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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 3-4 and 54 have been amended, and claims 2, 29, and 32 have been cancelled. Claims 62-67 are new. Claims 5-6, 8-12, 15-27, 30-31, 34, 37, 40, 42, 44-48, 50-53, 55, and 57-61 remain cancelled. All other claims remain as originally or previously presented. Rejections of amended claims have been updated or addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed on 6/15/2026, with respect to the previous drawing objections have been fully considered. Some of the previous drawing objections have been withdrawn. However, one drawing objection is maintained, as it appears the appropriate figure was not amended. One new drawing objection is made in light of the amendments to the specification. Please see in further detail below.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 11-18, filed on 6/15/2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 1 regarding relative terminology have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant’s specification states that the portion of the housing can have a structure that is at least similar as a portion of the housing on an opposite side of the housing, such as a similar wall thickness (See Paragraph 00123). However, the specification provides no further degree as to how similar is defined, and therefore the claim is still rendered as indefinite.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-18, filed on 6/15/2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections regarding lack of antecedent basis have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 112(b) rejections of claims 1, 3, 36, and 54 regarding lack of antecedent basis have been withdrawn. The previous rejections of claims 1 and 3 are substituted with claim objections instead.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 18-27, filed on 6/15/2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of claims 1-4, 7, 13-14, 28-29, 32-33, 35-36, 38-39, 41, 43, 49, 54, and 56 under Kennes (previously cited) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejections are made in view of Kennes and Zimmerling.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "118" and "218" have both been used to designate a bone fixture (See Amended Paragraph 0041). 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: "3060" (See Fig. 30). 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. 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 Objections
Claims 1, 3, 62, and 67 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 9, “the same material” should read “a same material”.
In claim 3, line 5, “the recipient” should read “a recipient”.
In claim 62, line 3, “same as portion of the housing…” should read “same as a portion of the housing…”.
In claim 67, line 3, “the retelling effect” should read “the rattling effect”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim 1, 3-4, 7, and 13-14 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.
The term “similar” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the external component" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the applicant was intending refer to the previously recited “external device” or an entirely different external component, and therefore said claim is indefinite.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 13-14, 28, 33, 35-36, 54, and 62-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennes et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2019/0239007) (previously cited) in view of Zimmerling et al. (U.S. PGPub 2011/0224756).
Regarding claim 1, Kennes teaches a device (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0073, lines 2-3, 300), comprising: a housing (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0075, lines 1-2, 199); and a magnet (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0073, line 9, 160) in the housing (Paragraph 0074, lines 2-3), wherein the device is an implantable medical device (Paragraph 0073, lines 2-3).
The present embodiment disclosed in Figure 2A does not teach that there is a clearance between an interior of the housing and the magnet in a direction of a longitudinal axis of the housing and/or in a direction normal to the longitudinal axis, the device is configured to independently at least temporarily hold the magnet in direct contact with a portion of the housing and/or a body connected to the portion of the housing, the portion being made of the same material and/or having a configuration and/or structure that is at least similar as a portion of the housing on an opposite side of the housing from the portion of the housing, and the device is configured to enable the magnet to rotate inside the housing when the magnet is subjected to a torque from a magnetic field.
However, in an alternative embodiment, Kennes further teaches that a magnet (Fig. 22, Paragraph 0200, line 2, 2010) located in a housing (Fig. 22, Paragraph 0200, lines 2-3, 2020) can have a clearance between an interior of the housing and the magnetic in a direction of a longitudinal axis of the housing (Fig. 22) and/or in a direction normal to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 22). Kennes teaches that the device is configured to independently at least temporarily hold the magnet in direct contact with a body (Fig. 22, Paragraph 0200, line 2, 2040) connected to a portion of the housing (Fig. 22). Kennes teaches that the portion of the housing has a configuration and structure that is at least similar as a portion of the housing on an opposite side of the housing from the portion of the housing (Fig. 22). Kennes teaches that the device is configured to enable the magnet to rotate inside the housing (Paragraph 0200, lines 2-3).
Furthermore, in another alternative embodiment, Kennes teaches that the magnet is configured to spin or rotate within the housing of the implantable device when exposed to a torque from a magnetic field (Fig. 17, Paragraph 0272, lines 11-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the magnet and housing of Figure 2A of Kennes with the magnet and housing of Figure 22 of Kennes, wherein there is a clearance between an interior of the housing and the magnet in a direction of a longitudinal axis of the housing and/or in a direction normal to the longitudinal axis, the device is configured to independently at least temporarily hold the magnet in direct contact with a body connected to a portion of the housing, the portion having a configuration and/or structure that is at least similar as a portion of the housing on an opposite side of the housing from the portion of the housing, and the device is configured to enable the magnet to rotate inside the housing. Doing so would allow the magnet to rotate easily relative to the housing and in a more defined manner (Paragraph 0200, lines 7-13), as recognized by Kennes.
It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the magnet and housing of Figure 2A of Kennes with the teachings of Figure 17 of Kennes to include that the magnet rotates when the magnet is subjected to a torque from a magnetic field. Doing so would ensure that a magnetic field can be used to enable rotation of the magnet or overcome resistance to rotation within the device (Paragraph 0272, lines 11-16), as recognized by Kennes.
Furthermore, Zimmerling teaches an implantable device (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 2, 801) that comprises a magnet (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 8 and Paragraph 0058, lines 19-20, 802) and a body (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 2, 805) connected to a portion of a housing (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 14, 806). Zimmerling also teaches that the device is configured to temporarily hold the magnet (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, lines 11-14) in direct contact with the body via magnetic attraction between the magnet and the body (Fig. 8A and 8C, Paragraph 0058, lines 6-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kennes to incorporate the teachings of Zimmerling to include that the device is configured to temporarily hold the magnet in direct contact with the body connected to the portion of the housing. Doing so would ensure that the magnet is able to be unlocked when an external magnetic field is introduced (Fig. 8B, Paragraph 0058, lines 17-23), as recognized by Zimmerling.
Regarding claim 3, Kennes teaches the device (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0073, lines 2-3, 300) of claim 1, wherein the magnet (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0073, line 9, 160) is configured to rotate (Paragraph 0076, lines 13-14). The present embodiment in Figure 2A does not teach that the device is configured so that the magnet decontacts with the portion of the housing or the body and then rotates when an external device that is used in conjunction with the device is placed into magnetic communication with the magnet to hold the external device against skin of the recipient via magnetic communication between the external component and the magnet.
Zimmerling, however teaches an implantable device (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 2, 801) that comprises a magnet (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 8 and Paragraph 0058, lines 19-20, 802) and a body (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 2, 805) connected to a portion of a housing (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 14, 806). Zimmerling also teaches that the magnet is configured to decontact (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, lines 11-14) with a portion of the housing (Fig. 8B) or the body (Fig. 8A and 8C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kennes to incorporate the teachings of Zimmerling to include that the magnet decontacts with the portion of the housing of with the body. Doing so would ensure that the magnet is able to be unlocked when an external magnetic field is introduced (Fig. 8B, Paragraph 0058, lines 17-23), as recognized by Zimmerling.
Furthermore, Zimmerling teaches in an alternative embodiment that the device is configured to retain an external component (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0055, line 25, 705, “external device”) via transcutaneous (Fig. 7, “skin”) magnetic attraction (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0055, lines 23-25) established at least in part by the magnet (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0055, lines 9-11, 701).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kennes to incorporate the teachings of Zimmerling to include that the device is configured to retain an external component against skin of the recipient via magnetic communication established between the external component and the magnet. Doing so would improve the magnetic flux between the implanted magnet and the external magnet (Paragraph 0055, lines 1-4), as recognized by Zimmerling.
Regarding claim 4, Kennes teaches the device (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0073, lines 2-
3, 300) of claim 1. Kennes does not teach that the device further comprises a magnetic
material to which the magnet is attracted, thus holding the magnet in contact with the portion. Zimmerling, however, teaches an implantable device (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 2, 801) that comprises a magnet (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 8 and Paragraph 0058, lines 19-20, 802) and a portion that is made of a magnetic material (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 2, 805). Zimmerling teaches that the magnetic material attracts the magnet and holds it in contact with the portion (Fig. 8A and 8C, Paragraph 0058, lines 6-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kennes to incorporate the teachings of Zimmerling to include that the portion is made of a magnetic material to which the magnet is attracted. Doing so would ensure that the magnetic portion does not rotate when an external magnetic field is not present (Paragraph 0058, lines 6-9), as recognized by Zimmerling.
Regarding claim 7, Kennes teaches the device (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0073, lines 2-3, 300) of claim 1. The present embodiment disclosed in Figure 2A does not teach the device has a skull facing side and a skin facing side; and the portion is on the skull facing side. However, in an alternative embodiment, Kennes teaches that the device has a skull facing side (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0072, lines 3-6) and a skin facing side (Fig. 2); and the portion is on the skull facing side (See Annotated Fig. 2 Below).
PNG
media_image1.png
440
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 (Kennes)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Figure 2A of Kennes with the device of Figure 2 of Kennes to include that the device has a skull facing side and a skin facing side, and that the portion is on the skull facing side. Doing so would ensure that the external device can generate magnetic attraction with the device strong enough to hold the external device against the skin of the recipient (Paragraph 0070, lines 8-14), as recognized by Kennes.
Regarding claim 13, Kennes teaches the device (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0073, lines
2-3, 300) of claim 4. Kennes does not teach that the magnetic material is magnetically saturated by the magnet. Zimmerling, however, teaches an implantable device (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 2, 801) that comprises a portion that is made of a magnetic material (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 2, 805). Zimmerling further teaches that the magnetic material is magnetically saturated by the magnet (Fig. 8A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kennes to incorporate the teachings of Zimmerling to include that the magnetic material is magnetically saturated by the magnet. Doing so would ensure that the magnetic portion does not rotate when an external magnetic field is not present (Paragraph 0058, lines 6-9), as recognized by Zimmerling.
Regarding claim 14, Kennes the device (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0073, lines 2-3, 300) of claim 1. The present embodiment in Figure 2A does not disclose a system comprising the device of claim 1 and an external component, wherein the device is configured to maintain the hold of the magnet in direct contact with the portion of the housing and/or the body connected to the portion of the housing when the external component is magnetically held against skin of a recipient of the device via magnetic attraction between the magnet and a magnet of the external component and when the external component is removed from magnetic coupling with the magnet.
However, in an alternative embodiment, Kennes teaches a system (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0070, lines 1-2, 200) that comprises: an implantable device (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0070, line 3, 206) analogous to the one disclosed in claim 1; and an external component (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0070, line 2, 204). Kennes teaches that the external component is magnetically held against skin of a recipient (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0070, lines 11-14) of the device via magnetic attraction between the magnet (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0071, line 12, 214) and a magnet of the external component (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0070, line 8, 212).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Figure 2A of Kennes with the device disclosed in Figure 2 of Kennes to include a system that also comprises an external component with a magnet. Doing so would ensure that the external component can be held against the skin of a recipient via magnetic forces between the external component and the device in claim 1 (Paragraph 0070, lines 11-14), as recognized by Kennes.
Zimmerling, however teaches an implantable device (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 2, 801) that comprises a magnet (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 8 and Paragraph 0058, lines 19-20, 802) and a body (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 2, 805) connected to a portion of a housing (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 14, 806). Zimmerling also teaches that the magnet is configured to be in direct contact (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, lines 11-14) with a portion of the housing when there is an external magnetic field (Fig. 8B), or in direct contact with the body when there is no external magnetic field (Fig. 8A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kennes to incorporate the teachings of Zimmerling to include that the magnet can be in direct contact with the portion of the housing or the body connected to the portion of the housing when the external component is held against the skin and when it is removed. Doing so would ensure that the magnet is able to be unlocked when an external magnetic field is introduced (Fig. 8B, Paragraph 0058, lines 17-23), as recognized by Zimmerling.
Furthermore, Zimmerling teaches in an alternative embodiment that the device is configured to retain an external component (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0055, line 25, 705, “external device”) via transcutaneous (Fig. 7, “skin”) magnetic attraction (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0055, lines 23-25) established at least in part by the magnet (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0055, lines 9-11, 701).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kennes to incorporate the teachings of Zimmerling to include that the device is configured to retain an external component against skin of the recipient via magnetic communication established between the external component and the magnet. Doing so would improve the magnetic flux between the implanted magnet and the external magnet (Paragraph 0055, lines 1-4), as recognized by Zimmerling.
Regarding claim 28, Kennes teaches a device (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0073, lines 2-3, 300), comprising: a housing (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0075, lines 1-2, 199); and a magnet (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0073, line 9, 160), wherein the magnet is hermetically sealed (Paragraph 0076, lines 9-13) in the housing (Paragraph 0074, lines 2-3), and the magnet and the housing establish a magnet-housing assembly (Fig. 2A), wherein the device is an implantable medical device (Paragraph 0073, lines 2-3).
Kennes does not teach that the device is configured to provide relievable contact of the magnet relative to a portion of the magnet-housing assembly via magnet attraction between the magnet and a magnetic component of the device. Kennes also does not teach that the device is configured to retain an external component via transcutaneous magnetic attraction established at least in part by the magnet.
Zimmerling, however teaches an implantable device (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 2, 801) that comprises a magnet (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 8 and Paragraph 0058, lines 19-20, 802) and a magnetic component (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 2, 805). Zimmerling also teaches that the device is configured to provide relievable contact of the magnet (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, lines 11-14) relative to a portion of a magnet-housing assembly (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 14, 806) via magnet attraction between the magnet and a magnetic component of the device (Fig. 8A and 8C, Paragraph 0058, lines 6-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kennes to incorporate the teachings of Zimmerling to include that the device is configured to provide relievable contact of the magnet relative to a portion of the magnet-housing assembly via magnet attraction between the magnet and a magnetic component of the device. Doing so would ensure that the magnet is able to be unlocked when an external magnetic field is introduced (Fig. 8B, Paragraph 0058, lines 17-23), as recognized by Zimmerling.
Furthermore, Zimmerling teaches in an alternative embodiment that the device is configured to retain an external component (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0055, line 25, 705, “external device”) via transcutaneous (Fig. 7, “skin”) magnetic attraction (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0055, lines 23-25) established at least in part by the magnet (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0055, lines 9-11, 701).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kennes to incorporate the teachings of Zimmerling to include that the device is configured to retain an external component via transcutaneous magnetic attraction established at least in part by the magnet. Doing so would improve the magnetic flux between the implanted magnet and the external magnet (Paragraph 0055, lines 1-4), as recognized by Zimmerling.
Regarding claim 33, Kennes teaches the device (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0073, lines 2-3, 300) of claim 28. Kennes does not teach that the portion of the magnet-housing assembly is a wall of the housing or a component of the magnet-housing assembly separate from the magnet and stationary relative to the housing, the component of the magnet-housing assembly corresponding to the magnetic component.
Zimmerling, however teaches an implantable device (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 2, 801), wherein the portion of a magnet-housing assembly (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 14, 806) is a component (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 2, 805) of the magnet-housing assembly separate from the magnet (Fig. 8A-8C) and stationary relative to the housing (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 2, “permanent”). Zimmerling further teaches that the component of the magnet-housing assembly corresponds to the magnetic component (805).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kennes to incorporate the teachings of Zimmerling to include that the portion of the magnet-housing assembly is a component that is separate from the magnet and stationary relative to the housing, and that corresponds to the magnetic component. Doing so would ensure that the magnet is able to be unlocked when an external magnetic field is introduced (Fig. 8B, Paragraph 0058, lines 17-23), as recognized by Zimmerling.
Regarding claim 35, Kennes teaches the device (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0073, lines 2-3, 300) of claim 28. The present embodiment in Figure 2A does not teach that the device is configured to enable the magnet to rotate within the housing; and the device is configured to resist rotation of the magnet while the contact is established, thereby maintaining an orientation of the polarity of the magnet relative to the housing.
However, in an alternative embodiment, Kennes further teaches that a magnet (Fig. 22, Paragraph 0200, line 2, 2010) is located in a housing (Fig. 22, Paragraph 0200, lines 2-3, 2020). Kennes teaches that the device is configured to enable the magnet to rotate inside the housing (Paragraph 0200, lines 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the embodiment disclosed in Figure 2A of Kennes with the embodiment disclosed in Figure 22 of Kennes to include that the device is configured to enable the magnet to rotate inside the housing. Doing so would allow the magnet to rotate easily relative to the housing and in a more defined manner (Paragraph 0200, lines 7-13), as recognized by Kennes.
Zimmerling, however, teaches an implantable device (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 2, 801) that comprises a magnet (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 8 and Paragraph 0058, lines 19-20, 802) and a magnetic component (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 2, 805). Zimmerling teaches that the magnetic component is able to rotate (Paragraph 0057, lines 4-5). Zimmerling also teaches that the device is configured to resist rotation of the magnetic component while the contact is established (Fig. 8A, Paragraph 0058, lines 6-9), thereby maintaining an orientation of the polarity of the magnet and magnetic component relative to the housing (Fig. 8A).
Although Zimmerling does not explicitly disclose that the magnetic component does not rotate while the contact is established, Figure 8A depicts an attractive force between the magnet (802) and the magnetic component (805). The magnetic poles are aligned in an attractive orientation, and therefore it would be well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art that the magnetic component (805) will not rotate when it is contacting the magnet (802), and that this maintains an orientation of polarity as well.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kennes to incorporate the teachings of Zimmerling to include that the device is configured to resist rotation of the magnet while the contact is established, thereby maintaining an orientation of the polarity of the magnet relative to the housing. Doing so would ensure that the magnetic component does not rotate when an external magnetic field is not present (Paragraph 0058, lines 6-9), as recognized by Zimmerling.
Regarding claim 36, Kennes teaches the device (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0073, lines 2-3, 300) of claim 28. Kennes does not teach that the relievability of the contact is established upon the establishment of the transcutaneous magnetic attraction.
Zimmerling, however teaches an implantable device (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 2, 801), wherein the relievability of the contact (Fig. 8B, Paragraph 0058, lines 17-23) is established upon the establishment of transcutaneous magnetic attraction (Paragraph 0058, line 17, “external magnetic field”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kennes to incorporate the teachings of Zimmerling to include that the device is configured so that the relievability of the contact is established upon the establishment of the transcutaneous magnetic attraction. Doing so would ensure that the magnet is able to be unlocked when an external magnetic field is introduced (Fig. 8B, Paragraph 0058, lines 17-23), as recognized by Zimmerling.
Regarding claim 54, Kennes teaches the device (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0073, lines 2-3, 300) of claim 28. Kennes does not teach that the portion of the magnet-housing assembly is a polymer body located within the housing between the magnet and the magnetic component.
Zimmerling, however, teaches an implanted device (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0055, line 2, “implant”) that includes a magnet (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0055, lines 9-11, 701) and a magnetic component (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0055, line 26, 704). Zimmerling teaches that the magnet (701) and magnetic component (704) contact each other inside a housing (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0055, line 12, 703), which makes up a magnet-housing assembly (Fig. 7). Zimmerling also teaches that a polymer body can be located between (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0055, lines 18-20, “Teflon®”) the magnet (701) and the magnetic component (704).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kennes to incorporate the teachings of Zimmerling to include that the portion of the magnet-housing assembly is a polymer body located within the housing between the magnet and the magnetic component. Doing so would minimize friction between the magnet and the magnetic component (Paragraph 0055, lines 18-20), as recognized by Zimmerling.
Regarding claim 62, Kennes teaches the device (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0073, lines 2-3, 300) of claim 7, wherein: the device is an implantable component of a cochlear implant (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0073, lines 1-3). The present embodiment in Figure 2A does not teach that the portion is made of the same material and/or has a configuration and/or structure that is the same as portion of the housing on an opposite side of the housing from the portion of the housing.
However, in an alternative embodiment, Kennes further teaches that a magnet (Fig. 22, Paragraph 0200, line 2, 2010) is located in a housing (Fig. 22, Paragraph 0200, lines 2-3, 2020). Kennes teaches that a portion of the housing has a configuration and structure that is the same as a portion of the housing on an opposite side of the housing from the portion of the housing (Fig. 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Figure 2A of Kennes to incorporate the housing disclosed in Figure 22 to include that the portion has a configuration and/or structure that is the same as portion of the housing on an opposite side of the housing from the portion of the housing. Doing so would allow the magnet to rotate easily relative to the housing and in a more defined manner (Paragraph 0200, lines 7-13), as recognized by Kennes.
Regarding claim 63, Kennes teaches the device (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0073, lines 2-3, 300) of claim 1. Kennes does not teach that the device includes a magnetic component, wherein the magnetic component is one of located outside an interior of the housing or located inside the interior of the housing; and at least one of: the device is configured to independently at least temporarily hold the magnet in direct contact with the portion of the housing if the magnetic component is located outside the interior of the housing by way of magnetic attraction of the magnet with the magnetic component located outside the interior of the housing; or the device is configured to independently at least temporarily hold the magnet in direct contact with the body, wherein the magnetic component is the body, if the magnetic component is located inside the interior of the housing by way of magnetic attraction of the magnet with the magnetic component located inside the interior of the housing.
Zimmerling, however, teaches an implantable device (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 2, 801) that comprises a magnet (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 8 and Paragraph 0058, lines 19-20, 802) and a magnetic component (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 2, 805). Zimmerling teaches that the magnetic component is located inside the interior of the housing (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 14, 806).
Furthermore, Zimmerling teaches that the device is configured to independently at least temporarily hold the magnet in direct contact with a body (Fig. 8A, Paragraph 0058, lines 6-9), wherein the magnetic component is the body (805), if the magnetic component is located inside the interior of the housing (Fig. 8A-8C) by way of magnetic attraction of the magnet with the magnetic component located inside the interior of the housing (Fig. 8A, Paragraph 0058, lines 6-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kennes to incorporate the teachings of Zimmerling to specify that the device includes a magnetic component that is located inside the interior of the housing, wherein the device is configured to independently at least temporarily hold the magnet in direct contact with the body, wherein the magnetic component is the body, via magnetic attraction between the magnet and the body. Doing so would ensure that the magnetic component does not rotate when an external magnetic field is not present (Paragraph 0058, lines 6-9), as recognized by Zimmerling.
Regarding claim 64, Kennes teaches the device (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0073, lines 2-3, 300) of claim 1. The present embodiment disclosed in Figure 2A does not teach that the portion is on a lateral side of the magnet. However, in an alternative embodiment, Kennes further teaches that a magnet (Fig. 22, Paragraph 0200, line 2, 2010) is located in a housing (Fig. 22, Paragraph 0200, lines 2-3, 2020). Kennes teaches that a portion of the housing is on a lateral side of the magnet (Fig. 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing disclosed in Figure 2A of Kennes with the housing disclosed in Figure 22 of Kennes to specify that the portion is on a lateral side of the magnet. Doing so would allow the magnet to rotate easily relative to the housing and in a more defined manner (Paragraph 0200, lines 7-13), as recognized by Kennes.
Claims 38, 41, 49, 56, and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennes et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2019/0239007) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 38, Kennes teaches a device (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0073, lines 2-3, 300), comprising: a housing (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0075, lines 1-2, 199); and a magnet (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0073, line 9, 160) in the housing (Paragraph 0074, lines 2-3), establishing a magnet-housing assembly (Fig. 2A), wherein the device is an implantable medical device (Paragraph 0073, lines 2-3). Kennes teaches that the magnet can be a planar magnet (Paragraph 0058, lines 15-19).
The present embodiment in Figure 2A does not teach that the magnet-housing apparatus is configured with an anti-rattle apparatus to reduce a rattling effect of the magnet vis-a-vis contact with the magnet and the housing while enabling the magnet to rotate about a structural longitudinal axis of the magnet while the magnet is in the housing.
However, in an alternative embodiment, Kennes teaches an anti-rattling apparatus (Fig. 33, Paragraph 0212, lines 1-7, 636a/636b) that reduces a rattling effect of the magnet vis-à-vis contact with the magnet and the housing (Paragraph 0212, lines 16-17) while enabling the magnet to rotate while the magnet is in the housing (Paragraph 0218, lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the magnet-housing assembly disclosed in Figure 2A of Kennes to incorporate the anti-rattling apparatus disclosed in Figure 33 of Kennes. Doing so would ensure that the magnet apparatus will not rattle in the housing or produce loud noise while it rotates (Paragraph 0212, lines 15-22), as recognized by Kennes.
Kennes specifies that in another exemplary embodiment, the magnet inside the housing is configured to rotate about a structural longitudinal axis of the magnet while the magnet is inside the housing (Paragraph 0205, lines 1-7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the magnet-housing assembly disclosed in Figure 2A of Kennes with the further specification provided in Kennes that the magnet rotates about a structural longitudinal axis of the magnet. Doing so would ensure that the magnet rotates about an axis that is normal to the skin of the patient (Paragraph 0205, lines 5-7), as recognized by Kennes.
Regarding claim 41, Kennes teaches the device (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0073, lines 2-3, 300) of claim 38 that includes the magnet (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0073, line 9, 160). Kennes teaches that the magnet can be a planar magnet (Paragraph 0058, lines 15-19). The present embodiment in Figure 2A does not teach that the planar magnet has a magnetic polarity axis that is offset from the structural longitudinal axis.
However, in an alternative embodiment, Kennes teaches that the magnet (Fig. 52, Paragraph 0256, line 7, 6861) can have a magnetic polarity axis (Fig. 52, Paragraph 0256, lines 9-10, 1234) that is offset (Fig. 52) from the structural longitudinal axis (Fig. 52, Paragraph 0256, line 12, 2112). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the magnet disclosed in Figure 2A of Kennes with the magnet disclosed in Figure 52 of Kennes to include that the magnet has a magnetic polarity axis that is offset from the structural longitudinal axis. Doing so would allow the magnet to have a domed curvature that matches the curvature of the outer surface of the implant (Paragraph 0256, lines 1-6), as recognized by Kennes.
Regarding claim 49, Kennes teaches the device (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0073, lines 2-3, 300) of claim 38, wherein: the device is configured to be implanted in a human (Paragraph 0073, lines 1-4 and 6-8). The present embodiment in Figure 2A does not explicitly teach that the longitudinal axis is normal to a surface of skin of the human proximate the device. However, in an alternative embodiment, Kennes teaches that the longitudinal axis of the device (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0070, line 3, 206) is normal to a surface of skin of the human proximate the device (See Annotated Fig. 2 Below).
PNG
media_image2.png
594
749
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 (Kennes)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Figure 2A of Kennes with the device disclosed in Figure 2 of Kennes to specify that the longitudinal axis of the device is normal to a surface of skin of the human. Doing so would ensure that a sufficient magnetic attraction can be formed to hold the external device against the skin of the user (Paragraph 0071, lines 16-19), as recognized by Kennes.
Regarding claim 56, Kennes teaches the device (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0073, lines 2-3, 300) of claim 38. The present embodiment in Figure 2A does not teach that the magnet is in direct contact with a polymer body separate from the housing. However, in an alternative embodiment, Kennes teaches that the magnet (Fig. 23, Paragraph 0200, line 2, 2010) is in direct contact with (Fig. 23) a polymer body (Fig. 23, Paragraph 0200, lines 23-24, 2045, “rubber”) separate from the housing (Fig. 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device in Figure 2A of Kennes to incorporate the polymer body disclosed in Figure 23 of Kennes. Doing so would ensure that the magnet can only rotate when a certain torque is applied (Paragraph 0200, lines 25-30), as recognized by Kennes.
Regarding claim 66, Kennes teaches the device (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0073, lines 2-3, 300) of claim 56. The present embodiment disclosed in Figure 2A does not teach that the polymer body is located between a face of the magnet and an interior of the housing, the face of the magnet facing in the direction of the structural longitudinal axis, and wherein the polymer body provided resistance to rotation of the magnet relative to the housing by way of friction features different from friction features of the interior of the housing that would otherwise contact the magnet but for the polymer body.
However, in an alternative embodiment, Kennes teaches that the magnet (Fig. 23, Paragraph 0200, line 2, 2010) is in direct contact with (Fig. 23) a polymer body (Fig. 23, Paragraph 0200, lines 23-24, 2045, “rubber”) separate from the housing (Fig. 23). Kennes teaches that the polymer body is located between a face of the magnet and an interior of the housing (See Annotated Fig. 23 Below), where the face of the magnet faces in the direction of the structural longitudinal axis (See Annotated Fig. 23 Below). Furthermore, Kennes teaches that the polymer body provides resistance to rotation of the magnet relative to the housing by way of friction features different from friction features of the interior of the housing that would otherwise contact the magnet but for the polymer body (Paragraph 0200, lines 21-30).
PNG
media_image3.png
403
704
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 23 (Kennes)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device in Figure 2A of Kennes to incorporate the device of Figure 23 of Kennes to include a polymer body located between a face of the magnet and an interior of the housing that provides resistance to rotation of the magnet. Doing so would ensure that the magnet can only rotate when a certain torque is applied (Paragraph 0200, lines 25-30), as recognized by Kennes.
Claims 39, 43, 65, and 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennes et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2019/0239007) (previously cited) in view of Zimmerling et al. (U.S. PGPub 2011/0224756).
Regarding claim 39, Kennes teaches the device (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0073, lines 2-3, 300) of claim 38. Kennes does not teach that the anti-rattle apparatus enables the magnet to move in the direction of the structural longitudinal axis.
Zimmerling, however, teaches an implanted device (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0055, line 2, “implant”) that includes a magnet (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0055, lines 9-11, 701) and a magnetic component (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0055, line 26, 704). Zimmerling teaches that the magnet (701) and magnetic component (704) have vis-à-vis contact with a hermetically sealed housing (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0055, line 12, 703). Zimmerling also teaches that the magnet (701) can be attracted to the magnetic component (704), which acts as an anti-rattle apparatus (Paragraph 0055, lines 26-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kennes to incorporate the teachings of Zimmerling to include an anti-rattle apparatus that comprises the magnet and a magnetic component. Doing so would ensure that the magnet and the magnetic component don’t experience small movements while inside the housing (Paragraph 0055, lines 26-28), as recognized by Zimmerling.
In a further embodiment, Zimmerling teaches an implantable device (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 2, 801) that comprises a magnet (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 8 and Paragraph 0058, lines 19-20, 802) and a magnetic component (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 2, 805). Zimmerling also teaches that the device is configured to unlock the magnet (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, lines 11-14) via magnet attraction between the magnet and the magnetic component of the device (Fig. 8A and 8C, Paragraph 0058, lines 6-9), and that the magnet moves in the direction of the structural longitudinal axis (Fig. 8A-8C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kennes to incorporate the teachings of Zimmerling to include that the magnet is able to move in the direction of the structural longitudinal axis. Doing so would ensure that the magnet is able to be unlocked when an external magnetic field is introduced (Fig. 8B, Paragraph 0058, lines 17-23), as recognized by Zimmerling.
Regarding claim 43, Kennes teaches the device (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0073, lines 2-3, 300) of claim 38 that comprises a magnet (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0073, line 9, 160). Kennes teaches that the magnet can be a planar magnet (Paragraph 0058, lines 15-19).
Kennes does not teach that the anti-rattle apparatus is configured to unlock the magnet
upon an external device that transcutaneous interacts with the device coming into magnetic communication with the magnet.
Zimmerling, however teaches an implantable device (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 2, 801) that comprises a magnet (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 8 and Paragraph 0058, lines 19-20, 802) and a magnetic component (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 2, 805). Zimmerling also teaches that the device is configured to unlock the magnet (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, lines 11-14) via magnet attraction between the magnet and the magnetic component of the device (Fig. 8A and 8C, Paragraph 0058, lines 6-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kennes to incorporate the teachings of Zimmerling to include that the device is configured to unlock the magnet via magnet attraction between the magnet and the magnetic component of the device. Doing so would ensure that the magnet is able to be unlocked when an external magnetic field is introduced (Fig. 8B, Paragraph 0058, lines 17-23), as recognized by Zimmerling.
Furthermore, Zimmerling teaches in an alternative embodiment that the device is configured to retain an external component (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0055, line 25, 705, “external device”) via transcutaneous (Fig. 7, “skin”) magnetic attraction (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0055, lines 23-25) established at least in part by the magnet (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0055, lines 9-11, 701). Zimmerling also teaches that the magnet (701) can be attracted to a magnetic component (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0055, line 26, 704), which acts as an anti-rattle apparatus (Paragraph 0055, lines 26-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kennes to incorporate the teachings of Zimmerling to include that the device includes an anti-rattle apparatus that includes the magnet and a magnetic component, wherein the magnet is configured to retain an external component via transcutaneous magnetic attraction between the device and the external device. Doing so would improve the magnetic flux between the implanted magnet and the external magnet (Paragraph 0055, lines 1-4), as recognized by Zimmerling.
Regarding claim 65, Kennes teaches the device (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0073, lines 2-3, 300) of claim 38 that comprises a magnet (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0073, line 9, 160). Kennes teaches that the magnet can be a planar magnet (Paragraph 0058, lines 15-19). Kennes does not teach that the anti-rattle apparatus enables the magnet to move in the direction of the structural longitudinal axis away from a bone facing side of the housing when the device is implanted in a human when an external device that transcutaneously interacts with the device is held against the human via magnetic interaction between the magnet and the external device.
Zimmerling, however, teaches an implantable device (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 2, 801) that comprises a magnet (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 8 and Paragraph 0058, lines 19-20, 802) and a magnetic component (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 2, 805). Zimmerling teaches that the magnetic component is located inside the interior of the housing (Fig. 8A-8C, Paragraph 0057, line 14, 806). Zimmerling also teaches that the magnet is able to move in the direction of the structural longitudinal axis (Fig. 8A-8C) towards the skin side of the housing when the device is implanted (Paragraph 0057, line 2, “implant”) in a human when an external magnetic field is present (Fig. 8B, Paragraph 0058, lines 17-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kennes to incorporate the teachings of Zimmerling to include that the magnet moves in a direction of the structural longitudinal axis towards the skin side of the housing when an external magnetic field is present. Doing so would ensure that the magnet is able to be unlocked when an external magnetic field is introduced (Fig. 8B, Paragraph 0058, lines 17-23), as recognized by Zimmerling.
Furthermore, it would be well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art that the magnet moving towards the skin side (as taught in Figures 7 and 8 of Zimmerling) would mean that the magnet is moving away from a bone facing side of the housing.
Zimmerling also teaches in an alternative embodiment that the device is configured to retain an external component (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0055, line 25, 705, “external device”) via transcutaneous (Fig. 7, “skin”) magnetic attraction (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0055, lines 23-25) established at least in part by the magnet (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0055, lines 9-11, 701). Zimmerling also teaches that the magnet (701) can be attracted to a magnetic component (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0055, line 26, 704), which acts as an anti-rattle apparatus (Paragraph 0055, lines 26-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kennes to incorporate the teachings of Zimmerling to include that the device includes an anti-rattle apparatus that includes the magnet and a magnetic component, wherein the magnet is configured to retain an external component via transcutaneous magnetic attraction between the device and the external device. Doing so would improve the magnetic flux between the implanted magnet and the external magnet (Paragraph 0055, lines 1-4), as recognized by Zimmerling.
Regarding claim 67, Kennes teaches the device (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0073, lines 2-3, 300) of claim 38. Kennes does not teach that the anti-rattle apparatus is a means for preventing the retelling effect of the magnet vis-à-vis contact with the magnet and the housing and/or if present, a polymer body in the housing.
Zimmerling, however, teaches an implanted device (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0055, line 2, “implant”) that includes a magnet (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0055, lines 9-11, 701) and a magnetic component (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0055, line 26, 704). Zimmerling teaches that the magnet (701) and magnetic component (704) have vis-à-vis contact with a hermetically sealed housing (Fig. 7, Paragraph 0055, line 12, 703). Zimmerling also teaches that the magnet (701) can be attracted to the magnetic component (704), which acts as an anti-rattle apparatus (Paragraph 0055, lines 26-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kennes to incorporate the teachings of Zimmerling to include an anti-rattle apparatus that comprises the magnet and a magnetic component. Doing so would ensure that the magnet and the magnetic component don’t experience small movements while inside the housing (Paragraph 0055, lines 26-28), as recognized by Zimmerling.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Heidi Hilsmier whose telephone number is (571)272-2984. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Fridays from 7:30 AM - 3:30 PM.
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, Niketa Patel can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
/H.A.H./Patent Examiner , Art Unit 3796
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights