DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed December 16, 2025. By that amendment, claims 1, 4, 13, 16, and 17 were amended. Claims 1-24 are 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
The outstanding rejections under 35 USC 112(b) of claims 4, 16 and 17-20, were overcome by the amendments to the claims of December 16, 2025.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claim(s) 1-24 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) or 103 in view of Bittenson (US 2013/0261681) or Bittenson in view of Mandanis (US 5,485,887) 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 December 16, 2025.
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 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jacquemet (US 4,468,594).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Jacquemet teaches an impactor and use thereof as at fig. 1 (there being no reason such an impactor or an impactor of the same design cannot be used to apply forces to orthopedic situations), comprising:
a strike assembly (1, 15, 4, 3, 2, 42 – all the internals which ride on the shaft 4) having a body 21 coupled to a striker 1, the body 21 having one or more magnets 9/12 (being electromagnets);
a connector 42;
a spacer 2 configured to define a maximum distal displacement of the connector 42 (e.g. the lip 24 on 42 prevents 42 from moving further upwardly or downwardly more than a desired amount col. 3, lines 50-60);
wherein, a magnetic field, generated using an electric current, is configured to interact with the one or more magnets 9/12 in the body 21 causing the strike assembly (1, 15, 4, 3, 2, 42) to translate between the connector 42 and the spacer 2 (col. 3, lines 50-60), and the striker 1 to impart a force to the connector 42.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, a translation of the strike assembly (1, 15, 4, 3, 2, 42) in a first direction causes the striker to impart force on the connector 42; and a translation of the strike assembly in a second direction causes the striker to impart force on the spacer, the second direction being opposite to the first direction (col. 3, lines 60-67; all structures of fig. 1 are constructed into a single structure such that forces applied in the reverse direction are transferred to the spacer 2).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, the connector is configured to impact an object (e.g. a tool coupled thereto; col. 4, lines 41-46).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, the force is an object implanting force, wherein translation of the strike assembly in the first direction causes the striker 1 to impart the object implanting force on the connector 42 to implant the object.
Regarding claims 5 and 17, the electromagnets 9/12 are in the form of windings configured to receive the electric current causing the winding to generate the magnetic field.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, the winding is positioned proximate to the one or more magnets (when the electromagnet is formed).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, a biasing mechanism 15/16/17 is configured to bias the strike assembly towards a resting position.
Regarding claims 8 and 20, the biasing mechanism comprises a spring 16, wherein the spring 16/17 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.
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) 9-12 and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacquemet in view of Bittenson (US 2013/0261681 A1).
Regarding claims 9-12 and 21-24, Jacquemet teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 13, as above.
However, Jacquemet does not teach a sensor.
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 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 Jacquemet 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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