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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of device species 1, Figs. 1A – 6B, and EMC species (1), Figs. 19A – 19C in the reply filed on 07/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the requirement does not establish that the identified embodiments constitute patentably distinct species or that examination of the pending claims without restriction would impose a serious search or examination burden. This is not found persuasive because although there would be some overlap in searching fields, there are different configurations and designs for the species being mutually exclusive, are not obvious variants (or the Examiner would not have required a species election); the office respectfully directs the Applicant to MPEP {808.02, Establishing Burden, “where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries, a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together.”}.
With regards to Applicant’s argument directed to identifying which claim limitations correspond to the alleged differences. The office is of the position that at the restriction stage, it is sufficient to determine that each of the disclosed species is distinct for examination purposes and that the claims are generic to multiple disclosed embodiments, and that searching all species together would create an undue examination burden.
Applicant argues that the Office has not established that the identified embodiments constitute patentably distinct species or that examination of the pending claims without restriction would impose a serious search or examination burden. The Office does not find this persuasive, wherein the record demonstrates that the disclosed species differ in structural configuration, mechanical implementation, and operational design, such that each species embodies a distinct approach to achieving the stated functionality. I.e. ¶98 of the current disclosure at least in part describes some differences between species 1 (device 100, Fig. 1) and 2 (device 700, Fig.7) by stating “[0098] The device 700 is similar to the device 100 first described in connection with FIGS. 1A-1B, but with some implementational differences. For example, the device 700 does not include a cap (see 120) that protrudes outward relative to an adjustment coupler (see 118). Additionally, the device 700 does not include exposed external threading like the threaded portion (see 104) of the device 100 first described in connection with FIGS. 1A-1B.”. These differences are not merely superficial or obvious variants; rather, they reflect mutually exclusive structural arrangements that would require distinct search strategies, including different search queries, different structural keywords, and different prior-art classes/subclasses. As explained in MPEP § 808.02, a serious search burden exists “where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s).” Even where species fall within the same general classification, differences in structural implementation may necessitate separate searches to ensure complete coverage. That is the case here.
With regards to Applicant reference to MPEP 806.01, the office respectfully directs the Applicant to the complete MPEP section, which states “In passing upon questions of double patenting and restriction, it is the claimed subject matter that is considered and such claimed subject matter must be compared in order to determine the question of distinctness or independence. However, a provisional election of a single species may be required where only generic claims are presented and the generic claims recite or encompass such a multiplicity of species that an unduly extensive and burdensome search is necessary. See MPEP § 803.02 and § 808.01(a).”
With regards to Applicant arguments that the office has not made the particularized showing of patentable distinctness required to support election of species requirement. The office respectfully directs the Applicant to MPEP 806, which at least in part states “The general principles relating to distinctness or independence may be summarized as follows: (A) Where inventions are independent (i.e., no disclosed relation therebetween), restriction to one thereof is ordinarily proper, MPEP806.06”. In this case, the office indicated in the restriction requirement that the disclosed inventions are independent and made references to Applicant’s disclosure (figures) which explicitly show the distinction between inventions / species.
With regards to Applicant arguments that the Office failed to establish a serious search burden. The Office maintains that examination of the different species would require searches directed to different structural implementations, different mechanical configurations, and different claim interpretations, even if the species share a general classification. This is precisely the type of burden contemplated by MPEP § 808.02, which recognizes that structurally distinct embodiments may require separate searches even when classified together.
With regards to Applicant arguments that the requirement is ambiguous because both device species and EMC species were identified. The Office respectfully does not agree, and is of the position that the requirement clearly identified two distinct groups of disclosed species and required election among them. Applicant successfully elected Device Species (1) and EMC Species (1), demonstrating that the requirement was sufficiently clear to permit a meaningful response.
In view of the explanation, above, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 5 – 8 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.
In claim 5, the recitation of “the rigid elongate member comprises an elongated magnet” makes the claim unclear and vague for not specifying the correlation between the elongate magnet in claim 5 and the magnetic portion in claim 1, clarification is requested.
For the sake of examination, the elongated magnet in claim 5 is interpreted as referring to the magnetic portion in claim 1.
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 15 – 16 and 19 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).
In claims 15 and 16, the recitation of “the device is disposed in between the periosteum layer and the outer surface of the bone” links human organism as if being part of the claimed device. Applicant may amend the claim to introduce “configured to” between the device and the human organism to overcome this rejection.
In claim 19, the recitation of “the device is installed within a patient” links human organism as if being part of the claimed device. Applicant may amend the claim to introduce “configured to” between the device and the human organism to overcome this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 / 103 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 13 – 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beyar et al. (US Pub. 2004/0167625 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
293
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1, Beyar discloses a device for performing a distraction histogenesis procedure [abstract, Figs. 1 – 8], the device comprising:
a rigid elongated member [screw 124] comprising a magnetic portion [small permanent magnet coupled to the screw, ¶496] and a threaded portion [screw 124 has external threads];
an adjustment coupler comprising a hollow interior defined by a sidewall [at least a portion of tube 122 defines a hollow interior defined by body of the tube defining sidewall], wherein the adjustment coupler comprises internal threading attached to the sidewall [tube 122 includes internal threads, ¶230]; and
a compliant elongated member coupled to each of the adjustment coupler and the rigid elongated member [at least elongated portion of expandable spacer 120 defines the compliant elongated member being coupled to at least a portion of tube 122 on one side and coupled to the screw 124 on another side, i.e. Fig.2J, left and right sides];
wherein the internal threading of the adjustment coupler corresponds with the threaded portion of the rigid elongated member [¶230]; and
wherein rotation of the rigid elongated member causes the threaded portion to screw into or out of the sidewall of the adjustment coupler [¶230, screw 124 engages internal threads of tube 122].
Beyar discloses the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further, Beyar discloses:
Claim 2, wherein the adjustment coupler couples the compliant elongated member to the rigid elongated member at a first end of the compliant elongated member; and wherein the device further comprises a stationary coupler that couples the compliant elongated member to the rigid elongated member at a second end of the compliant elongated member [Fig. 2J above, wherein at least a portion of tube 122 couples 120 to the screw at a left end “first end”, and a coupler stationary relative to at least a portion of 120 at a right end “second end” couples the screw 124 to 120].
Claim 3, wherein the rotation of the rigid elongated member causes the threaded portion to screw into the sidewall of the adjustment coupler when the rigid elongated member is rotated in a tightening direction; and wherein the compliant elongated member bends away from a longitudinal axis of the rigid elongated member in response to the threaded portion screwing into the sidewall of the adjustment coupler [¶230, rotation of the screw 124 relative to tube 122 expands the spacer 120, by bending at least a portion of the spacer away from a longitudinal axis defined along the screw 124, the expanded and un-expanded configurations best shown in Figs. 2B – 2D].
Claim 4, wherein the rotation of the rigid elongated member causes the threaded portion to screw out of the sidewall of the adjustment coupler when the rigid elongated member is rotated in a loosening direction; and wherein the compliant elongated member retracts toward a longitudinal axis of the rigid elongated member in response to the threaded portion screwing out of the sidewall of the adjustment coupler [¶230, rotation of the screw 124 relative to tube 122 un-expands the spacer 120, by retracting at least a bent portion of the spacer towards a longitudinal axis defined along the screw 124, the expanded and un-expanded configurations best shown in Figs. 2B – 2D].
Claim 13, wherein the device is configured to be disposed in between a periosteum layer and an outer surface of a bone [the device of Beyer exhibits substantially identical structure to the claimed device, and is configured for placement between tissues, and therefore inherently capable of being placed between desired layer / tissue and bone to achieve desired results].
Claim 14, wherein the device is configured to be disposed in between a periosteum layer and an outer surface of a bone to perform a periosteal distraction procedure to improve perfusion and initiate regeneration of the bone or soft tissue by stretching and distracting the periosteum layer away from the outer surface of the bone [the device of Beyer exhibits substantially identical structure to the claimed device, and is configured for placement between tissues, and therefore inherently capable of being placed between desired layer / tissue and bone to achieve desired results].
Claim 15, wherein the device is disposed in between the periosteum layer and the outer surface of the bone during the periosteal distraction procedure [the device of Beyer exhibits substantially identical structure to the claimed device, and is configured for placement between tissues, and therefore inherently capable of being placed between desired layer / tissue and bone to achieve desired results];
wherein rotation of the rigid elongated member in a tightening direction causes the threaded portion to screw into the sidewall of the adjustment coupler and further causes the compliant elongated member to distract away from the rigid elongated member [¶230, rotation of the screw 124 relative to tube 122 expands the spacer 120, by bending at least a portion of the spacer away from a longitudinal axis defined along the screw 124, the expanded and un-expanded configurations best shown in Figs. 2B – 2D]; and
wherein the compliant elongated member distracting away from the rigid elongated member causes the periosteum to stretch and distract away from the outer surface of the bone [expanding the compliant elongate member causes expansion in size and is capable of distracting tissue].
Claim 16, wherein the device is disposed in between the periosteum layer and the outer surface of the bone during the periosteal distraction procedure [the device of Beyer exhibits substantially identical structure to the claimed device, and is configured for placement between tissues, and therefore inherently capable of being placed between desired layer / tissue and bone to achieve desired results];
wherein rotation of the rigid elongated member in a loosening direction causes the threaded portion to screw out of the sidewall of the adjustment coupler and further causes the compliant elongated member to retract toward the rigid elongated member [¶230, rotation of the screw 124 relative to tube 122 un-expands the spacer 120, by retracting at least a bent portion of the spacer towards a longitudinal axis defined along the screw 124, the expanded and un-expanded configurations best shown in Figs. 2B – 2D]; and
wherein the compliant elongated member retracting toward the rigid elongated member allows the periosteum to relax toward the outer surface of the bone [un-expanding the compliant elongate member causes reduction in size and is capable of relaxing distracted tissue].
Claim 17, wherein the distraction histogenesis procedure is a periosteal distraction procedure; and wherein, during the periosteal distraction procedure, the rotation of the rigid elongated member causes distraction or retraction of a periosteum of a patient [¶230, rotation of the screw 124 relative to tube 122 expands or un-expands the spacer 120, to increase or decrease in size to be capable of distracting or retracting tissue, the expanded and un-expanded configurations best shown in Figs. 2B – 2D].
Claim 19, wherein the device is installed within a patient during the distraction histogenesis procedure such that a skin barrier of the patient is closed over the device [the device of Beyer exhibits substantially identical structure to the claimed device, and is configured for placement between tissues, and therefore inherently capable of being placed between desired layer / tissue and bone to achieve desired results];
wherein the magnetic portion of the rigid elongated member forms a magnetic coupling with a corresponding magnet of an external magnetic controller when the device is installed within the patient [¶495, strong permanent magnet is rotated outside the body, torque is applied to the small magnet turning the screw].
Claim(s) 5 – 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beyar et al. (US Pub. 2004/0167625 A1) in view of Culbert et al. (US Pub. 2021/0307787 A1).
Beyar discloses the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further, Beyar discloses (as of claim 6) wherein the elongated magnet forms a magnetic coupling with a corresponding magnet of an external magnetic controller; and wherein rotation of the corresponding magnet causes corresponding rotation of the elongated magnet [¶495, strong permanent magnet is rotated outside the body, torque is applied to the small magnet turning the screw]; (as of claim 7) wherein corresponding rotation of the elongated magnet in a tightening direction causes corresponding rotation of the rigid elongated member in the tightening direction; wherein the corresponding rotation of the rigid elongated member in the tightening direction causes the threaded portion to screw into the sidewall of the adjustment coupler; and wherein the threaded portion screwing into the sidewall of the adjustment coupler causes the compliant elongated member to distract away from a longitudinal axis of the rigid elongated member [¶495, strong permanent magnet is rotated outside the body, torque is applied to the small magnet turning the screw 124 to expand and un-expand the compliant elongated member, and ¶230, rotation of the screw 124 relative to tube 122 expands the spacer 120, by bending at least a portion of the spacer away from a longitudinal axis defined along the screw 124, the expanded and un-expanded configurations best shown in Figs. 2B – 2D]; (as of claim 8) wherein corresponding rotation of the elongated magnet in a loosening direction causes corresponding rotation of the rigid elongated member in the loosening direction; wherein the corresponding rotation of the rigid elongated member in the loosening direction causes the threaded portion to screw out of the sidewall of the adjustment coupler; and wherein the threaded portion screwing out of the sidewall of the adjustment coupler causes the compliant elongated member to retract toward a longitudinal axis of the rigid elongated member [¶495, strong permanent magnet is rotated outside the body, torque is applied to the small magnet turning the screw 124 to expand and un-expand the compliant elongated member, and ¶230, rotation of the screw 124 relative to tube 122 un-expands the spacer 120, by retracting at least a portion of the spacer towards a longitudinal axis defined along the screw 124, the expanded and un-expanded configurations best shown in Figs. 2B – 2D].
Beyar does not explicitly disclose wherein the magnetic portion of the rigid elongated member comprises an elongated magnet, and wherein the elongated magnet comprises at least two poles extending a length of the elongated magnet; and wherein the elongated magnet forms a magnetic coupling with a corresponding magnet of an external magnetic controller, wherein the corresponding magnet of the external magnetic controller comprises one or more of a magnet or an electromagnet; and wherein rotation of the corresponding magnet causes corresponding rotation of the elongated magnet.
Culbert teaches an analogous device [abstract, Figs. 1 – 15] comprising adjustment coupler [21], rigid elongated member [28] having an elongated magnet [27] and threaded portion [by 33, ¶36], and wherein the elongated magnet comprises at least two poles extending a length of the elongated magnet [Fig. 1B]; and wherein the elongated magnet forms a magnetic coupling with a corresponding magnet of an external magnetic controller [external adjustment device 180, ¶56 - ¶58], wherein the corresponding magnet of the external magnetic controller comprises one or more of a magnet or an electromagnet [186]; and wherein rotation of the corresponding magnet causes corresponding rotation of the elongated magnet [non-invasively adjust the implanted device, ¶56].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Beyar and Culbert, and construct the magnet of Beyar having two poles in view of Culbert. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to do so in order to provide the device of Beyar with a functionally equivalent magnet that allows non-invasive adjustment with the use of external magnetic controller.
Claim(s) 9 – 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beyar et al. (US Pub. 2004/0167625 A1) in view of Perloff et al. (US Pub. 2014/0277490 A1).
Claim 9, Beyar discloses the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further, Beyar discloses a pivot head coupled to the adjustment coupler, wherein the compliant elongated member is coupled to the adjustment coupler by way of the pivot head [Fig. 2J above, wherein an end portion of the spacer 120, defines a head that couples the spacer 120 to the coupler 122, and it pivots between un-expanded configuration to expanded configuration].
Beyar does not disclose wherein the pivot head is coupled to the adjustment coupler by way of a pivot fastener.
Perloff teaches an analogous device [abstract, Figs. 27 – 36] comprising compliant elongate member [i.e. 2710 and 2722] having a pivot head [by 2729 and 2730] coupled to adjustment coupler [2750] by pivot fastener [2709].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Beyar and Perloff and couple the pivot head of Beyer to the adjustment coupler by way of a pivot fastener in view of Perloff. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to do so in order to provide the device of Beyer with a functionally equivalent pivot connection between the head and the coupler to allow expansion and retraction of the compliant member relative to the coupler without undesired separation therebetween.
Claim 10, Beyar discloses the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further, Beyar discloses (as of claim 10) wherein the adjustment coupler couples the compliant elongated member to the rigid elongated member at a first end of the compliant elongated member; wherein the device further comprises a stationary coupler that couples the compliant elongated member to the rigid elongated member at a second end of the compliant elongated member [Fig. 2J above, wherein at least a portion of tube 122 couples 120 to the screw at a left end “first end”, and a coupler stationary relative to at least a portion of 120 at a right end “second end” couples the screw 124 to 120], wherein the compliant elongated member is pivotably coupled to the adjustment coupler; and wherein the compliant elongated member is pivotably coupled to the stationary coupler by way of the second pivot head [Fig. 2J above, wherein opposite portions of the compliant elongate member 120 are pivotably coupled to the adjustment coupler and the stationary coupler].
Beyar does not disclose wherein the pivot head is coupled to the adjustment coupler by way of a first pivot, and the second pivot head is coupled to the stationary coupler by way of a second pivot fastener.
Perloff teaches an analogous device [abstract, Figs. 27 – 36] comprising compliant elongate member [i.e. 2710 and 2722] having a first pivot head [by 2729 and 2730] coupled to adjustment coupler [2750] by pivot fastener [2709], and a second pivot head [by 2714] coupled to the stationary coupler [2702] by a second pivot fastener [2709].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Beyar and Perloff and couple the pivot heads of Beyer to the adjustment and stationary couplers by way of a pivot fasteners in view of Perloff. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to do so in order to provide the device of Beyer with a functionally equivalent pivot connection between the head and the coupler to allow expansion and retraction of the compliant member relative to the couplers without undesired separation therebetween.
Claim(s) 1, 10 – 12 and 18 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegal et al. (US Pub. 2017/0143504 A1) in view of Culbert et al. (US Pub. 2021/0307787 A1).
Claim 1, Beyar discloses a device for performing a distraction histogenesis procedure [abstract, Figs. 27], the device comprising:
a rigid elongated member [rotatable element 93] comprising a threaded portion [threaded distal portion 93a];
an adjustment coupler comprising a hollow interior defined by a sidewall [backbone 30 having nut 95 defines a hollow interior defined by body of the nut defining sidewall], wherein the adjustment coupler comprises internal threading attached to the sidewall [nut 95 includes internal threads, ¶86]; and
a compliant elongated member coupled to each of the adjustment coupler and the rigid elongated member [at least elongated portion of detachable piece 20 defines the compliant elongated member being coupled to at least a portion of nut 95 on one side and coupled to the rotatable element 93 on another side, Figs.27, left and right sides];
wherein the internal threading of the adjustment coupler corresponds with the threaded portion of the rigid elongated member [¶86]; and
wherein rotation of the rigid elongated member causes the threaded portion to screw into or out of the sidewall of the adjustment coupler [¶86 - ¶87].
Claim 10, wherein the adjustment coupler couples the compliant elongated member to the rigid elongated member at a first end of the compliant elongated member [Figs. 27, the coupler couples member 20 to element 93 at a left portion of the device, defining a first end]; wherein the device further comprises a stationary coupler that couples the compliant elongated member to the rigid elongated member at a second end of the compliant elongated member [Figs. 27, a stationary coupler defined by a portion of 93 by 97 couples member 20 to element 93 at a right portion of the device, defining a second end]; wherein the device further comprises a first pivot head [an end portion of 40a] coupled to the adjustment coupler by way of a first pivot fastener [96, Fig. 27A]; wherein the device further comprises a second pivot head [an end portion of 40c] coupled to the stationary coupler by way of a second pivot fastener [97, Fig. 27A]; wherein the compliant elongated member is coupled to the adjustment coupler by way of the first pivot head [Fig. 27A]; and wherein the compliant elongated member is coupled to the stationary coupler by way of the second pivot head [Fig. 27A].
Claim 11, wherein the first pivot head and the second pivot head enable the compliant elongated member to distract away from a longitudinal axis of the rigid elongated member in an arc configuration [Figs. 27].
Claim 12, wherein the compliant elongated member comprises a first end and a second end that is opposite to the first end [Figs. 27, portions of 40a and 40c defines opposite ends of member 20]; wherein a distance between the first end and the second end of the compliant elongated member is an arc chord of the compliant elongated member [Figs. 27]; and wherein the arc chord is adjustable by screwing the threaded portion into or out of the sidewall of the adjustment coupler [Figs. 27].
Claim 19, wherein the device is installed within a patient during the distraction histogenesis procedure such that a skin barrier of the patient is closed over the device [the device of Siegal exhibits substantially identical structure to the claimed device, and is configured for placement between tissues, and therefore inherently capable of being placed between desired layer / tissue and bone to achieve desired results].
Claim 20, wherein the corresponding rotation of the rigid elongated member causes adjustment to a length of an arc chord formed between a first end of the compliant elongated member and a second end of the compliant elongated member [Figs. 27].
Siegal does not disclose (as of claim 1) wherein the rigid elongated member comprises a magnetic portion; (as of claim 10) wherein the magnetic portion of the rigid elongated member forms a magnetic coupling with a corresponding magnet of an external magnetic controller when the device is installed within the patient; (as of claim 18) wherein the magnetic portion of the rigid elongated member comprises an elongated magnet; wherein the rigid elongated member further comprises a housing disposed around the elongated magnet; and wherein the housing is attached to the threaded portion of the rigid elongated member; (as of claim 20) wherein, in response to establishing the magnetic coupling between the external magnetic controller and the magnetic portion of the rigid elongated member, the corresponding magnet is rotated in a first direction to cause corresponding rotation of the rigid elongated member.
Culbert teaches an analogous device [abstract, Figs. 1 – 15] comprising adjustment coupler [21], rigid elongated member [28] having an elongated magnet [27] housed in a portion of the rigid elongate member [Fig. 1B] and threaded portion attached to the housing [threads by 33, ¶36], and wherein the elongated magnet comprises at least two poles extending a length of the elongated magnet [Fig. 1B]; and wherein the elongated magnet forms a magnetic coupling with a corresponding magnet of an external magnetic controller [external adjustment device 180, ¶56 - ¶58], wherein the corresponding magnet of the external magnetic controller comprises one or more of a magnet or an electromagnet [186]; and wherein rotation of the corresponding magnet causes corresponding rotation of the elongated magnet [non-invasively adjust the implanted device, ¶56].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Siegal and Culbert, and construct the rigid elongate member of Siegal having a magnet with two poles in view of Culbert. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to do so in order to provide the device of Siegal with a magnet that allows non-invasive adjustment of the device with the use of an external magnetic controller.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL S. HANNA whose telephone number is (571)270-3248. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F.
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, Kevin Truong can be reached at 571-272-4705. 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.
/SAMUEL S HANNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights