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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/09/2026 has been entered.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grass EP 3583896 A1 by Grass et al (hereafter Grass, previously of record)
Regarding claims 4-6, Grass teaches: 4. A device, comprising:
a casing (see part 2 in Grass’s Figs. 1-5 and/or see [0039] which describes the casing); and
a magneto mechanical rotator within the casing, wherein the magneto mechanical rotator comprises: a magnetic object providing a permanent magnetic moment (See Figs. 1-5 parts 3 and/or 303 which depict this within casing 2, further noting that this comprises a permanent magnet as per [0041]) and a rotary bearing that is adapted to stabilize a rotational motion of the magnetic object (see Grass’s Figs. 1-2 noting at least part 4 which is a magnet/restoring torque unit that acts as a rotary bearing; with the function of the part being described in [0039]-[0040] showing that they stabilize the rotational motion),
wherein the magneto mechanical rotator is adapted to transduce an external magnetic or electromagnetic excitation field into a mechanical rotation of the magnetic object relative to the rotary bearing such that a periodically changing magnetic response field is generated (it is unclear what if any limitation this enforces on the structure of the rotator as anything comprising a permanent magnet can be manipulated by external fields and the movement of a magnet necessarily creates a changing magnetic field that can be sensed; however and for compact prosecution purposes the examiner further notes that as per Grass’s [0004] the permanent magnet is specifically intended to be rotatable via an external magnetic field, and likewise Grass’s [0040] as well as other sections cited above cover that this results in a rotation relative to the rotary bearing which both necessarily results in such a signal and more specifically as per Grass’s [0005] results in induced signals that allow for location tracking of the device in 6 DOF),
wherein the device allows for measuring at least one of a location of the device in space or a physical parameter of an environment of the device (it is unclear what if any limitation this would place on the structure of the device and it appears to be both a statement of intended use as well as inherent, e.g. as anything with a magnet/metal can inherently be located in space using external coils/fields; however and for compact prosecution purposes the examiner notes that Grass’s Abstract or [0001] would appear to fully teach this as well as myriad other sections such as Grass’s [0015] which covers tracking the device inside the body mounted on a surgical implement and Grass’s [0078]-[0080] which covers a variety of relevant things like measuring pressure or other parameters of the environs as well as tracking the device on its own, etc.),
wherein the rotary bearing comprises a retaining magnetic field generator, wherein the retaining magnetic field generator is configured to provide a saddle point (see Grass’s Figs. 1-2 noting part 4 which is a permanent magnets (i.e. generate a magnetic field) that saddles the permanent magnet 3 both by definition (i.e. even in that Fig. as depicted, but also as modified below to have 2x of part 4)),
wherein the magnetic object is positioned substantially at the saddle point, and wherein the saddle point is defined such that, for a spatial plane predefined with respect to the rotary bearing, when the magnetic object is moved away from the saddle point within the spatial plane, the magnetic object is subjected to a magnetic restoring force provided by the retaining magnetic field forcing the magnetic object back into a direction to the saddle point (see Grass’s Figs. 1-2 in light of [0040] which describes that the magnetic object 3 is retained at the saddle point (equilibrium point in the vernacular of Grass) by the additional magnetic object 4 and the filament 6 working in conjunction, with 6 replaced by a second part 4 in the modification below).
While the examiner has established in the foregoing that Grass describes the magnetic field generator comprising a single retaining permanent magnetic object (Fig. 2 part 4), and describes plural retaining objects arranged on opposite sides of the permanent magnet (Fig. 2 parts 4 and 6) Grass does not require the use of two or more opposing permanent magnets [claims 4 and 6] nor soft magnetic materials [claim 5]; therefore Grass fails to fully teach: “wherein the retaining magnetic field generator comprises two retaining permanent magnetic objects arranged on opposite sides of the magnetic object such that the saddle point is provided between the retaining permanent magnetic objects. And 5. The device of claim 4, wherein retaining magnetic field generator additionally comprises two soft magnetic objects, wherein the two soft magnetic objects are arranged on the opposite sides of the magnetic object at which the retaining permanent magnetic objects are arranged, wherein the two retaining permanent magnetic objects are arranged further away from the magnetic object than the soft magnetic objects. And 6. The device of claim 4, wherein more than one retaining permanent magnetic object is arranged on each side of the magnetic object.”
However, the examiner notes that for claims 4 and 6 this amounts to nothing more than mere duplication of the claimed elements. Specifically, Grass already uses a permanent magnet (e.g. part 4) to provide a force to keep rotatable magnet (e.g. part 3) at a saddle point. Grass provides the opposing force not by a second magnet (i.e. Grass never depicts a pair of opposing part 4s) but by a filament, spring, or other mechanical means (e.g. part 6, opposing part 4); however, merely replacing part 6 with an additional/duplicate part 4 to oppose the first part 4 would be simple modification of the sort addressed in MPEP 2144.04 and would bridge the difference between the current claim language of claim 4 and the teachings of Grass’s Figs. 1-2. Where Grass both clearly contemplates and teaches how one could use such means on a magnet through his use of part 4, and clearly teaches the intent to saddle (e.g. place at equilibrium) the permanent magnet 3 as per his discussion of as much in [0040] such that this is merely duplicating/replacing a part and using for exactly the same function the magnet is already used for. Likewise further duplicating the magnets (e.g. duplicating each part 4, previously duplicated) would result in the configuration of claim 6. Since all components in question would merely serve their original purpose of aligning and constraining the rotatable magnet 3, this is prima facie obvious in light of the legal precedent set forth in MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) and/or MPEP 2144.06(II). Additionally or alternatively to the forgoing, regarding claims 4 and 6, the examiner also notes that numerous examples of magneto mechanical rotors are old and well known in the art that use only opposing magnets to retain/saddle the rotating magnet. See MPEP 2144.03. Further addressing claim 5, once one or more round of duplication has been accomplished it becomes necessary to address that Grass has never disclosed his choice of magnetic material. That is, Grass never states either explicitly or implicitly what material his magnets are constructed of. As such one of ordinary skill in the art, who cannot use the genus of “a magnetic material” but must choose a specific material, where many known viable soft magnetic materials would be prima facie obvious to choose either in light of MPEP 2144.07 or MPEP 2144.03 given that there are many old and well known magneto mechanical rotor which employ soft magnetic materials. Because the foregoing relies, at least in the alternative, on MPEP 2144.03 the examiner notes that it may compact prosecution to see the additional references previously set forth in the conclusion section which clarify the record as to the status of the art.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to arrive at the embodiments of claims 4 and 6 by duplicating Grass’s elements or alternatively since such configurations are old and well known in the art and likewise it would have been prima facie obvious to employ soft magnetic materials as one or more of the magnets used by Grass either because this would be a suitable material to use for the magnets of undisclosed material type in Grass or alternatively because such configurations are old and well known in the art. See MPEP 2144.03, 2144.04 and/or 2144.07.
Regarding claim 3, Grass further teaches: 3. The device of claim 4, wherein the rotary bearing comprises a retaining surface in a spatial direction perpendicular to the predefined spatial plane such that a movement of the magnetic object in the perpendicular spatial direction is (see Grass’s Figs. 1-2 in light of [0040] which describes that the magnetic object 3 is retained at the saddle point (equilibrium point in the vernacular of Grass) by the additional magnetic object 4 and the filament 6 working in conjunction, with 6 replaced by a second part 4 in the modification above).
Regarding claim 7, Grass further teaches: 7. The device of claim 4, wherein the device comprises an additional magnetic object provided with a similar rotary bearing as the magnetic object, wherein the additional magnetic object is similar to the magnetic object and wherein the magnetic object and the additional magnetic object are arranged at a distance to each other such that the rotation axes of the two magnetic objects are parallel (see Grass’s [0059]/Fig. 7 noting that plural of the trackable devices can be arranged along the length of the medical device).
Regarding claim 8, Grass further teaches: 8. The device of claim 4, wherein the device of further comprises a signal modulator, wherein the signal modulator that modulates a response magnetic field generated by the magneto mechanical rotator when excited, wherein the modulated magnetic field allows for a localization of the device (see Grass’s [0078] or [0091] which describe two types of signal modulators, the modulated signal being used in the same manor for localization as the base embodiment noting e.g. that this leads in “the marker can also be used as” or simply noting that the other sections which describe the same embodiments, e.g. [0079] also describe localization as the additional modulation does not cause the magnet 3 to fail to generate a signal).
Regarding claims 9-11, Grass further teaches: 9. The device of claim 8, wherein the signal modulator is adapted such that changes of a physical parameter in the environment of the device introduce changes of the modulation of the response magnetic field that allow a determination of the changes of the physical parameter from a measurement of the modulated magnetic field. 10. The device of claim 9, wherein the signal modulator is adapted such that changes of the physical parameter lead to changes of the internal structure of the signal modulator such that the changes of the internal structure of the signal modulator introduce changes of the modulation of the response magnetic field. 11. The device of claim 10, wherein the signal modulator comprises a mechanical resonator, wherein the mechanical resonator can be excited by the response magnetic field generated by the rotational movement of the magnetic object, wherein the mechanical resonator is adapted such that changes of the physical parameter lead to a change of the resonance frequency of the mechanical resonator such that the excitation of the mechanical resonator by the generated response magnetic field introduces changes of the modulation of the response magnetic field in dependency of the physical parameter (regarding each of these together, this is taught succinctly by Grass’s [0078]. In more detail the examiner notes that the signal modulator can be a mechanical resonator which is, by definition in the applicant’s specification at [0043] (citing PGPUB US 20240016409 A1; hereafter merely the specification), merely a flexible structure and thus the other claim limitations are similarly taught when one notes that as per Grass’s [0078] indicates that the end surfaces 30/31 can be flexible membranes, where all other capabilities follow but are functionally described therein anyways. However and to further compact prosecution the examiner notes that even the narrowest example of a mechanical resonator which could be related to the claim (i.e. reading in line with the applicant’s specification at [0044], which further comprises a magnet connected to the flexible structure) is read on when one notes that the end surfaces 30/31 can be directly (e.g. Figs. 1-2) or indirectly (Figs. 3-5) connected to one or both of 3/303 and 4/104/405 which is a configuration fully capable of all claimed limitations).
Regarding claim 12, Grass teaches: 12. A reading system for wirelessly reading out the device of claim 4 (see Grass’s Fig. 6 parts 20 and 30 as further described below), wherein the reading system comprises:
a field generator for generating a magnetic or electromagnetic excitation field for inducing a mechanical rotation of a magnetic object of a magneto mechanical rotator of the device of claim 4, wherein the rotation of the magnetic object generates a periodically changing response magnetic field, a transducer for sensing and transducing the response magnetic field into electrical response signals (regarding these together, see Grass’s Fig. 6 part 20 in light of [0052] which describes that the coils 20 both a) generate a field that rotates part 3, and b) receive induced signals from 3 which are caused by the rotational oscillations so as to have a plurality of coils which perform both generation and transduction as claimed),
a processor for processing the electrical response signals (see Grass’s Fig. 6 part 30 as a whole which is a computer system for processing as ordinarily understood (i.e. part 35 is user input including a keyboard as per [0063], part 36 is a display as per [0051], and parts 31 and 33 are collectively one or more processors which perform processing (control of the coils and determination of the position respectively, though in this instance the examiner notes that merely “processing the electrical response signals” is so broad as to cover receiving (e.g. the processing of digitizing) them so as to be inherent in showing the existence of the computer so connected). However and for compact prosecution purposes the examiner notes that despite not being required by the current claim drafting, that Grass’s processor(s) perform numerous specific and relevant processes such as 6 DOF position determination which is made based off of the received signals as per [0055]).
Regarding claim 13, Grass further teaches: 13. The reading system of claim 12, wherein the processor is adapted to determine at least one of: a location of the device, or a physical parameter in an environment of the device, or a change of the physical parameter in the environment of the device of claim 4, based on the electrical response signals (while only one is required for a complete rejection the examiner notes that Grass’s [0055] and [0078] cover both respectively).
Regarding claim 15, Grass teaches: 15. A method for determining at least one of: a location of the device of claim 4, or a physical parameter in the environment of the device of claim 4, or a change of the physical parameter in the environment of the device of claim 4, (see Grass’s Abstract, [0001], or [0003]-[0005] each of which cover as much), wherein the method comprises:
generating an excitation field for inducing a mechanical rotation of a magnetic object of a magneto mechanical rotator of the device of claim 4, wherein the rotation of the magnetic object generates a periodically changing response magnetic field, sensing and transducing the response magnetic field into electrical response signals (regarding these together, see Grass’s Fig. 6 part 20 in light of [0052] which describes structures for doing both a) generation of a field that rotates part 3, and b) reception of induced signals from 3 which are caused by the rotational oscillations so as to have a plurality of coils which perform both generation and transduction as claimed),
processing the electrical response signals to determine the at least one of the location of the device of claim 4, or the physical parameter in the environment of the device of claim 4, or the change of the physical parameter in the environment of the device of claim 4, based on the electrical response signals (see Grass’s Fig. 6 part 30 which is a computer system comprising or more processors 31 and 33 which as per [0055] determines the location (i.e. 6 DOF position and orientation determination) based off of the received signals. While the foregoing limitation uses “and/or” the examiner also notes for compact prosecution purposes that this can also be used to monitor changes of environmental parameters as per e.g. [0078] among other sections).
Regarding claim 16, Grass teaches: 16. A non-transitory computer readable medium (in this instance the preamble appears to structurally require the existence of a computer readable media, therefore see [0033-[0035] and [0096]-[0097] which cover the existence of the computer, the code, and the media/memory) comprising:
program code for causing a reading system to carry out the method of claim 15, when the program code is run on a computer controlling the reading system (while this limitation is non-statutory per se, the examiner notes for compact prosecution purposes the rejection of claim 15 - which is incorporated herein by reference to fully rebut the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 14, Grass teaches the basic invention as given above in regards to claim 12 and further teaches using the same or similar coil arrangement (see Fig. 6 part 20, noting no core is present but without this specifically stated to be or not be “air cored” and with no section addressing any core material such that ordinary meaning thereof is air cored, but for compact prosecution purposes the examiner alternatively notes the 103(a) modification to enforce air coring below) functioning at an overlapping range (see Grass’s [0071] noting that the field generator applies excitation between “1 kHz to several kHz” which overlaps 2-200 kHz) and where this same section and/or Grass’s [0052] and [0055] teaches all remaining features of the claim (notably a sensing capacity of >2x the signal to be sensed is a necessary range of capabilities such that showing that the coils can sense the signal as per Grass’s [0052] and certainly showing that the sensing resulted in a functional location step as per [0055] would necessarily require that the sensors were fully capable of as much). However, at least because 1-several kHz is not the same as 2-200 kHz and because lacking a core does not mean that the area between the coil loops is air filled per se, Grass fails to fully any explicitly teach all claimed limitations.
However, the examiner notes that ranges which approaches, thus any range cited in Grass’s [0071], and even more so any range which overlaps (e.g. 1 kHz to several kHz) a claimed range can be considered a prima facie obvious variant thereof. See specifically MPEP 2144.05 which provides the guidance and legal precedent for such a determination of obviousness. Likewise the examiner notes that merely omitting any material between the wire loops (e.g. any molding or potting material, if any exists, though none is required or described by Grass) would result in air cored coils and likewise would be a prima facie obvious variant. See specifically MPEP 2144.04(II) which likewise provides the legal precedent for such a determination of obviousness.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the date of invention to operate Grass’s field generator at the claimed frequency and without any core material, at least in light of the legal precedent set forth in MPEP 2144.04(II) and 2144.05.
Allowable Subject Matter
The examiner notes that no claim is allowable as drafted. However, the examiner has identified allowable subject matter. In an attempt to compact prosecution this subject matter was raised in an interview with Kenneth Springer on 9/11/2026. Agreement could not be reached to incorporate the subject matter; therefore the examiner notes that making both the following two changes to Claim 4 will render the claim patentable.
First, replacing the preamble and transition phrase of the claim (i.e. line 1) with the former preamble limitations no longer presented in the current claim amendment, specifically:
“4. A medical microdevice for insertion into a human body, wherein the microdevice comprises:”
-and-
Second, adding one of the following two additional limitations after the current last line of the claim, specifically either:
A) “wherein the magneto mechanical rotator is configured to allow the magnetic object to repeatedly rotate through 360° in the same direction.”
-or-
B) “wherein the magneto mechanical rotator is configured to allow the magnetic object to repeatedly rotate through 360° in the same direction and also configured to allow the magnetic object to rotate repeatedly less than 360° in one direction and afterwards again less than 360° in the opposite direction.”
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In this instance the examiner notes that the physical difference between the applicant’s claim 4 and the closest prior art of Grass is merely replacing part 6 with a second part 4. This is both an incredibly simple modification of the sort addressed in MPEP 2144.04 where no modified part has to do anything other than that which it is already configured to do and also a mere return to the most common, old, and well-known magnetic rotor designs with multiple very old arts already made of record to demonstrate as much. Therefore the physical difference between the invention and Grass on its own is not enough to render the claims patentable. However, there is an additional and currently unclaimed difference to the function of the applicant’s invention. Specifically, Grass is intended to rotate in an oscillating manner (i.e. rotate <360°); whereas the applicant’s invention -as per the specification and as per the examiner’s proposed amendment- would be configured to rotate in a non-oscillating manner (i.e. continuously through more than 360°). When both the form and function of the invention change, the examiner admits that mere replacement of Grass’s filament 6 with a second magnet 4 would be untenable as 6 is intended to rotate in oscillation and the examiner has no motivation to enact this dual modification except case law or precedent through how common such a design is, which would not reasonably obviate both replacing the part and operating the parts differently than they had been intended to operate. As such this functional limitation, when additionally paired with the structural limitation already present in claim 4, and when further paired with the restored preamble limitation that is necessary to prevent the examiner from applying other 102(a)(1) references, would render the examiner’s currently proposed modification to Grass untenable and thus would render the claimed invention unobvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 with respect to the 103 rejections featuring Grass have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as follows:
The applicant initially argues on pages 8-9 that Grass does not state the permanent magnet 4 provides a force to keep rotatable magnet 3 at a saddle point. This argument is not convincing for numerous reasons, four of which will be addressed. First, see Grass’s Fig. 2. The showing of the magnet 3 taut against filament 6 as it attempts to reach/is attracted to magnet 4, which clearly shows magnet 3 saddled with respect to 4, such that one merely has to look at the figure to understand that this argument cannot be correct. Second, the applicant simply is directly wrong in their statement for reasons referenced to them in the rejection. See Grass’s [0040] as cited in the rejection. Third, the only way this argument could be taken to have any merit would be if the applicant was under the presumption that the examiner was obligated to show the exact same word choice and not merely obligated to show the same scope. That is, even if one did not understand that Grass depicted the magnet at a “saddle point” and was only searching for the textual limitation, the “equilibrium point” of Grass described in [0040], is a saddle point. Since the examiner only examines the scope and not the word choice this argument is unconvincing for a third reason. Fourth and lastly, this argument only addresses Grass without modification and never addressed the 103 rejection in the first place. As such it is fundamentally spurious since it does not address the rejection actually provided by the examiner in the rejection. Once Grass has replaced 6 with 4, or once Grass has reverted to the well-known arrangement of opposing magnets 4 (note, the examiner have two separate alternative grounds of rejection) this argument ceases to even address the actual rejection at issue. Therefore, and for at least the foregoing four explained reasons the examiner is not convinced by the applicant’s arguments.
The applicant continues by opining on page 9 that duplicating part 4 would not result in opposing magnets. It is unclear how the applicant would arrive at this supposition and it is not explained and not correct versus either of the two provided grounds of rejection both of which iterate clearly how this would be done. Therefore the examiner notes that this is spurious as it is mere allegation, and that either of the two rejections, one of which does not appear to be even addressed by this statement as reverting to the well-known arrangement of opposing magnets would fundamentally address opposing magnets.
The applicant then opines on page 9 that MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) does not apply. Again, this is not supported by any evidence and is merely a stated opinion presented as fact. As such this is spurious by definition and also does not address all stated rational/grounds for the modification.
The applicant then requests supporting evidence to the official notice. Notably this is not an argument that the rejection is deficient in any way and thus will be treated as admission that the rejection under MPEP 2144.03 is correct. Likewise, this is not a timely traversal and is therefore deficient. Furthermore these references were already made of record, see NASA1 and NASA2, so as to be moot. Therefore this statement is each of: legally deficient, does not argue against the propriety of the rejection, and is moot since such evidence is already of record.
Next the applicant opines on pages 9-10 that adding a second magnet is unobvious as it might increase the cost of the device without leading to any benefit. This is not evidenced, but even if presumed correct (i.e. arguendo) the examiner notes that this is fundamentally spurious. Neither the grounds of rejection under MPEP 2144.04 nor MPEP 2144.03 require rational/a demonstration of an advantage for their modification. Indeed, the fundamental premise of rejections under MPEP 2144.04 is that the modifications are so minor that they are prima facie obvious – such as when one replaces one structure with a direct equivalent structure (e.g. replaces Grass part 6 with part 4) – because they do not fundamentally differentiate the invention in any meaningful way. Part 4 will simply serve its intended function, and replacing part 6 with a second part 4 isn’t “beneficial” as the applicant incorrectly assumes the examiner is attempting to demonstrate, rather it is mundane to the point of not being inventive since the second part 4 in the examiner’s modification is not better (or worse, or even different) than part 6 in its function in this context. This same sort of reasoning applies, mutatis mutandis, to the rejection under MPEP 2144.03 as the examiner is merely demonstrating that this is prima facie obvious for being a well-known and default arrangement – where the examiner has fundamentally not made any argument that their modification is advantageous or disadvantageous (and indeed the examiner notes that it is expressly neither of these things as Grass functions identically whether or not the modification is made – as a different pair of structures saddling 3 does not mean that 3 is not saddled or would be materially different in any way) because that sort of argument is not relevant to the grounds of rejection and thus the applicant’s argument is not convincing because it does not address the actual rejection at issue.
The applicant then concludes by opining that, because all other claims are either dependent from or incorporate claim 4 by reference, that all claims are patentable for the foregoing reasons. In this instance the examiner disagrees that the foregoing arguments demonstrate that claim 4 is patentable and therefore disagrees that the claims are ripe for patentability by dependency at the current juncture.
Lastly and for compact prosecution purposes the examiner wishes to clearly elaborate on the record that NASA1 and NASA2 and myriad more modern references are all suitable to provide 102(a)(1) rejections of claim 4 because the claim has been broadened to relate to any magneto mechanical rotator instead of one’s which must be sized and shaped and formatted so as to be operable within the confines of the human body. As such many new arts are available to form rejections of the claims, e.g. large stationary units of the sort commonly commercially available for power storage. The examiner is still of the opinion that Grass is the best reference given their preference for examining claims in light of the specification, but the examiner reminds the applicant that limitations of the specification/intended use cannot be read into the claims and therefore the examiner urges the applicant to amend the claims to replace the missing/removed preamble limitations as the examiner is aware of multiple additional 102 rejections that could be raised against the current broad claim wording.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael S Kellogg whose telephone number is (571)270-7278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-1pm.
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 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.
/MICHAEL S KELLOGG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH RAYMOND/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights