Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/695,459

INDUCED ELECTRIC FIELD (IEF) THERAPY FOR TREATMENT OF SOLID CANCERS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 26, 2024
Examiner
D ABREU, MICHAEL JOSEPH
Art Unit
3796
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Ohio State Innovation Foundation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 5m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
462 granted / 694 resolved
-3.4% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+22.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 5m
Avg Prosecution
72 currently pending
Career history
766
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.3%
-31.7% vs TC avg
§103
40.8%
+0.8% vs TC avg
§102
30.4%
-9.6% vs TC avg
§112
17.0%
-23.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 694 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 § 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 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-7, 9, 11-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sivo (US 2013/0261711; hereinafter “Sivo”). Regarding claim 1, Sivo discloses a device for treatment of solid cancers, the device comprising: an external portable induction coil (e.g. ¶¶ 38); and a power source operatively connected to the external portable induction coil and configured to generate an induced electric field (iEF) in the external portable induction coil (e.g. ¶¶ 40-42), and wherein the external portable induction coil is adapted to provide the iEF near or within a solid cancer (e.g. ¶¶ 12 – cancerous tumors). Regarding claim 11, Sivo teaches a method for treatment of solid cancers, the method comprising: generating an induced electric field (iEF) using a portable induction coil (e.g. ¶¶ 38); and providing the iEF near or within a solid cancer (e.g. ¶¶ 12 – cancerous tumors). Regarding claim 12, Sivo discloses the iFE is generated by an external portable induction coil with an associated power source (e.g. Fig. 4 – external coil secured by Velcro to the patient). Regarding claims 2 and 13, Sivo discloses the external portable induction coil and the associated power source is configured to be worn by a patient having the solid cancer (e.g. Fig. 4 – external coil secured by Velcro to the patient). Regarding claims 3 and 14, Sivo discloses the external portable induction coil and the associated power source is configured to be worn by the patient continuously until treatment of the solid cancer is completed (e.g. Fig. 4 – external coil secured by Velcro to the patient – where the examiner considers the treatment to be completed in whatever the timeframe the patient has the coils velcro’d on). Regarding claims 4 and 15, Sivo discloses the external portable induction coil and the associated power source is configured to be worn by the patient for a predetermined duration (e.g. Fig. 4 – external coil secured by Velcro to the patient – where the examiner considers the predetermined time to be the time for which the Velcro straps are secured on the patient). Regarding claims 5 and 16, Sivo discloses the external portable induction coil and the associated power source is integral to a fabric worn by a patient having the solid cancer (e.g. Fig. 4 – where the examiner considers the Velcro straps to fall under fabric worn by the patient, and the power lines are clearly leading into that structure). Regarding claims 6 and 17, Sivo discloses the external portable induction coil and the associated power source are embedded in a mattress or other piece of furniture or object, on which a patient having the solid cancer would sleep or rest (e.g. Fig. 4 – where the examiner considers the Velcro to be the object and the patient is resting during the treatment). Regarding claims 7 and 18, Sivo discloses the iEF is between 1-2.4 mV/cm (e.g. ¶¶ 47 – 1 V/cm). Regarding claims 9 and 20, Sivo discloses a 100 kHz, 20 Vpp sawtooth waveform is used to generate the iEF (e.g. ¶¶ 12 – “sawtooth”; ¶¶ 45 – “100 kHz”). 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. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). 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 8, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivo. Sivo fails to expressly disclose a coil having an inductance of approximately 437 microH and a resistance of approximately 28 ohms and providing an electrical current of approximately 55 mA. Sivo discloses a plurality of different coils may be used with a variety of different settings in order to produce the most effective cancer treatment for the patient (e.g. ¶¶ 44-49). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the coil of Sivo to have an inductance of approximately 437 microH and a resistance of approximately 28 ohms and provide an electrical current of approximately 55 mA, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: KR 102,121,673 B1 – cancer treatment via electric field with coils at the similar parameter settings Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael D’Abreu whose telephone number is (571) 270-3816. The examiner can normally be reached on 7AM-4PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571) 270-5625. 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. /MICHAEL J D'ABREU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 26, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12575755
DETERMINING HEALTH CONDITION STATUSES USING SUBCUTANEOUS IMPEDANCE MEASUREMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12546320
BLOOD PUMP WITH MICROMOTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12527948
FLUID HANDLING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12521546
BLOOD PUMP
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12507940
LAYERED MULTI-ACTIVATION LOCAL ACTIVATION TIMES (LAT) MAPPING
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+22.6%)
4y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 694 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month