DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 9-23, in the reply filed on 7/6/2026 is acknowledged.
The restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-8 drawn to a nonelected invention are withdrawn.
Claims 9-23 are included in the prosecution.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 9/10/2024, 8/29/2025, and 7/6/2026 are acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the examiner is considering the information disclosure statement. Please see the attached copy of PTO-1449.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 9-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whale (US20030181949A1).
Regarding claims 9-23, Whale discloses a medical therapy apparatus that substantially improves the medical effects of traditional crystalline mineral medical preparations. The treatment apparatus provides medical benefits whereby the energy emitted from precious gem stones and synthetic mineral substrates is greatly increased and easily controlled so as to provide precision application for the management of a wide range of medical symptoms, diseases, and injuries, as well as for neurological diseases and iatrogenic disease. Furthermore, the invention permits precision targeting of the diseased or injured parts of the patient [0031]. Whale discloses gem stones or crystalline substrates to resonate and emit by way of dielectric resonance their beneficial medical properties [0057].
Whale does not explicitly disclose each of the components of the method in a single embodiment.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Whale, to arrive at the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Whale is drawn a treatment apparatus that provides medical benefits whereby the energy emitted from precious gem stones and synthetic mineral substrates is greatly increased and easily controlled so as to provide precision application for the management of a wide range of medical symptoms, diseases, and injuries, as well as for neurological diseases and iatrogenic disease. Furthermore, the invention permits precision targeting of the diseased or injured parts of the patient [0031]. Further, one having ordinary still in the art would reasonably expect success in combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP 2141.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANGLONG N TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0719. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, Robert A Wax can be reached on 571-272-0623. 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.
/QUANGLONG N TRUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights