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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 69 is 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 “substantially” in claim 69 (line 2) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. Accordingly, the examiner cannot determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention as defined by claim 69.
In order to provide and initial examination and search the examiner will interpret the word “substantially in claim 69 (line 2) as being absent or deleted.
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.
Claims 67-9898988 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skelton et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0289652) in view Simonetti et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0311874).
Regarding claim 67, Skelton et al. disclose a method of detecting movement of a spine, and stimulating specific regions of the spinal cord, the method comprising:
providing a sensor having one or more sensing elements (the more of “the one or more one or more sensing electrodes carried by leads 16,” see [0027] and figure 2) to sense movement of the spine (see [0018]-[0020], and [0024]-[0025] for example);
providing one or more stimulating elements (the more of “the one or more stimulation electrodes carried by leads 16,” see [0027] and figure 2) configured to electrically stimulate an area proximate the spine (see [0027]);
detecting, via the sensor, a movement of the spine (see [0018]-[0020], [0024]-[0025], and [0027] for example);
modulating an electrical stimulus provided by the one or more stimulating elements at an area proximate the spine in response to the detected movement (see abstract, and especially [0020]).
Skelton et al. fail to recite arranging the one or more sensing elements such that the one or more sensing elements align with a direction of deformation of the sensor.
Like Skelton et al., Simonetti et al. disclose an elongate device (see figures 11, and 20) for measuring or sensing movement of the spine (see [0017], [0029] for example) and teach arranging the one or more sensing elements such that the one or more sensing elements align with a direction of deformation of the sensor by sensing/measuring bending of the sensor(s) in order to provide a known and workable manner of sensing movement of the spine (see [0017], [0029] and figures 9, 11, and 20]).
Therefore, at the time of the of invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Skelton et al., as taught by Simonetti et al., to arrange the one or more sensing elements such that the one or more sensing elements align with a direction of deformation of the sensor by sensing/measuring bending of the sensor(s) in order to provide a known and workable manner of sensing movement of the spine.
Regarding claim 68, Skelton et al. disclose the claimed invention including the one or more sensing elements each include a first set of sensing elements and a second set of sensing elements, Skelton et al. accomplishes this by 1) disclosing at least two pairs/sets of vertically separated sensing electrodes, and/or 2) disclosing at least two pairs/sets of horizontally separated sensing electrodes, see figure 2.
Regarding claim 69, Skelton et al. disclose the claimed invention including the first set of sensing elements is aligned with the second set of sensing elements when the sensor is in the initial state (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 70, Skelton et al. disclose the claimed invention including the first set of sensing elements is offset from the second set of sensing elements when the sensor detects movement (see figure 2).
Regarding claims 71-73, Skelton et al. show the invention but fail to recite:
1) the sensor includes a resistive layer disposed between a substrate and the one or more sensing elements {claim 71},
2) the substrate is a flexible substrate {claim 72}, and
3) the resistive layer is formed via deposition of conductive ink on the substrate {claim 73}.
Like Skelton et al., Simonetti et al. disclose an elongate device (see figures 11, and 20) for measuring or sensing movement of the spine (see [0017], [0029] for example) and further teach making the sensor from a conductive, but resistive ink deposited (deposition) on a flexible substrate (bendable insulative layer) (see 0150]) in order to make a known and workable sensor that senses movement by deflecting/deforming in order to sense movements of the spine (see [0017], [0029] and figures 9, 11, and 20]).
Therefore, at the time of the of invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Skelton et al., as taught by Simonetti et al., to make the sensor from a conductive, but resistive ink deposited (deposition) on a flexible substrate (bendable insulative layer) (see 0150]) in order to make a known and workable sensor that senses movement by deflecting/deforming in order to sense movements of the spine.
Regarding claim 84, Skelton et al. disclose the claimed invention including one or more gaps are disposed between each of the one or more sensing elements (see figure 2).
Claim 85 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skelton et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0289652) in view Simonetti et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0311874) as applied to claim 67 above, and further in view of Von Marcard et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0366489).
Regarding claim 85, Skelton et al. (in view of Simonetti et al.) show the invention but fail to recite the movement of the spine includes torsion or flexion of the spine.
Like both Skelton et al. and Simonetti et al., Von Marcard et al. disclose device/system and method for measuring movement of the spine and/or spinal cord and teach the sensing/detecting measure movements of the spine (and/or spinal cord) categorized as “twist of the spinal column” (see [0003], [0007], [0010], [0012] and figures 6-7 for example) and flexion of the spine (“bending,” see [0037] and figures 6-7) in order to provide a known and workable manner of providing feedback on the movement of the spine (and/or spinal cord).
Therefore, at the time of the of invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Skelton et al. in view of Simonetti et al., as taught by Von Marcard et al., to the sensing/detecting measure movements of the spine (and/or spinal cord) categorized as “twist of the spinal column” and flexion of the spine in order to provide a known and workable manner of providing feedback on the movement of the spine (and/or spinal cord).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 74-83 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON F ROANE whose telephone number is (571)272-4771. The examiner can normally be reached generally Mon-Fri 8am-9pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Niketa Patel can be reached at (571) 272-4156. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AARON F ROANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792