temperature detected by the temperature detector (Pasula, Paragraph 33-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the cooler including a fan taught by Pasula to the system for treatment of disease taught in Kirscher, the motivation being to provide an increased airflow to cool components.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0367668 hereinafter Kirscher in view of 2005/0124846 hereinafter Pasula in further view of US 2020/0061385 hereinafter Schwarz in furthest view of US 2002/0103411 hereinafter Bailey.
In regards to Claim 7: A modified Kircher teaches all of claims 1 & 2, but does not teach a cover member including a storage space in which the coil is stored, an inflow hole through which air is flowed into the storage space, and an outflow hole through which the air is flowed out of the storage space to the magnetic field application part,
wherein the cooler controls an amount of the air flowed into the storage space based on the temperature detected by the temperature detector.
Schwarz teaches of a cover member including a storage space in which the coil is stored (Schwarz, Paragraph 91; Figure 3a Item 7), an inflow hole through which air is flowed into the storage space (Schwarz, Paragraph 91; Figure 1 Item 9), and an outflow hole through which the air is flowed out of the storage space to the magnetic field application part (Schwarz, Paragraph 91; Figure 1 Item 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the housing including an inlet and an outlet taught by Schwarz to the system for treatment of disease taught by modified Kircher, the motivation being to provide an effective cooling structure to cool the coils.
A modified Kirscher does not teach herein the cooler controls an amount of the air flowed into the storage space based on the temperature detected by the temperature detector.
Bailey teaches wherein the cooler controls an amount of the air flowed into the storage space based on the temperature detected by the temperature detector (Bailey, Paragraph 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the cooler reacting to the temperature measured by temperature sensors taught in Bailey to the system for treatment of disease taught by modified Kircher, the motivation being to provide active feedback to keep the coil at optimal temperature.
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
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights