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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6 January 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 - 20 are pending in the instant application. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 6, 10 – 11, 16 and 19.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 9, the “the first magnet surface and second magnet surfaces” should read --the first magnet surface and second magnet surface--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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-AIA ), 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 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “such that cross-section profile shape of the at least one annular magnet and the cross-section profile shape of the housing match each other” is unclear as it raises the question what does “match each other” refer to, whether it means to have the same shape or connect together.
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.
Claims 1 – 2, 5 - 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Auld et al (US 20190274689 A1, hereinafter Auld).
Regarding claim 1, Auld teaches an apparatus (an “apparatus includes a plurality of beads, a plurality of links, a clasp assembly, and an adjustment feature”, abstract) comprising:
(a) a plurality of links (“a plurality of links (40)”, [0007], [0038], Figures 3 – 5B); and
(b) a plurality of beads (“a plurality of beads (30)”, [0038], Figures 3 – 5B) joined using the plurality of links and configured to be arranged in an annular arrangement (Figures 3 – 5B),
wherein the annular arrangement is sized and configured to form a loop around an anatomical structure in a patient ([0041] – [0042], Figures 5A and 5B),
wherein the loop is configured to move between a contracted configuration and an expanded configuration (Figures 5A and 5B, [0041]),
wherein the loop in the contracted configuration is configured to prevent fluid flow through the anatomical structure (Figure 5A, [0041]),
wherein the loop in the expanded configuration is configured to permit fluid flow through the anatomical structure (Figure 5B, [0041]),
wherein each bead comprises:
(i) a housing (“housings (32, 34)”, [0038]),
(ii) a passageway (“a passageway extending through the housing”, [0007]) extending through the housing (32, 34) ([0007]), and
(iii) at least one annular magnet disposed around the passageway of the bead (“at least one annular magnet is coaxially positioned about the passageway”, [0007], Figures 3 – 5B),
wherein the at least one annular magnet includes an aperture defining a magnet axis (Figures 3 – 5B),
wherein the at least one annular magnet of each of the beads is configured to magnetically bias the loop toward the contracted configuration ([0041]),
wherein for at least one of the plurality of beads (40), the at least one annular magnet ([0007]) comprises a feature (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below) configured to concentrate or diffuse a magnetic field interaction of adjacent beads of the plurality of beads toward the magnet axis ([0009], [0064] - [0068]),
wherein the feature (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below) is included in a cross-section profile shape (Figures 3 – 5B) of the at least one annular magnet (“at least one annular magnet is coaxially positioned about the passageway”, [0007], Figures 3 – 5B),
wherein the housing (32, 34) includes a cross-section (Figures 3 – 5B) having the cross-section profile shape (Figures 3 – 5B)
such that cross-section profile shape (Figures 3 – 5B) of the at least one annular magnet (“at least one annular magnet is coaxially positioned about the passageway”, [0007], Figures 3 – 5B) and the cross-section profile shape of the housing (32, 34) match each other (see annotated Figure 4 below; Examiner interprets matching to connect together and Auld’s Figure 4 on this).
PNG
media_image1.png
570
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
600
632
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Auld teaches all limitations of claim 1. Auld teaches the feature (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 under claim 1) is configured to diffuse the magnetic field interaction of the adjacent beads away from the magnet axis ([0009], [0065]).
Regarding claim 5, Auld teaches all limitations of claim 1. Auld teaches the feature (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 under claim 1) is configured to induce magnetic pull in at least one predetermined location between the adjacent beads due to the magnetic field interactions of the adjacent beads and shift a focal point of the magnetic field interactions of the adjacent beads to a tunable point between the adjacent beads (Figures 5A and 5B, Examiner interprets the annular magnet is circular toroid shape.) ([0009], [0064] - [0068]).
Regarding claim 6, Auld teaches all limitations of claim 1. Auld teaches for at least one of the plurality of beads (“a plurality of beads (30)”, [0038], Figures 3 – 5B), the at least one annular magnet (“at least one annular magnet”, [0007], Figures 3 – 5B) comprises:
(A) a first magnet surface (see annotated Figure 4 below),
(B) a second magnet surface disposed opposite the first magnet surface (see annotated Figure 4 below),
(C) an inner magnet surface disposed between the first magnet surface and the second magnet surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below), and
(D) an outer magnet surface disposed between the first magnet surface and the second magnet surfaces defining an outer perimeter of the annular magnet (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below),
wherein at least one of the first magnet surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below), the second magnet surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below), the inner magnet surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below), or the outer magnet surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below) includes the feature (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 under claim 1) configured to concentrate or diffuse the magnetic field interactions of the adjacent beads ([0009], [0064] - [0068]).
Regarding claim 7, Auld teaches all limitations of claim 6. Auld teaches the feature comprising:
(A) a first outer chamfered or radiused corner (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below) disposed between the first magnet surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below) and the outer magnet surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below), and
(B) a second outer chamfered or radiused corner (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below) disposed between the second magnet surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below) and the outer magnet surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
668
758
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Auld teaches all limitations of claim 6. Auld teaches the feature comprising:
(A) a first inner chamfered or radiused corner (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below) disposed between the first magnet surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below) and the inner magnet surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below), and
(B) a second inner chamfered or radiused corner (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below) disposed between the second magnet surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below) and the inner magnet surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
668
758
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Auld teaches all limitations of claim 6. Auld teaches a perimeter shape (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below) formed by the first magnet surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below), the second magnet surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below), the outer magnet surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below), and the inner magnet surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below) is configured to alter the magnetic field interaction of the adjacent beads (Figures 5A- 5B) to control twist between the adjacent beads ([0009], [0064] - [0068], Figures 5A- 5B).
PNG
media_image5.png
668
758
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Auld teaches all limitations of claim 6. Auld teaches the housing (“housings (32, 34)”, [0038]) includes a magnet chamber (Figure 4) configured to house the at least one annular magnet (“at least one annular magnet”, [0007], Figures 3 – 5B), the magnet chamber (Figure 4) comprising:
(A) a first lateral interior surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below) configured to receive the first magnet surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below),
(B) a second lateral interior surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below) disposed opposite the first lateral interior surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below) and configured to receive the second magnet surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below),
(C) an inner interior surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below) disposed between the first lateral interior surface and the second lateral interior surface that extends a first length (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below) between the first lateral interior surface and the second lateral interior surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below), and
(D) an outer interior surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below) disposed between the first lateral interior surface and the second lateral interior surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below) and configured to receive the outer magnet surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below),
wherein the outer interior surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below) extends a second length (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below) between the first lateral interior surface and the second lateral interior surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below),
wherein the first length (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below) is greater than the second length (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
668
758
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Auld teaches all limitations of claim 1. Auld teaches the housing (“housings (32, 34)”, [0038]) includes a magnet chamber sized (Figure 4) and configured to allow the at least one annular magnet (“at least one annular magnet”, [0007], Figures 3 – 5B) to shift laterally based on a distance to an adjacent bead ([0016], Figures 5A and 5B, Examiner interprets the sphincter augmentation device moving in a closed and contracted configuration reads on “shift laterally based on a distance to the adjacent bead”.).
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.
Claims 11 – 13 and 16 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auld in view of Ekvall et al (US 20130053874 A1, hereinafter “Ekvall”).
Regarding claim 11, Auld teaches all limitations of claim 6. Auld teaches the feature (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 under claim 1), the first magnet surface and the second magnet surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 under claim 10) and the inner magnet surface and the outer magnet surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 under claim 10) but does not teach the feature includes a first groove disposed in at least one of the first and second magnet surfaces between the inner and outer magnet surfaces.
However, Ekvall discloses “medical implants containing magnetic material placed around a tissue or body structure” ([0002]) and teaches a first groove (“surface feature 1002”, [0071], Figure 10) disposed in at least one of first and second magnet surfaces between inner and outer magnet surfaces (see annotated Ekvall’s Figure 10 below). The substitution of one known element groove as taught by Ekvall for another flat edge as taught by Auld would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention since the substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely, to diffuse magnetic field interactions of adjacent beads moving away from the outer magnet surface. In addition, groove has also been taught by Ekvall to have the benefit of providing a stronger hold of the housings together (Ekvall: [0072]).
PNG
media_image7.png
425
444
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Auld and Ekvall teach all limitations of claim 11. The modified invention of Auld and Ekvall teaches the first groove (Ekvall: “surface feature 1002”, [0071], Figure 10) is a first annular groove (Ekvall: one side of “surface feature 1002”, [0071], see annotated Ekvall’s Figure 10 below) that extends completely within the first magnet surface (Ekvall: see annotated Ekvall’s Figure 10 below).
PNG
media_image8.png
425
444
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Auld and Ekvall teach all limitations of claim 12. The modified invention of Auld and Ekvall teaches the apparatus further comprising a second annular groove (Ekvall: another side of “surface feature 1002”, [0071], see annotated Ekvall’s Figure 10 under claim 12) that extends completely within the second magnet surface (Ekvall: see annotated Ekvall’s Figure 10 under claim 12).
Regarding claim 16, Auld teaches an apparatus (an “apparatus includes a plurality of beads, a plurality of links, a clasp assembly, and an adjustment feature”, abstract) comprising:
(a) a series of beads (“a plurality of beads (30)”, [0038], Figures 3 – 5B) configured to interconnect to form a loop around an anatomical structure ([0038]) in a patient ([0041] – [0042], Figures 5A and 5B),
wherein the loop is configured to transition between a contracted configuration and an expanded configuration (Figure 5B, [0041]),
wherein the loop in the contracted configuration is configured to prevent fluid flow through the anatomical structure (Figures 5A and 5B, [0041]),
wherein the loop in the expanded configuration is configured to permit the fluid flow through the anatomical structure (Figures 5A and 5B, [0041]); and
(b) at least one annular magnet (“at least one annular magnet is coaxially positioned about the passageway”, [0007], Figures 3 – 5B) contained within each bead in the series of beads configured to magnetically bias the loop toward the contracted configuration (Figure 5B), the at least one annular magnet (“at least one annular magnet is coaxially positioned about the passageway”, [0007], Figures 3 – 5B) comprising:
(i) a first magnet surface (see annotated Figure 4 below),
(ii) a second magnet surface disposed opposite the first magnet surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below),
(iii) an inner magnet surface disposed between the first magnet surface and the second magnet surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below), and
(iv) an outer magnet surface disposed between the first magnet surface and the second magnet surface defining an outer perimeter of the annular magnet (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below),
wherein at least one of the first magnet surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below), the second magnet surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below), the inner magnet surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below), or the outer magnet surface (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below) includes a feature (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 under claim 1) configured to diffuse magnetic field interactions of adjacent beads moving away from the outer magnet surface ([0009], [0064] - [0068])
wherein the feature (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below) is defined by a shape of the at least one annular magnet (“at least one annular magnet is coaxially positioned about the passageway”, [0007], Figures 3 – 5B).
PNG
media_image9.png
634
676
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Auld does not teach the feature includes a first groove and a second groove,
the first groove being positioned along the first magnet surface and
the second groove being positioned along the second magnet surface,
the first groove and the second groove facing opposing directions that are 180 degrees apart .
However, Ekvall discloses “medical implants containing magnetic material placed around a tissue or body structure” ([0002]) and teaches a feature includes a first groove and a second groove (See annotated Ekvall’s Figure 10 below),
the first groove (See annotated Ekvall’s Figure 10 below) being positioned along a first magnet surface (See annotated Ekvall’s Figure 10 below) and
the second groove (See annotated Ekvall’s Figure 10 below) being positioned along a second magnet surface (See annotated Ekvall’s Figure 10 below),
the first groove and the second groove facing opposing directions that are 180 degrees apart (“surface feature 1002”, [0071], Figure 10; See annotated Ekvall’s Figure 10 below; Examiner interprets the groove is 180 degrees apart.). The substitution of one known element groove as taught by Ekvall for another flat edge as taught by Auld would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention since the substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely, to diffuse magnetic field interactions of adjacent beads moving away from the outer magnet surface. In addition, groove has also been taught by Ekvall to have the benefit of providing a stronger hold of the housings together (Ekvall: [0072]).
PNG
media_image10.png
470
536
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Auld and Ekvall teach all limitations of claim 16. The modified invention of Auld and Ekvall teaches the at least one annular magnet (Auld: “at least one annular magnet is coaxially positioned about the passageway”, [0007], Figures 3 – 5B) comprises a circular toroid shape configured to induce magnetic pull in at least one predetermined location between the adjacent beads due to the magnetic field interactions of the adjacent beads (Auld: Figures 5A and 5B, Examiner interprets the annular magnet is circular toroid shape.) (Auld: [0009], [0064] - [0068]).
Regarding claim 18, Auld and Ekvall teach all limitations of claim 16. The modified invention of Auld and Ekvall teaches the each of the adjacent beads (Auld: Figure 4) includes a magnet chamber (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below) configured to house the at least one annular magnet (Auld: “at least one annular magnet is coaxially positioned about the passageway”, [0007], Figures 3 – 5B).
Auld does not teach wherein a cross-section of the magnet chamber forms a trapezoid.
However, Auld teaches a rectangular cross sectional shape of the annular magnet (Figures 3 – 5B). Applicant does not describe a specific technical benefit or surprising effect linked to the shape of the magnet chamber. Thus, the exact shape of the reference are a design choice and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the dimensions to the shape as claimed. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
PNG
media_image11.png
616
678
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Auld teaches a method ([0008] – [0009]) of using an apparatus (an “apparatus includes a plurality of beads, a plurality of links, a clasp assembly, and an adjustment feature”, abstract) that includes a plurality of beads (“a plurality of beads (30)”, [0038], Figures 3 – 5B) serially joined together using at least one link (Figures 5A – 5B), the method comprising:
coupling the apparatus around an outer surface of a lower esophageal sphincter ([0008] – [0009], [0035], [0038] – [0041]), wherein a feature (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 under claim 1) of magnets concentrates or diffuses magnetic field interactions of the magnets of adjacent beads of the plurality of beads (30) after the apparatus is coupled around the outer surface of the lower esophageal sphincter ([0009], [0064] - [0068]),
Auld does not teach the feature includes a groove defined by the magnets, wherein a magnetic strength of the magnets is highest adjacent to the groove.
However, Ekvall discloses “medical implants containing magnetic material placed around a tissue or body structure” ([0002]) and teaches a feature includes a groove (“surface feature 1002”, [0071], Figure 10) defined by a magnet, wherein a magnetic strength of the magnets is highest adjacent to the groove ([0072]). The substitution of one known element groove as taught by Ekvall for another flat edge on magnets, as taught by Auld would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention since the substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely, to diffuse magnetic field interactions of adjacent beads moving away from the outer magnet surface. In addition, groove has also been taught by Ekvall to have the benefit of providing a stronger hold of the housings together (Ekvall: [0072]).
Regarding claim 20, Auld and Ekvall teach all limitations of claim 19. The modified invention of Auld and Ekvall teaches each of the magnets includes an aperture defining a magnet axis (Auld: Figures 3 – 5B),
wherein the feature (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 under claim 1) of the magnets concentrates the magnetic field interactions of the magnets of the adjacent beads toward the magnet axis ([0063] – [0068], Figures 5A- 5B).
Claims 3 – 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auld et al (US 20190274689 A1, hereinafter Auld).
Regarding claim 3, Auld teaches all limitations of claim 1. Auld teaches the feature (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 under claim 1) comprises the at least one annular magnet (“at least one annular magnet is coaxially positioned about the passageway”, [0007], Figures 3 – 5B), being configured to concentrate or diffuse the magnetic field interactions of the adjacent beads ([0064] – [0068]) but does not teach comprises a trapezoid cross-sectional shape.
However, Auld teaches a rectangular cross sectional shape of the annular magnet (Figures 3 – 5B). Applicant does not describe a specific technical benefit or surprising effect linked to the shape of the magnets. Thus, the exact shape of the reference are a design choice and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the dimensions to the shape as claimed. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Regarding claim 4, Auld teaches all limitations of claim 1. Auld teaches the feature (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 under claim 1) comprises the annular magnet (“at least one annular magnet is coaxially positioned about the passageway”, [0007], Figures 3 – 5B), being configured to concentrate the magnetic field interactions of the adjacent beads ([0064] – [0068]) but does not teach comprises a circular cross sectional shape.
However, Auld teaches a rectangular cross sectional shape of the annular magnet (Figures 3 – 5B). Applicant does not describe a specific technical benefit or surprising effect linked to the shape of the magnets. Thus, the exact shape of the reference are a design choice and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the dimensions to the shape as claimed. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Regarding claim 14, Auld teaches all limitations of claim 1. Auld teaches the housing (“housings (32, 34)”, [0038]) includes a magnet chamber (see annotated Auld’s Figure 4 below) configured to house the at least one annular magnet (“at least one annular magnet is coaxially positioned about the passageway”, [0007], Figures 3 – 5B).
Auld does not teach wherein a cross-section of the magnet chamber forms a trapezoid, wherein a cross section of the at least one annular magnet forms a trapezoid.
However, Auld teaches a rectangular cross sectional shape of the annular magnet (Figures 3 – 5B). Applicant does not describe a specific technical benefit or surprising effect linked to the shape of the magnet chamber and magnet. Thus, the exact shape of the reference are a design choice and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the dimensions to the shape as claimed. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
PNG
media_image12.png
652
664
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6 January 2026, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The claim objections for claims 6, 10 - 11 and 16 of 14 November 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIE T TRAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 8:30 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, 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.
/JULIE THI TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791