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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/23/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “is” should be inserted between “panel” and “secured.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as being anticipated by Cheming et al. (CN 212542072, cited by Applicant, citations to the text refer to the copy supplied by Applicant with page numbers in ascending order of the Espacenet translation provided by Applicant, hereinafter “Cheming”).
In regards to claim 1, Cheming discloses a magnet apparatus (Figs. 1-11), comprising:
a case defining a central axis (Fig. 1, element 3; central axis through the center of the circular case);
a frame (Fig. 1, element 2), defining a receptacle (space within element 2), within the case and rotatable about the central axis of the case (page 4, par. 1, “middle rotating unit”);
a magnet holder within the receptacle and including a plurality of tubes (Fig. 2, element 111; page 4, par. 2, “plurality of cylindrical slots”) that together define an integral structure (Fig. 2, element 11; page 4, par. 2; “core frame”); and
a plurality of elongate diametrically magnetized magnets that are respectively located in the plurality of tubes (Fig. 2, element 12; “magnetic cores”), the magnets defining a longitudinal axis and a N-S direction and being rotatable about the longitudinal axis relative to the tubes (Figs. 8 and 9, page 4, par. 6).
In regards to claim 4, the magnet holder (Fig. 2, element 11) is formed from lubricious material (page 4, par. 2, “column groove 111 is provided with a lubricating coating”).
In regards to claim 5, the magnet holder (Fig. 2, element 11) defines a curved shape (Fig. 2, curved (circular) channels).
In regards to claim 6, the tubes each define a longitudinal axis (Figs. 3 and 4, axis of the magnets into and out of the figure); and at least one of the longitudinal axes is located on a horizontal plane when the magnet holder is in a relaxed state (Figs. 3 and 4, the horizontal plane traversing left/right in the figure); and not all of the longitudinal axes are located on the horizontal plane (Figs. 3 and 4).
In regards to claim 7, the tubes each define a longitudinal axis (Figs. 3 and 4; axis into and out of the figure); and the longitudinal axes together define a curve in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axes when the magnet holder is in a relaxed state (Figs. 3 and 4).
In regards to claim 8, at least one reinforcement panel is secured to at least two of the tubes (e.g., element 3 reinforces, is a “panel” and is secured (albeit indirectly) to all elements including the tubes).
In regards to claim 10, the tubes include cylindrical walls (Fig. 2); and at least two adjacent tubes share a common cylindrical wall portion (Fig. 2, element 11; portions between each tube).
In regards to claim 12, the magnets each define a N-S rotational orientation (Figs. 3 and 4; north-to-south orientation, i.e., left/right in the figure); and
the magnets are magnetically attracted to one another in such manner that, absent the presence of a dominant magnetic field, the N-S rotational orientation of the magnets is at least substantially perpendicular to the central axis of the case (Figs. 3 and 4; central axis being the top/bottom of the figure).
In regards to claim 13, the longitudinal axes of the magnets (Figs. 3 and 4; into and out of the figure) are at least substantially perpendicular to the central axis (Figs. 3 and 4; top to bottom of the figure).
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2019/0255316, hereinafter “Lee”).
In regards to claim 1, Lee discloses a magnet apparatus (Figs. 30-45), comprising:
a case defining a central axis (Fig. 32, elements 104 and 106; central axis through the center of the circular case; par. 0069);
a frame (Fig. 32, element 108), defining a receptacle (space within element 108), within the case and rotatable about the central axis of the case (par. 0069, “freely rotatable relative to the case”);
a magnet holder within the receptacle and including a plurality of tubes (Fig. 35, left and right portions of element 130d) that together define an integral structure (Fig. 35); and
a plurality of elongate diametrically magnetized magnets that are respectively located in the plurality of tubes (Fig. 35, left and right 110d, par. 0085), the magnets defining a longitudinal axis and a N-S direction and being rotatable about the longitudinal axis relative to the tubes (Fig. 33, par. 0086).
In regards to claim 2, the frame comprises a single disk; and the receptacle extends completely through the single disk (Fig. 32, element 108d).
In regards to claim 4, the magnet holder is formed from lubricious material (par. 0078).
In regards to claim 5, the magnet holder (Fig. 35, element 130d) defines a curved shape (curved bottom surface and curved circumference).
In regards to claim 6, the tubes each define a longitudinal axis (Figs. 35 and 36; left and right portions of element 130d); and at least one of the longitudinal axes is located on a horizontal plane when the magnet holder is in a relaxed state (Figs. 35, plane of the left magnet’s 110d axis); and not all of the longitudinal axes are located on the horizontal plane (Figs. 35 and 36, axis of the right magnet 110d lies on a different plane).
In regards to claim 8, at least one reinforcement panel is secured to at least two of the tubes (e.g., element 104/106 reinforces, is a “panel” and is secured (albeit indirectly) to all elements including the tubes).
In regards to claim 10, the tubes include cylindrical walls (Fig. 35); and at least two adjacent tubes share a common cylindrical wall portion (Fig. 35, bottom portion of element 130d is shared by the left and right portions).
In regards to claim 11, the magnet holder includes a relatively long rectangular portion that defines a plurality of the tubes and a pair of relatively short rectangular portions that each define a respective one of the tubes (Fig. 32, element 108d, par. 0084).
In regards to claim 12, the magnets each define a N-S rotational orientation (Fig. 33; north-to-south orientation, i.e., left/right in the figure); and
the magnets are magnetically attracted to one another in such manner that, absent the presence of a dominant magnetic field, the N-S rotational orientation of the magnets is at least substantially perpendicular to the central axis of the case (Fig. 33; central axis being the top/bottom of the figure).
In regards to claim 13, the longitudinal axes of the magnets are at least substantially perpendicular to the central axis (Figs. 35 and 36; central axis is top to bottom of the figure).
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.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0369586, hereinafter “Lee II”). Lee discloses the essential features of the claimed invention except for wherein the frame includes two separate and spaced apart frame members that together define the magnet receptacle.
However, Lee II in the same field of endeavor of magnet apparatuses for cochlear implants teaches providing a system wherein the frame includes two separate and spaced apart frame members that together define the magnet receptacle (Fig. 25, elements 144b spaced apart by element 128b) to provide the predictable results of allowing for a biasing member that will bias the magnets to a predetermined NS orientation (par. 0060 and abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee by providing a system wherein the frame includes two separate and spaced apart frame members that together define the magnet receptacle to provide the predictable results of allowing for a biasing member that will bias the magnets to a predetermined NS orientation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Calixto et al. (US 2019/0046797) is another example of a cochlear implant system with rotatable magnets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W KAHELIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8688. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at (571)270-5213. 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 W KAHELIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights