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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show several structural details that are essential for a proper understanding of the invention as described in the specification. Said structures should be identified with reference numerals in said figures and specification.
Such structures include cylinder of transmission blocks, disc of the output blocks, cross bump of disc of output block, cross groove of magnet, poles of magnets, fixing frame accommodation holes, pipeline, fluid pump, sine and cosine sources, current detector. Applicant should review the specification to ensure that any other structures are identified in the drawings and specification.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “output block” and “transmission block” in claim 1; “connecting block” in claim 6. The Examiner notes that there is no specific structure associated with the term “block” and as such it is interpreted as a generic placeholder for the recited function. However, as noted below the terms are indefinite.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-11 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, as noted above the terms “output block” and “transmission block” are interpreted under 35 USC 112, F. While the components are identified in the specification, it is unclear what the term “block” actually comprises and whether or not any structure is imparted by the term. As best understood the term is a generic placeholder and any structure which imparts the claimed function (e.g. output and transmission) reads on the term.
Additionally regarding claim 1, the claim is directed to an implant screw auxiliary device, which as best understood by the Examiner, corresponds to the handheld tool in Figs. 6-7 comprising the fixing frame. However, claim 1 additionally recites structure of the implant abutment (e.g. the magnet and transmission block), and further states that such structure is arranged in the abutment and implant screw. It is unclear how the “auxiliary device” can comprise components which are not part of said device. Still further, it is unclear whether or not Applicant intends for the implant screw and abutment to be positively recited and required by the claim. As best understood by the Examiner, the claim should be directed to a system, comprising the implant, abutment, abutment screw, magnet, transmission block and the details of the auxiliary device (fixing frame, power supply, magnetic field generation and current detector), with such components positively recited and required by the claim. Similarly the preamble should be directed to a system. Clarification is required.
Still further regarding claim 1, it is unclear whether or not the claim intends to recite the interaction between the magnet, output block, transmission block, implant screw and magnetic field generator. As written, the claim does not recite any functional language which links the interactions between the components and it is unclear otherwise how they would or could interact. The Examiner suggests adding functional language describing the interaction between the components or the like to clearly link the interaction thereof (e.g. the rotating compound magnetic field causes the magnet to rotate, which rotates the output block and transmission block to rotate the implant screw, or the like). Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 6, the term “connecting block” is interpreted under 35 USC 112, F. While the component is identified in the specification, it is unclear what the term “block” actually comprises and whether or not any structure is imparted by the term. As best understood the term is a generic placeholder and any structure which imparts the claimed function (e.g. connecting) reads on the term. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 7, the term “sine source” and “cosine source” are indefinite as it is unclear what specifically said “sources” comprise. For example it is unclear if said “source” merely refers to a cosine and sine based signal generated from a voltage source, or if two distinct voltage source or other signal providing devices are required. Clarification is required.
Regarding claims 8-9, the term “with outside” and “with the outside” is indefinite as it is unclear what the term refers to; for example it is unclear what is “outside” relative to. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood by the Examiner, the claim intends to refer back to the system of claim 7, including the implant, abutment and screw. However, as noted above, such components are not positively recited, and as such it is unclear if the instant recitation thereof refers to the previously used and recited components or different components. Further, as best understood, the recitation in claim 10 would explicitly require the implant to be positively recited in the system. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is indefinite based on its dependency on claim 10. Additionally, it is unclear if the term “implementing the detection method” refers to the detection method of claim 10, or another method. As best understood it intends to refer back however, the term should explicitly recite the detection method of claim 10. Clarification is required.
All other claims not specifically addressed above are rejected based on their dependency on a previously rejected claim.
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) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gliner (US 10653469 B2), as best understood by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 1, Gliner discloses an implant screw auxiliary device (Figs. 1-2), comprising: a magnet (40), wherein a bottom portion of the magnet is provided with an output block (51) protruding downwardly (e.g. dependent on orientation, see Fig. 1), two magnetic poles (40S/N) of the magnet are distributed side by side in a horizontal direction (see Figs), and the magnet is rotatably arranged in a through hole (hole of 20/49) of an implant abutment (20/49; interpreted as implant abutment as 20/49 are abutted by and support the screw and part of/connected with the implant); a transmission block (53/ top half of 55) connected to a top portion of an implant screw (22), wherein the transmission block is located on a rotation trajectory of the output block (see Fig. 2); a fixing frame (30); a magnetic field generator (24N/S) arranged on the fixing frame, wherein the magnetic field generator is configured to generate a compound magnetic field in the horizontal direction rotating around a vertical axis at a constant speed (configured to rotate at a constant speed if desired, see citations below), and the magnet is located in the compound magnetic field (see citations below); a power supply (e.g. electric screwdriver, not shown, see citations below) for providing electric energy for the magnetic field generator; and a current detector for measuring a current waveform of the magnetic field generator (torque setting device interpreted as current detector as current waveform would change based on torque applied; e.g. at least between 0 and an operating value). See also col 5, line 1 through col 6, line 17 and col 6, lines 36-38).
Regarding claim 2, Gliner discloses wherein the output block comprises at least two output blocks which are respectively arranged below the two magnetic poles of the magnet (e.g. multiple instances of 51, see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Gliner discloses wherein the transmission block comprises at least two transmission blocks each corresponding to a respective one of the two output blocks (e.g. multiple instances of 53 corresponding to each instance of 54, see Fig. 2)
Regarding claims 4-5, Gliner discloses a gasket (42) for sealing a top end of the through hole of the implant abutment and wherein the gasket is provided with a spherical protrusion at one side of the gasket facing the magnet (see curved spherical shape as shown in Fig. 2; spherical least in part).
Regarding claim 6, Gliner discloses wherein a bottom portion of the transmission block (e.g. top half of 55) is provided with a connecting block (bottom half of 55), and the connecting block is fitted with a top end interface of the screw (e.g. e.g. where 55 and screw threaded body are connected, see Fig. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9, as best understood by the Examiner, would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10-11, as best understood by the Examiner, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 7, as best understood by the Examiner, the prior art, either alone or in proper combination, does not teach wherein the magnetic field generator comprises two first and two second electromagnets distributed as claimed, and the power supply comprises a sine source and cosine source as required. However, the Examiner notes that claim 7, and claim 1, are rejected under 35 USC 112, B for several reasons as explained above, and such issues must be corrected. Further, claim interpretation may vary dependent on the particular language of such amendments.
Regarding claims 10-11, as best understood by the Examiner, the claims incorporate all the limitations of claim 7, and as such include the same allowable subject matter, pending 112 rejections as explained above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD MORAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM-4 PM EST.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. 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.
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772