NON-FINAL REJECTION
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 § 112
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1: The claim is to an electromagnetic field therapy device comprising a microcontroller. The claim does not recite any other structural element of the device but the aforementioned microcontroller. The claim states that the microcontroller is in communication with various other elements such as a memory component, a battery, etc., and that the microcontroller operates to convert audio files. It is unclear to what extent that these other structures (e.g., the memory, battery, etc.) are within the scope of the claimed invention.
For example, should the phrase “the microcontroller is in communication with a [memory component/battery/coil assembly]” be construed as functional language or intended use of the microcontroller (i.e., describing the function of communicating with the memory component, the battery, and the coil assembly respectively)? Or otherwise, should it be construed as reciting a state of being (i.e., the microcontroller is currently in a state of being in communication with the memory component, the battery, and the coil assembly respectively)?
It is noted that in the former case, the memory component, battery, and coil assembly would not be construed as part of the claimed invention. This would mean the claimed device, other than the recitation of a microcontroller itself, would otherwise be described entirely with functional language. Based on the Specification and drawings, it does not appear that applicant intended to claim just the microcontroller with functional language (e.g., see ¶ [0003] of the Specification and Fig. 5 of the drawings). But if that’s the case, then why aren’t the claims written to more positively recite that the device also comprises the memory component, battery, and the coil assembly?
On the other hand, in the latter case, once communication with the aforementioned element(s) ceases, the microcontroller would no longer read on the claimed invention despite no actual change in structure. In this sense, determination of infringement of the claim would seemingly be based on how the microcontroller is currently being used (i.e., whether it is currently being used in manner that such that communication is established with the memory component, battery, and coil assembly) and not the structure itself. However, a device (product, machine, apparatus, etc.) should be defined by its structure and not how its currently being used.
In accordance with compact prosecution practice (see MPEP 2173.06) the claim is being construed as not requiring the memory component, battery, and coil assembly. In other words, the claimed device is merely being limited by the microcontroller and the functional language/intended use thereof.
Regarding claim 3: The discussion above similarly applies to the phrase “wherein a current amplified is in communication with the microcontroller and coil assembly”.
Regarding claim 8: There is a lack of antecedent basis for the power source.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yin, CN 218944174 U (hereinafter “Yin”).
Regarding claim 1: Yin discloses an electromagnetic field therapy device comprising:
a microcontroller (MCU 121);
wherein the microcontroller is in communication with a memory component (memory 122);
wherein the microcontroller is in communication with a battery (14);
wherein the microcontroller operates to convert audio formatted files stored on said memory component to a current (“the memory 122 is stored with a plurality of audio information; the MCU121 capable of decoding the audio information in the memory 122 so as to form a variable micro-current; the current amplifier 123 is electrically connected with the coil assembly 13, the variable micro-current of the MCU121 for amplifying processing, the transmission to the coil assembly 13, through the coil assembly 13 generates a variable micro-magnetic field.” ¶ [0033]);
wherein said microcontroller is in communication with a coil assembly (13) such that the current generated by said microcontroller causes the coil assembly to produce a magnetic field (“the memory 122 is stored with a plurality of audio information; the MCU121 capable of decoding the audio information in the memory 122 so as to form a variable micro-current; the current amplifier 123 is electrically connected with the coil assembly 13, the variable micro-current of the MCU121 for amplifying processing, the transmission to the coil assembly 13, through the coil assembly 13 generates a variable micro-magnetic field.” ¶ [0033]).
Regarding claim 2: The magnetic field is generated by a coil assembly (the current amplifier 123 is electrically connected with the coil assembly 13, the variable micro-current of the MCU121 for amplifying processing, the transmission to the coil assembly 13, through the coil assembly 13 generates a variable micro-magnetic field.” ¶ [0033]).
Regarding claim 3: A current amplifier is in communication with the microcontroller and coil assembly (“the current amplifier 123 is electrically connected with the coil assembly 13, the variable micro-current of the MCU121 for amplifying processing, the transmission to the coil assembly 13, through the coil assembly 13 generates a variable micro-magnetic field.” ¶ [0033]).
Regarding claim 4: The current generated by said microcontroller is amplified by a current amplifier before traveling to the coil assembly (“the current amplifier 123 is electrically connected with the coil assembly 13, the variable micro-current of the MCU121 for amplifying processing, the transmission to the coil assembly 13, through the coil assembly 13 generates a variable micro-magnetic field.” ¶ [0033]; “It should be noted that, the utility model claims a variable micro-magnetic field generating device through the MCU121 stored in the memory 122 of the audio information is decoded into variable micro-current, through the circuit amplifier 123 the variable micro-current for amplifying processing, transmitting to the coil assembly 13 to generate variable micro-magnetic field” ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 5: The magnetic field is generated is between 0 and 900 µT (“the magnetic field generated by the domestic PEMF device is 0.1 to 70 micro-tesla (μT)” ¶ [0002]; this substantially overlaps with the claimed range).
Regarding claim 6: The device further comprises a display (15) component connected to the microcontroller.
Regarding claim 8: The device of claim 1, wherein the power source is a battery (14).
Regarding claim 9: The device is portable (the device appears to be a small handheld device as shown in Fig. 1, and therefore would be considered portable).
Regarding claim 10. The device comprises a heat dissipation device (radiating device 18).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin.
Regarding claim 7: Yin does not disclose that audio formatted files is an MP3 file; however, MP3 files are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional for purposes of audio compression and therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to reduce the storage space requirements of the audio formatted files.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hochstenbach, US 12,257,429 B2 (hereinafter “Hochstenbach”).
Regarding claim 1: Hochstenbach discloses an electromagnetic field therapy device (“A system and method for applying a low strength, low frequency magnetic field therapy to biological tissues. A coil is excited with a low frequency oscillating current, e.g., 10-1000 Hz.” Abstract) comprising:
an electronic controller of some sort (implied by a smartphone: “The current is preferably controlled by a smartphone […], and provided through an audio jack.” Abstract)
wherein the controller is in communication with a memory component (implied by the smartphone itself; i.e., it is understood that a smartphone has memory);
wherein the controller is in communication with a batter (implied by the smartphone itself; i.e., it is understood that a smartphone has a battery);
wherein the controller operates to convert audio formatted files stored on said memory component to a current (implied or otherwise obvious in view of the smartphone itself; i.e., it is understood that a smartphone can convert audio files such as MP3 files into an electrical current output to the smartphone’s audio jack or otherwise obvious as well-understood, routine, and conventional); and
wherein the control is in communication with a coil assembly such that the current generated by the controller causes the coil assembly to produce a magnetic field (“A coil is excited with a low frequency oscillating current, e.g., 10-1000 Hz. The coil is, e.g., 5-200 turns, having a diameter of 2-20 mm, and produces a magnetic field strength of about 0.01-5 mTelsa at a distance of 1 cm from the coil, or a cover over the coil, into the tissue. The current is preferably controlled by a smartphone […], and provided through an audio jack. […] The coil may be in mineral housing with a simple filter, and TRRS-type audio jack.” Abstract; e.g., see Fig. 2 which illustrates the coil with what appears to be a standard audio plug that connects to the standard audio jack of a smartphone such that the current output on the smartphone’s audio jack drives the coil to produce the magnetic field).
Regarding the limitation of a microcontroller, see col. 34, lines 24-39 which teaches use of a microcontroller.
Regarding claim 2: As discussed above, the magnetic field is generated by the coil assembly.
Regarding claims 3 and 4: A current amplifier is in communication with the microcontroller and the coil assembly, which amplifies a current before travelling to the coil assembly (implied otherwise obvious in view of the smartphone; i.e., a smartphone is understood to have an amplifier as part of the audio output data path, such as part of the DAC, which amplifies the audio signal before being sent to the audio jack, or otherwise obvious as is well-understood, routine, and conventional; as discussed above, the coil is receives the current via the audio plug plugged into the audio jack).
Regarding claim 5: The magnetic field is generated between 0 and 900 μT (“a magnetic field strength of about 0.01-5 mTelsa” Abstract; the prior art range sufficient overlaps the claimed range).
Regarding claim 6: Hochstenbach further discloses a display device connected to the microcontroller (implied in view of the smartphone itself).
Regarding claim 7: The audio formatted files are MP3 files (implied or otherwise obvious in view of the smartphone itself; i.e., a smartphone is understood as being able to convert MP3 files into an electrical current or otherwise obvious as is well-understood, routine and conventional).
Regarding claim 8: The power source is a batter (implied in view of the smartphone itself).
Regarding claim 9: The device is portable (implied in view of the smartphone itself).
Regarding claim 10: Hochstenbach further discloses a heat dissipation device (implied by a smartphone which is understood as including a heatsink as part of standard/conventional thermal management of the internal electronics such as the CPU and GPU of the SoC).
Additionally Cited Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art references disclose portable pulsed electromagnetic field generators for electromagnetic field therapy:
Becker, US 2005/0182287 A1
Tepper et al., US 6,261,221 B1
Tepper et al., US 6,132,362
Tepper et al., US 6,024,691
Conclusion
All pending claims have been rejected; this application is not in condition for allowance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN T. SAKAMOTO whose telephone number is (571)272-4958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, ~9AM-5PM Pacific.
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, KEITH M. RAYMOND can be reached at (571) 270-1790. 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.
COLIN T. SAKAMOTO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3798
/COLIN T. SAKAMOTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
11 July 2026
Prosecution Insights