DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the amendment and request for continued examination filed June 22, 2026. By that amendment, claims 1 and 13 were amended. Claims 1-24 stand pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-8 and 13-20 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) in view of Jacquemet (US 4,468,594); and claims 9-12 and 21-24 under 35 USC 103 in view of Jacquemet and BIttenson (US 2013/0261681 A1) 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. The newly presented rejections are necessitated by the amendments to the claims of June 22, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears the word “wherein” is missing in line 3, before the word “translation”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 13-20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Averbukh (US 5,497,555).
Regarding claim 1, Averbukh teaches an impactor capable of being used in an orthopedic situation, comprising:
a strike assembly 18/22/24/26/30 having a body 26 coupled to a striker 24, the body 26 having one or more magnets 30, wherein the striker 24 is configured to be movable within a chamber of 28;
a connector 18;
a spacer at the back face of 28 configured to define a maximum distal displacement of the connector 18 corresponding to a minimum extension of the connector 18 from the orthopedic impactor;
wherein, a magnetic field, generated using an electric current (from controller 40 through coil 32), is configured to interact with the one or more magnets 30 in the body 26 causing the strike assembly to translate between the connector 18 and the spacer at the back face of 28 (col. 5, lines 1-18), and the striker 24 to impart a force to at least one of the connector 18 or the spacer of 28.
Regarding claim 2, a translation of the strike assembly in a first direction (down in fig. 1) causes the striker 24 to impart force on the connector 18; and a translation of the strike assembly in a second direction causes the striker 24 to impart force on the spacer at the face of 28, the second direction being opposite to the first direction. (col. 5, lines 1-18)
Regarding claim 3, the connector 18 is configured to impact an object (through impacting 14, an object will be impacted).
Regarding claim 4, the force is an object implanting force, wherein translation of the strike assembly in the first direction causes the striker 24 to impart the object implanting force on the connector 18 to implant the object – that force being carried through 18, and 14, and capable of impacting some structure to cause an implanting force.
Regarding claim 5, the impactor includes a winding 32 configured to receive the electric current causing the winding 32 to generate the magnetic field.
Regarding claim 6, the winding 32 is positioned proximate to the one or more magnets 30.
Regarding claim 7, the impactor includes a biasing mechanism 13 configured to bias the strike assembly towards a resting position.
Regarding claim 8, the biasing mechanism 13 comprises a spring, wherein the spring is configured to: compress as the strike assembly is translated in a first direction; and extend as the strike assembly is translated in a second direction.
Regarding claim 10, the impactor includes control electronics at 40 communicatively coupled to at least one of: an input to the impactor (at 32).
Regarding claim 13, Averbukh teaches a method, comprising:
providing an impactor capable of use in an orthopedic setting comprising:
a strike assembly 18/22/24/26/30 having a body 26 coupled to a striker 24, the body 26 having one or more magnets 30, wherein the striker 24 is configured to be movable within a chamber of 28;
a connector 18; and
a spacer at the back face of 28 configured to define a maximum distal displacement of the connector 18 corresponding to a minimum extension of the connector 18 from the orthopedic impactor;
generating a magnetic field using an electric current by way of controller 40 and coil 32, wherein the magnetic field is configured to interact with the one or more magnets 30 in the body 26 causing the strike assembly to translate between the connector 18 and the spacer of 28, and the striker to impart a force to at least one of the connector 18 or the spacer of 28.
Regarding claim 14, a translation of the strike assembly in a first direction (down in fig. 1) causes the striker 24 to impart force on the connector 18; and a translation of the strike assembly in a second direction (up) causes the striker 24 to impart force on the spacer of 28, the second direction being opposite to the first direction.
Regarding claim 15, the connector 18 is configured to impact an object (through impact with 14).
Regarding claim 16, the force includes an object implanting force, wherein translation of the strike assembly in the first direction causes the striker 24 to impart the object implanting force on the connector 18 to implant the object.
Regarding claim 17, a winding 32 configured to receive the electric current from 40 causing the winding 32 to generate the magnetic field.
Regarding claim 18, the winding 32 is positioned proximate to the one or more magnets 30.
Regarding claim 19, the orthopedic impactor comprises a biasing mechanism 13 configured to bias the strike assembly towards a resting position.
Regarding claim 20, the biasing mechanism 13 comprises a spring, wherein the spring is configured to compress as the strike assembly is translated in a first direction; and extend as the strike assembly is translated in a second direction.
Regarding claim 22, the orthopedic impactor further comprises control electronics at controller 40 communicatively coupled to an input to the orthopedic impactor at 32.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 9, 11, 12, 21, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Averbukh in view of Bittenson (US 2013/0261681 A1).
Regarding claims 9, 11, 12, 21, 23, and 24, Averbukh teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 13, as above.
Averbukh does not teach a sensor, or particular functions of the controller.
Bittenson teaches an impacting tool with an electromagnetic drive. The tool includes a sensor for measuring energy of impact onto an object [0045]. This includes associated control electronics communicatively coupled to an impactor portion 128. The electronics are configured to determine a position of the strike assembly using a Hall Effect sensor [0041], [0060], [0055].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to improve the Averbukh device by providing a sensor to the device in order to measure quantity of impact energy. One would have done so in cases where the object being driven against or into is fragile.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Bates whose telephone number is (571)270-7034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM-6PM
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, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Truong, at (571)272-4705. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID W BATES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
