`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www .uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`16/034,793
`
`
`
`
` FILING DATE
`
`07/13/2018
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKETNO.
`
`CONFIRMATIONNO.
`
`Tomas Schwarz
`
`206265-0006-01-US.607727
`
`7136
`
`Riverside Law LLP
`Glenhardie Corporate Center, Glenhardie Two
`1285 Drummers Lane, Suite 202
`Wayne, PA 19087
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
`
`
`
`GILBERT, SAMUEL G
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`3735
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`10/01/2018
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`dockets @riversidelaw.com
`dcoccia @riversidelaw.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Status
`1)L] Responsive to communication(s) filed on
`LJ A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiledon__
`2a)L] This action is FINAL.
`2b) This action is non-final.
`3)L] Anelection was made bythe applicant in responsetoarestriction requirementset forth during the interview on
`
`___} the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)[] Since this application is in condition for allowance exceptfor formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)KX] Claim(s) 1-30 is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`6)L] Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`7) Claim(s) 1-30is/are rejected.
`8)L] Claim(s)____is/are objectedto.
`
`9)L] Claim(s)
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`nito/www. uspte.gov/natenis/init events/poh/index.isp
`
`or send an inquiry to PPHieedback@uspte.aov.
`
`Application Papers
`10)L] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)K] The drawing(s)filed on 9/12/2018 is/are: a)[X] accepted or b)[_] objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)[] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`a)L] All
`b)[-] Some** c)L] None ofthe:
`1..] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.L] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.L] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`““ See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 16/034,793 SCHWARZ ET AL.
`
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`AIA (First Inventorto File)
`Office Action Summary
`
`3735SAMUEL GILBERT von.
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Anyreply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed
`
`Attachment(s)
`3) CT] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) X Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date.
`:
`.
`4) Ol Other:
`2) CT] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20180923
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/034,793
`Art Unit: 3735
`
`Page 2
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`underthefirst 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.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), second paragraph:
`
`The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly
`claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
`
`Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA),
`
`second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
`
`claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AlA the
`
`applicant regards as the invention.
`
`Claim 1 —in lines 12-13, “between costae andiliac crest superior and/or pubic
`
`bone”is unclear.
`
`Claim 8 — in line 13 “each burst” should be —eachsaid burst” to provide proper
`
`antecedent basis.
`
`Claim 9 — it is unclear if “at least two bursts” are the same or different from the at
`
`least two bursts setforth in claim 8.
`
`Claim 11 — the range of "up to 8000 cm””is unclear becauseit includes “zero”
`
`whichis impossible for the device surface.
`
`Claim 14 — the range of“less than 10 mm’is unclear becauseit includes “zero”
`
`whichis not a possible diameter for a conductor.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/034,793
`Art Unit: 3735
`
`Page 3
`
`Claim 15 — “the patient” line 2 lacks antecedent basis.
`
`Claim 17 —in lines 11-12 “less than 10 mm”is an unclear range becauseit
`
`includes “zero” which is not a possible diameter for a conductor.
`
`In lines 14 and 15, “at
`
`least sufficient” is unclear.
`
`Claim 19 - in line 2, “is in at least 4cm*”is unclear.
`
`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-AlA 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 underthis section madein 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 effectivefiling date of the claimed
`invention.
`
`Claim(s) 8, 9, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being
`
`anticipated by Sokolowski (2015/0157873).
`
`Claim 8 — Sokolowski teaches a methodfor increasing apoptotic index, reducing
`
`adiposecells in number and/or volume, cellulite treatment, and/or circumferential
`
`reduction using a time-varying magnetic field applied to a patient's muscle, wherein the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/034,793
`Art Unit: 3735
`
`Page 4
`
`time-varying magnetic field is generated by a treatment device which includes a
`
`connection to an energy source, a switching device and a magnetic field generating
`
`device, comprising: switching the switching device, paragraph [0062]; providing energy,
`
`from the plug of figure 1, to the magnetic field generating device having an inductance
`
`in arange of 1 nH to 1 H, 15 uHsetforth in table 1, in order to generate the time-
`
`varying magnetic field with an impulse duration in a range of 3 to 3000 us, 100-300uUs
`
`as set forth in paragraph 0009] and with a winding magnetic fluence in a range of 40 to
`
`40000 T cm2, 0.1T X600cm? = 60Tcm”,, paragraph [0058] and applying the time-
`
`varying magnetic field to the patient's muscle in a body region including at least one of
`
`thighs, saddlebags, buttocks, abdomen, hips, love handles, torso and/or armsof the
`
`patient in at least two bursts in order to cause a contraction of the patient's muscle,
`
`paragraph [0023] wherein each burstincludesa train of a plurality subsequent pulses
`
`and wherein the burst lasts at least 10 ms, the treatment may last for 45 minutes,
`
`paragraph [0012] therefore the bursts last at least 10ms.
`
`Claim 9 — the pulse bursts are modified based on the camera sensor using the
`
`computeras setforth in paragraph [0025].
`
`Claim 11 Sokolowski teaches a 20cm X30 cm area which equals 600cm?,
`
`paragraph [0058].
`
`Claim 12 - 0.1T X 600cm* equals a magnetic fluence of 60Tcm?, paragraphs 9
`
`and [0058].
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/034,793
`Art Unit: 3735
`
`Page 5
`
`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
`
`obviousnessrejections setforth in this Office action:
`
`A patentfor 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 andthe prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have
`been obvious beforethe 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.
`
`Claims 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Sokolowski(2015/0157873) as applied to claim 8 above andfurtherin view of Ishikawa
`
`5,984,854).
`
`Claim 13 — Sokolowski teaches a method asclaimed but does not useaLitz
`
`wire.
`
`Ishikawa teaches a stimulation coil using a litz wire, column 9 lines 50-51.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the medical arts at the time
`
`the invention waseffectively filed to provide the combination with a coil made oflitz wire
`
`to gain the benefit of the coil being flexible as set forth in column 9 lines 50-55 of
`
`Ishikawa.
`
`Claim 14 — see, claim 13 and the diameter of the litz wire is 0.5 mm.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/034,793
`Art Unit: 3735
`
`Page 6
`
`Claim 15 — Sokolowski teaches a method asclaimed but doesnot set forth the
`
`magnetic field generating device contacting the skin of the patient.
`
`Ishikawa teachesthe patientsitting on the magnetic field generating device.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the medical arts at the time
`
`the invention waseffectively filed to treat the buttocks of a patient by having the patient
`
`sit on the magnetic field generating device to reducethe stress on the patient by
`
`allowing them to sit down during treatment and not making them stand for 45 minutes
`
`as set forth in Sokolowski.
`
`Claims 1-3, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Sokolowski(2015/0157873) in view of Coulson(2010/0309689).
`
`Claim 1 — Sokolowski teaches a method for increasing apoptotic index, reducing
`
`adiposecells in number and/or volume, cellulite treatment, and/or circumferential
`
`reduction using a time-varying magnetic field applied to a patient, wherein the time-
`
`varying magnetic field is generated by a treatment device which includes a switching
`
`device, an energy storage device and a magnetic field generating device, comprising:
`
`placing the magnetic field generating device -3- proximate to a body region of the
`
`patient, see figure 1; charging the energy storage device, paragraph [0062]; switching
`
`the switching device paragraph [0062]; discharging the energy storage device,
`
`paragraph [0062] having a to the magnetic field generating device having a total surface
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/034,793
`Art Unit: 3735
`
`Page 7
`
`in arange of 5 to 8000 cm2, paragraph [0058] 20cm X 30cm = 600 cm’in orderto
`
`generate the time-varying magnetic field; and applying the time-varying magnetic field to
`
`the body region of abdomen betweencostae andiliac crest superior and/or pubic bone;
`
`or applying the time-varying magnetic field to the body region of a buttock between
`
`gluteal sulcus andiliac crest of the patient, see claim 4 wherein it is taught to apply the
`
`coil to the abdomen, buttocks or thighs wherein the time-varying magnetic field is
`
`applied to a muscle and/or a nerveinnervating the muscle in the body region with a
`
`magnetic flux density sufficient to cause a muscle contraction in order to cause a
`
`contraction of the muscle, paragraph [0002].
`
`However, Sokolowski does not teach using a capacitance or duty cycle as
`
`claimed.
`
`Coulson teachesa signal generator using capacitors having a capacitanceof
`
`1uF, 3.2uF and 470nF.
`
`Sokolowski sets forth the capacitanceis a result effective variable as set forth in
`
`paragraph [0062].
`
`It would have been obvious to oneof ordinary skill in the medical arts
`
`at the time the invention waseffectively filed to optimize the capacitance as a result
`
`effective variable and the range claimed is known and expected in the medical arts as
`
`shown by Coulson.
`
`The duty cycle is a result effective variable becausethe time in which the
`
`magnetic field is applied to the patient modifies the effect on the patient. As such
`
`optimizing the duty cycle would have been an obvious design expedient to one of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/034,793
`Art Unit: 3735
`
`Page 8
`
`ordinary skill in the medical arts at the time the invention was effectively filed. The duty
`
`cycle is shownin figure 8 and discussed in paragraph [0063].
`
`Claim 2 — Sokolowski teaches aninner radius is between 0.01 to 99%the outer
`
`radius, as shownin figures 4-6 and based on the specific portion of the body to be
`
`treated. Sokolowski teaches a coil having a length of conductor of 200cm and a cross
`
`sectional area which produces a volume of 200cm®. Thecoil is formed from copperor
`
`aluminum, paragraph [0013]. Aluminum weighs.01 Ib. per cm® times 200 cm® weighs 2
`
`lbs.; copper weighs .02 Ib./cm® times 200cm®= 4 Ibs. both of which are within the
`
`claimed range.
`
`Claim 3 — Sokolowski teaches a winding area of 600 cm* and a magnetic flux
`
`density, paragraph [0058] andaflux density of 0.1T paragraph [0009] which produces a
`
`magnetic fluence of 60T/cm’?.
`
`Claim 6 — element-21- allows for length adjustment as shownin figure 2(a).
`
`Claim 7 — the magnetic flux density varies with respect to current as setforth in
`
`figure 8 of Sokolowski.
`
`Claim 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Sokolowski(2015/0157873) as applied to claim 8 above andfurther in view of
`
`Coulson(2010/0309689).
`
`Sokolowski teaches a method as claimed but does notteach using a capacitance
`
`in the claimed range.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/034,793
`Art Unit: 3735
`
`Page 9
`
`Coulson teachesa signal generator using capacitors having a capacitanceof
`
`1uF, 3.2uF and 470nF, paragraph [0078].
`
`Sokolowski sets forth the capacitanceis a result effective variable as set forth in
`
`paragraph [0062].
`
`It would have been obvious to oneof ordinary skill in the medical arts
`
`at the time the invention waseffectively filed to optimize the capacitance as a result
`
`effective variable and the range claimed is known and expected in the medical arts as
`
`shown by Coulson.
`
`Claim 16 — because the method uses the same capacitors as the method the
`
`voltage drop is going to inherently be the same for the method taught by Sokolowski
`
`and Coulson.
`
`Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the
`
`combination of Sokolowski and Coulson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view
`
`of Phillips 2013/0137918.
`
`The combination teaches the method as claimed but does notset forth a
`
`magnetic flux density derivative
`
`of between 300T/s to 800kT/s.
`
`Phillip teaches a maximum flux density derivative of 18500Ts as setforth in
`
`paragraph [0162].
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the medical arts at the time
`
`the invention waseffectively filed to use the maximum flux density derivative as set forth
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/034,793
`Art Unit: 3735
`
`Page 10
`
`in Philips because such parameters are beneficial for treating tissue as set forth in
`
`Phillips.
`
`Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the
`
`combination of Sokolowski and Coulson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view
`
`of Ishikawa 5,984,854.
`
`The combination teaches a method as claimed but does not teach using litz wire
`
`for the coil -3-.
`
`Ishikawa teaches a stimulation coil using a litz wire, column 9 lines 50-51.
`
`lt would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the medical arts at the
`
`time the invention waseffectively filed to provide the combination with a coil madeoflitz
`
`wire to gain the benefit of the coil being flexible as set forth in column 9 lines 50-55 of
`
`Ishikawa.
`
`Claims 17 and 19-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Sokolowski 2015/0157873 in view of Ishikawa et al (5,984,854 hereinafter
`
`Ishikawa) and Phillips et al (2013/0137918, hereinafter Phillips).
`
`Claim 17 — Sokolowski teaches a method asclaimed including placing the
`
`magnetic field device -2- placed at the abdomen, seefigure 1, applied to a patient's
`
`muscle, within the abdomen, wherein the time-varying magnetic field is generated by a
`
`treatment device which includes a connection to an energy source, plug shownin figure
`
`1, a switching device, electronic switches, paragraph [0062], an energy storage device
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/034,793
`Art Unit: 3735
`
`Page 11
`
`capacitors —C1- and —C2- and a magnetic field generating device -3-, comprising:
`
`placing the magnetic field generating device proximate to a body region betweenrib-
`
`cage and popliteal fossa of a patient at the abdomenseefigure 1; charging the energy
`
`storage device paragraph [0062]; switching the switching device, paragraph [0062];
`
`discharging the energy storage device to the magnetic field generating device,
`
`paragraph [0062], which has an inductancein a range of 1 nH to 1 H, 15 microhenryset
`
`forth in table 1, in order to generate the time-varying magnetic field; applying the time-
`
`varying magnetic field to the patient's muscle within the body region and with the
`
`magnetic flux density of at least sufficient to cause a muscle contraction to the patient's
`
`muscle and/or a nerveinnervating the patient's muscle in order to cause a repetitive
`
`contraction of the patient's muscle, see paragraph [0002].
`
`However, Sokolowski does not teach a conductor diameter of less than 10 mm or
`
`a magnetic flux density of 0.1 to 7 T.
`
`Ishikawa teaches a magnetic therapy device using a coil with conductor diameter
`
`of less than 10 mm, column9 lines 50-51, where the conductor diameter is 0.5mm.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the medical arts at the time
`
`the invention waseffectively filed to use a wire for the stimulation coil having a diameter
`
`of about 0.5 mm astaught by Ishikawato provide the benefit of providing a flexible coil
`
`to allow bending of the coil as set forth in Ishikawa,lines 50-55.
`
`The combination of Sokolowski and Ishikawa teaches a method asclaimed but
`
`doesnot set forth a magnetic flux density on the range of 0.1 to 7 Tesla.
`
`Phillips teaches a magnetic flux of about 1 T as set forth in paragraph [0162].
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/034,793
`Art Unit: 3735
`
`Page 12
`
`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 magnetic field parameters of the
`
`combination such that the magnetic flux density of the field is in a range of 1 T as taught
`
`by Phillips et al., because such a flux density in the magnetic strength is desirable for
`
`stimulating tissue; [0162].
`
`Claim 19 - the combination sets forth a coils having an area of 20cm X 30cm =
`
`600cm*,as setforth in paragraph [0058] of Sokolowski.
`
`Claim 20 — the combination teaches a magnetic fluence of 600cm? X1T =
`
`600Tcm*whichis in the range of 70-60000Tcm”?.
`
`Claim 21 — the combination teaches the method as claimed but doesnotsetforth
`
`a magnetic flux density derivative of between 300T/s to 800kT/s.
`
`Phillip teaches a maximum flux density derivative of 18500Ts as setforth in
`
`paragraph [0162].
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the medical arts at the time the
`
`invention waseffectively filed to use the maximum flux density derivative as set forth in
`
`Philips because such parameters are beneficial for treating tissue as set forth in Phillips.
`
`Claim 22 — Sokolowski teachesaplurality of pulses that repeat which setforth at
`
`least two trains, see paragraph [0009].
`
`Claim 23 — the repeat frequency set forth in Sokolowski paragraph 9 allows a
`
`period between pulses which cause no contraction. See the displayin figure 1, which
`
`showsa period on no stimulation, which will provide no muscle contraction.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/034,793
`Art Unit: 3735
`
`Page 13
`
`Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the
`
`combination of Sokolowski, Ishikawa and Phillips et al as applied to claim 17 above, and
`
`further in view of Coulson 2010/0309689.
`
`The combination teaches a method as claimed but doesnotset forth specific
`
`values for capacitance of C1 and C2.
`
`Coulson teachesa signal generator using capacitors having a capacitance of
`
`1uF, 3.2uF and 470nF.
`
`Sokolowski sets forth the capacitanceis a result effective variable as set forth in
`
`paragraph [0062].
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the medical arts
`
`at the time the invention was effectively filed to optimize the capacitance as a result
`
`effective variable and the range claimed is known and expected in the medical arts as
`
`shownbyPhillips.
`
`Claims 24 and 26-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Sokolowski 2015/0157873 in view of Phillips et al (2013/0137918, hereinafter
`
`Phillips).
`
`Claim 24 — Sokolowski teaches a methodfor increasing apoptotic index, reducing
`
`adiposecells in number and/or volume, cellulite treatment, and/or circumferential
`
`reduction using a time-varying magnetic field applied to a patient, wherein the time-
`
`varying magnetic field is generated by a treatment device which includes a connection
`
`to an energy source, plug in figure 1, a switching device, set forth in paragraph [0062],
`
`an energy storage device, capacitors C1 and C2, and a magnetic field generating
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/034,793
`Art Unit: 3735
`
`Page 14
`
`device coil -3-, including charging the energy storage device, paragraph [0062];
`
`switching the switching device, paragraph [0062]; discharging the energy storage device
`
`[O062]to the magnetic field generating device, applying the time-varying magnetic field
`
`to a body region of the patient including at least one of thighs, saddlebags, buttocks,
`
`abdomen, hips, love handles, torso and/or arms of the patient, abdomen as shownin
`
`figure 1 with an impulse duration in a range of 3 to 3000 us, 100-300 us duration set
`
`forth in paragraph [0009] in order to cause a muscle contraction.
`
`However, Sokolowski does not teach a winding magnetic fluence or maximal
`
`value of magnetic flux density derivative in a range of 300T/s to 800kT/s.
`
`Phillips teaches a magnetic flux of about 1 T as set forth in paragraph [0162].
`
`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 magnetic field parameters of the
`
`combination such that the magnetic flux density of the field is in a range of 1 T as taught
`
`by Phillips et al., because such a flux density in the magnetic strength is desirable for
`
`stimulating tissue; [0162].
`
`The combination of Sokolowski and Phillips sets forth a coils having an area of
`
`20cm X 30cm = 600cm*,assetforth in paragraph [0058] of Sokolowski. Then the
`
`combination has a magnetic fluence of 600cm* X1T = 600Tcm*whichis in the range of
`
`300-40000Tcm*.
`
`Claim 26 - Sokolowski and Phillips sets forth a coils having an area of 20cm X
`
`30cm = 600cm*, paragraph [0058].
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/034,793
`Art Unit: 3735
`
`Page 15
`
`Claim 27 - the surface area is 20 cm X30 cm = 600 cm, paragraph [0058]. The
`
`inner radius is between 0.01 to 99% the outer radius, as shownin figures 4-6 and based
`
`on the specific portion of the body to be treated.
`
`Claim 28 — the duty cycle is a result effective variable because the time in which
`
`the magnetic field is applied to the patient modifies the effect on the patient. As such
`
`optimizing the duty cycle would have been an obvious design expedient to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the medical arts at the time the invention was effectively filed. The duty
`
`cycle is shownin figure 8 and discussed in paragraph [0063].
`
`Claim 29 — Sokolowski teaches element -21- is used to fix the applicator with
`
`respectto the patient.
`
`Claim 30 — the amplitude is varied based on the changing current as setforth in
`
`figure 8.
`
`Claim 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the
`
`combination of Sokolowski, and Phillips et al as applied to claim 24 above, and further
`
`in view of Coulson 2010/0309689.
`
`The combination teaches a method as claimed but does notsetforth specific
`
`values for capacitance of C1 and C2.
`
`Coulson teachesa signal generator using capacitors having a capacitance of
`
`1uF, 3.2uF and 470nF.
`
`Sokolowski sets forth the capacitanceis a result effective variable as set forth in
`
`paragraph [0062].
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the medical arts
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/034,793
`Art Unit: 3735
`
`Page 16
`
`at the time the invention was effectively filed to optimize the capacitance as a result
`
`effective variable and the range claimed is known and expected in the medical arts as
`
`shown by Coulson.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Anyinquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to SAMUEL GILBERT whosetelephone numberis
`
`(571)272-4725. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 6:30-3:00.
`
`Examinerinterviews 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:/Avwww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Charles MarmorII can be reached on 571-272-4730. The fax phone
`
`numberfor the organization wherethis application or proceeding is assigned is 571-
`
`273-8300.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/034,793
`Art Unit: 3735
`
`Page 17
`
`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 accessto 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 automatedinformation
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA)or 571-272-1000.
`
`/SAMUEL GILBERT/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
`
`