Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the following:
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-8, 11-15, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100206593 A1 to Schad (on IDS).
Claim(s) 2 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schad as provided above, and further in view of US Pat Pub No. 20190290449 to Wu et al. (previously presented).
Claim(s) 4-5, 9-10, 17-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schad as provided above, and further in view of US Pat Pub No 20070222401 to Trumper et al (previously presented).
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 1-20 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 “high potential magnetic field” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high potential” 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.
Dependent claims 2-14 are rejected for depending on rejected claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the sintered composite materials" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “high potential magnetic field” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high potential” 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.
Dependent claims 16-20 are rejected for depending on rejected claim 15.
Claim 10 recites “the sintered composite materials may include sintered metal composite materials.” It is unclear whether the limitation that follows “may” is being required or is an optional limitation.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the sintered composite materials". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-8, 11-15, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100206593 A1 to Schad.
Regarding claims 1 and 15. (Original). Schad discloses an impactor and method (para 0023, striking mechanism 1), comprising an electromagnetic component (para 0023, primary drive with magnetic coils 4, 5) including a stationary electromagnetic housing (para 0040, magnetic field guide 60, []) and a moving magnet actuator component (para 0023, striking element 2), wherein the stationary electromagnetic housing includes a coil (para 0023, 0040, “magnetic field guide 60 can surround the magnetic coils 4, 5”) configured to receive an electric current (para 0032 “current to flow through the two magnetic coils 4, 5”); the moving magnet actuator includes one or more magnets (para 0033 “striking element 2 is made of a magnetic material or it has inserts made of a magnetic material”), wherein the one or more magnets are configured to generate a magnetic field that interacts with the electric current applied to the coil and trigger translation movement of the moving magnet actuator component (para 0032-0033 “The two magnetic coils 4, 5 are connected to a power source. A control unit allows current to flow through the two magnetic coils 4, 5 alternately. As a consequence, a magnetic field flows [] the appertaining magnetic field acts upon the striking element 2 and accelerates said striking element 2”); a striker component configured to be coupled to an object (para 0027 “anvil”); and one or more strike plates (para 0027 “striking surface 17”); wherein an electromagnetic field, generated as a result of application of the electric current to the coil (para 0032-0033), is configured to force the moving magnet actuator component to translate (para 0033), wherein translation of the moving magnet actuator component is configured to cause the moving magnet actuator component to strike at least one of the strike plates to thereby translate the striker component (para 0032-0033, 0036, 0038, etc.).
Schad, fails to explicitly disclose the magnetic field to be high potential magnetic field. However, neither the claim nor the specification provide any details on what the high potential magnetic field is or now hot is generated. Therefore, as read under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, any magnetic field generated that performs the same functions could be considered to be the high potential magnetic field. Here, Schad discloses having coils and magnetic fields and performs similar functions. Therefore, Schad is understood to disclose, teach or at least render obvious providing such magnetic field.
Regarding claim 3. (Original). Schad discloses the impactor of claim 1, wherein the moving magnet actuator component includes one or more pole components being positioned adjacent to the magnets (para 0025 “sleeve 16”).
Regarding claim 6. (Original). Schad discloses the impactor of claim 1, wherein directions of translation movement of the moving magnet actuator component and the striker component are directly and/or indirectly dependent on a direction of the current applied to the coil (para 0047 “The polarity of the magnetic fields generated by the magnetic coils 4, 5 should be set as a function of the polarization direction of the striking element 2. Moreover, the polarity of the magnetic coils 4, 5 can be turned during one movement cycle of the striking element 2 in order to apply a pulling as well as a pushing force on the striking element 2”).
Regarding claims 7 and 19. (Original). Schad discloses the impactor of claim 6, wherein a change in a direction of the current applied to the coil is configured to change a direction of translation movement of the moving magnet actuator component and the striker component (para 0047 “The polarity of the magnetic fields generated by the magnetic coils 4, 5 should be set as a function of the polarization direction of the striking element 2. Moreover, the polarity of the magnetic coils 4, 5 can be turned during one movement cycle of the striking element 2 in order to apply a pulling as well as a pushing force on the striking element 2”).
Regarding claim 8. (Original). Schad discloses the impactor of claim 1, wherein the coil receives electric current causing the electromagnetic component to generate an axial electromagnetic flux and a radial electromagnetic flux (para 0006, 0012, 0036, 0048).
Regarding claim 11. (Original). Schad discloses the impactor of claim 1, wherein the one or more magnets are arranged concentrically in relation to the one or more coils (fig. 1, para 0031 “surrounded by at least two magnetic coils 4, 5”).
Regarding claim 12. (Original). Schad discloses the impactor of claim 1, wherein the one or more magnets are arranged linearly within the stationary electromagnetic housing (para 0033 “striking element 2 is made of a magnetic material or it has inserts made of a magnetic material”).
Regarding claim 13. (Original). Schad discloses the impactor of claim 1, wherein the object includes at least one of: a tool, an implant, and any combination thereof (para 0017).
Regarding claim 14. (Original). Schad discloses the impactor of claim 1, wherein the translation movement of the striker component is configured for positioning an implant in a bone and/or remove the implant from the bone (para 0017, power tool is capable of being used to perform such procedures).
Claim(s) 2 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schad as provided above, and further in view of US Pat Pub No. 20190290449 to Wu et al. (hereinafter “Wu”).
Regarding claims 2 and 16. (Original). Schad discloses the impactor of claim 1, wherein the moving magnet actuator includes one or more pairs of magnets (para 0033 “striking element 2 is made of a magnetic material or it has inserts made of a magnetic material”), but fails to disclose wherein each pair of magnets in the one or more pairs of magnets have an opposite polarity to at least another pair of magnets in the one or more pairs of magnets.
Wu, from a similar field of endeavor teaches that it is known to pair magnets having opposite polarities (para 0065). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Schad with the knowing teachings of Wu to provide the predictable result of pairing the magnets having opposite polarities.
Claim(s) 4-5, 9-10, 17-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schad as provided above, and further in view of US Pat Pub No 20070222401 to Trumper et al (hereinafter “Trumper”).
Regarding claims 4 and 17. Schad discloses the impactor of claim 3 and 15, but fails to disclose wherein the pole components are composed of one or more sintered composite materials, the one or more sintered composite materials include sintered metal composite materials.
Trumper from a similar field of endeavor teaches that it is known to use sintered soft magnetic materials made from iron particles to maximize acceleration and minimize the reaction force and reducing eddy currents (para 0056). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Schad with the knowing teachings of Trumper to provide the predictable result of maximizing acceleration and minimizing the reaction force and reducing eddy currents.
Regarding claims 5 and 18. Schad discloses the impactor of claim 1 and 15, but fails to disclose wherein the stationary electromagnetic housing is composed of one or more sintered composite materials.
Trumper from a similar field of endeavor teaches that it is known to use sintered soft magnetic materials made from iron particles to maximize acceleration and minimize the reaction force and reducing eddy currents (para 0056). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Schad with the knowing teachings of Trumper to provide the predictable result of maximizing acceleration and minimizing the reaction force and reducing eddy currents.
Regarding claim 9. Schad discloses the impactor of claim 8, but fails to disclose wherein the sintered composite materials of the housing reduce an occurrence of one or more eddy currents resulting from at least one of the axial electromagnetic flux and/or radial electromagnetic flux.
Trumper from a similar field of endeavor teaches that it is known to use sintered soft magnetic materials made from iron particles to maximize acceleration and minimize the reaction force and reducing eddy currents (para 0056). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Schad with the knowing teachings of Trumper to provide the predictable result of maximizing acceleration and minimizing the reaction force and reducing eddy currents.
Regarding claim 10. Schad as modified by Trumper renders obvious the impactor of claim 9, wherein the sintered composite materials may include sintered metal composite materials (Trumper, para 0056).
Regarding claim 20. Schad discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the coil receives electric current causing the electromagnetic component to generate an axial electromagnetic flux and a radial electromagnetic flux (see rejection of claim 15), but fails to disclose wherein the sintered composite materials of the housing reduce an occurrence of one or more eddy currents resulting from at least one of the axial electromagnetic flux and/or radial electromagnetic flux.
Trumper from a similar field of endeavor teaches that it is known to use sintered soft magnetic materials made from iron particles to maximize acceleration and minimize the reaction force and reducing eddy currents (para 0056). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Schad with the knowing teachings of Trumper to provide the predictable result of maximizing acceleration and minimizing the reaction force and reducing eddy currents.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANA SAHAND whose telephone number is (571)272-6842. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 am -5:30 pm; F 9 am-3 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, Jennifer S McDonald can be reached at (571) 270- 3061. 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.
/SANA SAHAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights