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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1. Claims 14, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Walker et al (USPN 2009/0112207).
Regarding claim 14, Walker discloses a method for distraction osteogenesis, the method comprising:
disposing a controller (1080, see figure 14) proximate an implanted device (140) that is secured to a skeletal system (skeletal system 1185 of a patient 1077);
with the controller (1080), causing a magnetic element (1064) of the implanted device to rotate (see a rotation of the magnetic element 1064 of the implanted device 140), thereby causing a first portion (154) of the implanted device (the implanted device 140) to move relative to a second portion (156) of the implanted distraction device (the implanted device 140) (the implanted device 140 is increase distraction or decrease distraction by controlling the driver magnets to rotation the magnetic element 1064, see par. 0079, 0110),
wherein the causing the magnetic implant of the implanted device to rotate includes:
with a drive system (1130) of the controller, generating synchronous rotation of at least two driver magnets (a synchronous rotation of two magnets 1134, 1136 shown in figures 13b-13d) about respective rotational axes (see par. 0012) such that the synchronous rotation causes the magnetic element (1064) of the implanted device to rotate.
Regarding claim 16, Walker discloses mounting the first portion (146, 148) at a first location of the skeletal system (110) and mounting the second portion (150, 152) at a second location of the skeletal system (110) (see par. 0079).
Regarding claim 17, Walker discloses wherein the synchronous rotation is in a first direction that causes distraction of the implanted device (140)(see par. 0110) (by controlling synchronous rotations of the driver magnets 1134, 1136 to rotate the magnetic element 1064 in full rotations in either direction to increase or decrease distraction of the distraction device 140).
Regarding claim 18, Walker discloses wherein rotating the magnetic element (1064) in a second direction that corresponds to retraction of the implanted device (140)(see par. 0110).
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.
2. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al (USPN 2009/0112207) in view of Horisaka et al (USPN 2009/0231073).
Regarding claim 15, Walker discloses a controller (1080) includes a control mechanism (1132) configured to adjust an angle of the at least two driver magnets (1134, 1136, see par. 0120 and figure 13).
Walker does not explicitly disclose the controller adjust the angle between central magnetic axes of the driver magnets as claimed.
Horisaka discloses a medical system (10 in figure 1) comprises a controller (see par. 0051) includes a control mechanism (20) configured to adjust angle between central magnetic axes of at least two driver magnets (angles of central magnetic field orientation lines of the two driver magnets 16a, 16b are adjusted
(16a, 16b) (see figures 5-7) (see par. 0058).
It 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 to have modified the controller of Walker to incorporate a controller with a control mechanism to adjust an angle between central magnetic axes of the driver magnets as disclosed by Horisaka in order to vary easily magnetic field in all direction so that maintaining a magnetic field intensity at a constant level.
3. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al (USPN 2009/0112207) in view of Pool et al (USPN 2009/0062825).
Regarding claim 19, Walker discloses the implanted device (140) comprises the magnetic element (1064), but does not explicitly disclose a third driver magnets as claimed.
Pool discloses a medical implanted device (160, see figures 22, 33) comprises a controller (168, 164, see figure 22) comprises a magnetic driver device (164) comprises first, second, and third driver magnets (217, see figure 33), wherein the implanted device (160) is adjusted by rotating the magnetic driver device (164).
It 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 to have modified the driver magnet device of Walker to incorporate a third driver magnet as disclosed by Pool in order to create a maximum attraction while preventing rotational slippage.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 1-13 are allowed over prior art of record.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach:
A method for stabilizing bone comprising the steps of: generating an external magnetic field and rotate the magnetic element of the implantable actuation device using a controller, the controller comprising: a first driver magnet defining a first rotational axis and a first central magnetic axis transverse to the first rotational axis, the first driver magnet having a first north pole at a first end of the first central magnetic axis and a first south pole at a second end of the first central magnetic axis; a second driver magnet defining a second rotational axis and a second central magnetic axis transverse to the second rotational axis, the second driver magnet having a second north pole at a second end of the second central magnetic axis and a second south pole at a second end of the second central magnetic axis wherein at least one of the first and second central magnetic axes is oriented at a rotational offset relative to a flux reference point that is equidistant from the first driver magnet and the second driver magnet as recited in claim 1.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANNY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2054. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Monica Lewis can be reached at 571-271-1838. 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.
/DANNY NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights