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
New corrected drawings for Figs 2-4 in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because Figs 2-4 appear to be photocopies and the lines, numbers, figures and letters are not uniform, clean and well defined (of a generally poor quality) (37 CFR 1.84(I)). Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “electromagnetic cores” and “non-magnetic device” in Claim 12, 17, “fixation device” and “power source” in claim 13, 18 must be shown (an/or properly labeled/identified) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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: “fastening mechanism” in claim 1, 15, 20 and “fixation device” in claims 13, 18. The examiner notes that fixation device is the similar to “device for fixating”
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.
Examiner notes that “secondarily attached” as recited in claims 8, 15 is being interpreted as an intended use where the magnetic or electromagnetic device is used to repel other magnetic or electromagnetic device, as described in paragraph 14 of the specification. Likewise “not secondarily attached” in Claim 9 is being treated as non-repelling, where the magnetic or electromagnetic devices do not repel each other or are attracted to each other.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 11 be found allowable, claim 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claims 8 be found allowable, claims 15 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. While claim 15 does not recite “to repel magnetic or electromagnetic devices in adjacent …” it is understood that this is what “secondarily attached” is interpreted as such, see Claim Interpretation section above. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claims 12-13 be found allowable, claims 17-18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 14 be found allowable, claim 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 1 line 2, Claim 15 line 2, and Claim 20 line 2 each recite “a series of vertebral body devices rigidly attached to an anterior column of a spine” which positively recites the human body as part of the claimed invention. It is suggested to recite “adapted to rigidly attach” or other functional language to overcome the 101 rejection.
Claim 2 line 2 recites “devices are placed at or near apices of a deformity of the spine” which positively recites the human body as part of the claimed invention. It is suggested to recite “adapted to be placed at or near..” or other functional language to overcome the 101 rejection.
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 4-14, 16-19 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.
Claim 1 recites “each of the series of vertebral body devices comprises: a fastening mechanism..” Claims 4-7 each recite “the fastening mechanism …” where, in view of claim 1, it is not clear if applicant is referring to all the fastening mechanism from each of the series of vertebral body devices or the fastening mechanism from a single one of the series of vertebra body devices. For examining purposes, the examiner is treating these limitations as referring to the fastening mechanisms from all of the series of vertebral body devices.
Claim 1 recites “each of the series of vertebral body devices comprises: a fastening mechanism […] and; a magnetic or electromagnetic device”. As such, in Claims 8-12, 14-17, 19 in view of claim 1, it is not clear if applicant is referring to the magnetic or electromagnetic device from each of the series of vertebral body devices or the magnetic or electromagnetic device from a single one of the series of vertebral body devices. For claims 8-12, 14-17, 19 the examiner is treating these limitations as referring to the magnetic or electromagnetic device from all of the series of vertebral body devices.
Claim limitation “fixation device” in claims 13, 18 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification only repeats the language of the claims and the drawings do not show that the fixation device is. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Furthermore, Claim 13 recites “the non-magnetic device is attached to a fixation device with each of the multiple electromagnetic cores controlled by its own power source”, where it is not clear if each of the electromagnetic core (from the series of vertebral body devices) is “powered by its own power source” or if the electronic magnetic cores as of each vertebral body device is controlled by its own power source (see 112 rejection above for claim 12, 17. Claim 18 recites the same issues as claim 13. Looking at the specification and Figure 4 and paragraph 18 of the specification, it appears the cores of a single vertebral body device are connected to a power source via individual wires. As such, the examiner is treating Claims 13, 18 as the non-magnetic device of a single vertebral body device is attached to a fixation device, where the electromagnetic cores of each vertebral body device is controlled by its own power source.
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.
Claims 1-7, 11, 14, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Archbold US 2019/0021776.
Regarding Claim 1, Archbold discloses an implantable non-fusion growth modulating system (Fig 4) comprising:
a series of vertebral body devices (see Fig below, Fig 1a) rigidly attached to an anterior column of a spine (Fig 4), each of the series of vertebral body devices comprising:
a fastening mechanism (see Fig below) that attaches the vertebral body device to the anterior column (see Fig below); and
a magnetic (#126, paragraph 24)or electromagnetic device, wherein opposing magnetic force from same- pole magnets provide counteracting force to an underlying deforming force of the spine (as seen in Fig 4, paragraph 32 where the magnets are able to repel each other),
wherein the series of vertebral body devices are not attached to one another through a connecting device (Fig 4, where the vertebral body devices are not directly coupled together through a connecting device).
PNG
media_image1.png
799
1020
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Archbold discloses the series of vertebral body devices are placed at or near apices of a deformity of the spine (Fig 4, the devices are capable of being placed at or near deformities, examiner notes that the claims are directed to a system not a method of use).
Regarding Claim 3, Archbold discloses the connecting device is a rod, a plate, or a tether (Fig 4, where a rod, plate or tether is not used and does not couple the vertebral body devices together).
Regarding Claim 4, Archbold discloses the fastening mechanism is a bolt or a screw (see fig in claim 1, Fig 1a-1b, paragraph 24 where the fastening mechanism is a screw).
Regarding Claim 5, Archbold discloses the fastening mechanism is placed open (examiner notes that the claims are directed to a system and not a method of use and the fastening mechanism is capable of being placed open).
Regarding Claim 6, Archbold discloses the fastening mechanism is placed through a mini- open approach (examiner notes that the claims are directed to a system and not a method of use and the fastening mechanism is capable of being placed through a mini-open approach).
Regarding Claim 7, Archbold discloses the fastening mechanism is amenable to robotic or navigation assistance (examiner notes that the claims are directed to a system and not a method of use and the fastening mechanism is capable of being used with robotic or navigation assistance, it is also noted that robot or a navigation is not being claimed).
Regarding Claim 11, 16, Archbold discloses the magnetic or electromagnetic device is a solid core magnet (as seen in Fig 1a, paragraph 24 where the magnet is a solid core magnet and is not hollow).
Regarding Claim 14, 19, Archbold discloses the magnetic or electromagnetic device has multiple poles (Fig 1a, the magnet #126 has North and South poles).
Claim 1, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Archbold US 2019/0021776.
Regarding Claim 1, 10, Archbold discloses an implantable non-fusion growth modulating system (Fig 9) comprising:
a series of vertebral body devices (see Fig below, Fig 9) rigidly attached to an anterior column of a spine (Fig 9), each of the series of vertebral body devices comprising:
a fastening mechanism (see Fig below) that attaches the vertebral body device to the anterior column (see Fig below); and
a magnetic (#526-a, paragraph 33) or electromagnetic device, wherein opposing magnetic force from same- pole magnets provide counteracting force to an underlying deforming force of the spine (as seen in Fig 9, paragraph 37 where the magnets are able to repel each other),
wherein the series of vertebral body devices are not attached to one another through a connecting device (Fig 9, where the vertebral body devices are not directly coupled together through a connecting device).
PNG
media_image2.png
793
1061
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Archbold discloses the magnetic or electromagnetic device is secondarily attached (see Claim Interpretation section above) to the fastening mechanism to repel magnetic or electromagnetic devices in adjacent vertebral body devices (as seen in Fig 4, paragraph 32 where the magnetic devices can be placed such that they repel each other).
Regarding Claim 9, Archbold discloses the magnetic or electromagnetic device is not secondarily attached (see Claim Interpretation above) to the fastening mechanism (see Fig 9 where the magnetic devices can be oriented such that the magnetic devices do not repel each other but are able to be neutral or attached to each other).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Archbold US 2019/0021776.
Regarding Claim 15, Archbold discloses an implantable non-fusion growth modulating system (Fig 4) comprising:
a series of vertebral body devices (see Fig 4, Fig below) rigidly attached to an anterior column of a spine (Fig 4), each of the series of vertebral body devices comprising:
a fastening mechanism (see Fig 1a, fig below) that attaches the vertebral body device to the anterior column (see Fig below, Fig 4); and
a magnetic (#126, paragraph 24) or electromagnetic device secondarily attached to the fastening mechanism (as seen in Fig 4, paragraph 32 where the magnetic devices can be placed such that they repel each other),
wherein opposing magnetic force from same-pole magnets provide counteracting force to an underlying deforming force of the spine (as seen in Fig 4, paragraph 32),
wherein the series of vertebral body devices are not attached to one another through a connecting device (Fig 4, where the vertebral body devices are not directly coupled together through a connecting device).
Examiner notes that “secondarily attached” is being treated as an intended use where the magnetic or electromagnetic device is used to repel other magnetic or electromagnetic device, as described in paragraph 14 of the specification.
PNG
media_image1.png
799
1020
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Archbold US 2019/0021776.
Regarding Claim 20, Archbold discloses an implantable non-fusion growth modulating system (Fig 4) comprising:
a series of vertebral body devices (see Fig below, Fig 1a) rigidly attached to an anterior column of a spine (Fig 4), each of the series of vertebral body devices comprising:
a fastening mechanism (see Fig below) that attaches the vertebral body device to the anterior column (see Fig below); and
a magnetic (#126, paragraph 24) or electromagnetic device, wherein opposing magnetic force from same- pole magnets provide counteracting force to an underlying deforming force of the spine (as seen in Fig 4, paragraph 32 where the magnets are able to repel each other), and
a power source and associated electrical circuity when the magnetic or electromagnetic device is an electromagnetic device (examiner notes the claim is written in the alternative, magnetic or electromagnetic device, and the examiner is relying upon the interpretation of a magnetic device not an electromagnetic device),
wherein the series of vertebral body devices are not attached to one another through a connecting device (Fig 4, where the vertebral body devices are not directly coupled together through a connecting device).
PNG
media_image1.png
799
1020
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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, 10, 12-13, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim US 2007/0179493 in view of Chaput US 2008/0221689
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses an implantable non-fusion growth modulating system (Fig 14) comprising:
a vertebral body device (#120, Fig 14) attached to an anterior column of a spine (Fig 14, able to be indirectly attached to the anterior column), the vertebral body device comprising:
a magnetic or electromagnetic device (#128, #130), wherein opposing magnetic force from same- pole magnets provide counteracting force to an underlying deforming force of the spine (paragraph 3, 69, able to generate magnetic fields to provide magnetic force to generate repulsion or attraction forces),
Kim discloses the vertebral body device is for placement in the disc space (Fig 14) similar to the embodiment of Fig 1a ( paragraph 69) where the vertebral device can use screws to embed into the spine (paragraph 43) but Kim does not disclose a series or vertebral body devices that are able to rigidly attach to an anterior column, a fastening mechanism that attaches the vertebral body device to the anterior column; and wherein the series of vertebral body devices are not attached to one another through a connecting device.
However, Kim teaches that it is known to provide a series of vertebral body devices (#42, #44, #46, Fig 6) aligned in series with each other (Fig 6), wherein each vertebral device are of similar construction (paragraph 57, Fig 6) and comprises an electromagnetic device (paragraph 57), wherein opposing magnetic force from same- pole magnets provide counteracting force to an underlying deforming force of the spine (paragraph 3, 57); and
wherein the series of vertebral body devices are not attached to one another through a connecting device (Fig 6 where the devices #42, #44, #46 are not directly coupled to each other through a connecting device), where having a series of vertebral devices allows for desired repelling and/or attraction forces between adjacent vertebral devices to compensate for abnormal forces exerted on the spine (paragraph 7, 57).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kim to have a series of vertebral devices, each having the same configuration, in view of another embodiment of Kim because this allows one to generate desired repelling and/or attraction forces between adjacent vertebral devices to compensate for abnormal forces exerted on the spine. The examiner notes that with the modification, there would be at least one additional vertebral device #120 of Fig 14. In other words, there would be at least two vertebral devices #120 of Fig 14, each having the same configuration.
Chaput discloses a vertebral device (Fig 4-6) that is placed in the disc space (Fig 2-3), having top and bottom flanges (Fig 6), each having a hole (#37, #39) for receipt of respective fastening mechanism (#34, paragraph 57-58, Fig 3) that rigidly attaches the vertebral body device to the anterior column (Fig 3, paragraph 57-58) and as well as preventing migration of the vertebral device towards the spinal canal (as seen in Fig 3)
It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Kim as modified to have the vertebral devices each include a fastener mechanism, top and bottom flanges that receives the fastener mechanism in view of Chaput above because fastener mechanism rigidly couples the vertebral body device to the spine as well as preventing migration of the vertebral devices towards the spinal canal.
Regarding Claim 10, Kim as modified discloses a power source (with the modification in claim 1, each vertebral body device #120 would have its own power source #140 in Kim) and associated electrical circuity (as seen in Fig 15, paragraph 72 in Kim) when the magnetic or electromagnetic device is an electromagnetic device (as discussed above in claim 1).
Regarding Claims 12, 17 Kim as modified discloses the magnetic or electromagnetic device is multiple electromagnetic cores (with the modification in claim 1, each vertebral body device has cores #128, #130, Fig 14 in Kim, paragraph 69) within a non-magnetic device (#124, #122, Fig 14 in Kim, paragraph 70 where the non-magnetic device can be made out of non-magnetic metals such as titanium or titanium alloy or an elastomer , polymer or resin material).
Regarding Claims 13, 18 Kim as modified discloses wherein the non-magnetic device (see 112 rejection above, where each non-magnetic device from the series of vertebral devices would have their own fixation device) is attached to a fixation device (paragraph 69 in Kim where #120 is similar to that of #10 in Fig 1a, where there can a fixation device in the form of “spikes” paragraph 43 in Kim)(alternatively, the fixation device can be considered housing or wrapping #129, paragraph 69 in Kim) with each of the multiple electromagnetic cores controlled by its own power source (see 112 rejection above, see Fig 14 in Kim where with the modification in claim 1, each vertebral body device would have their own individual power source #140, with individual wires #132, #134 connecting to individual cores).
Conclusion
See PTO-892 for art of cited interest, in particular other vertebral devices that use magnets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAN CHRISTOPHER L MERENE whose telephone number is (571)270-5032. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30 am - 6pm 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, Eduardo Robert can be reached at 571-272-4719. 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.
/JAN CHRISTOPHER L MERENE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3773