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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The Terminal Disclaimer filed 07/15/2026 is approved.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 “a second position. a gear” should read “a second position, a gear”.
Claim 10, “the longitudinal axis. an expansion” should read “the longitudinal axis, an expansion”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 18 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.
Claim 18 is dependent upon claim 10 and recites “the second force sensor”. The second force sensor is introduced in claim 13. It is unclear if claim 18 should be dependent upon claim 13 or be amended to introduce a second force sensor. For purposes of examination claim 18 is assumed to depend from claim 13.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 - 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charest et al. (US 2020/003003 A1) in view of Bae (US 2019/0150835 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Charest discloses an implantable growing rod assembly (Abstract, Fig. 44) comprising:
a housing (paragraph [0216], ref. 4802);
an expansion rod mechanically coupled to the housing (ref. 4420);
a bevel gear assembly disposed in the housing and adapted to translate the expansion rod (ref. 4802) along a longitudinal axis away from the housing (paragraph [0224]), the bevel gear assembly including:
a pinion gear (paragraph [0226], ref. 4842A) having a first set of teeth (Fig. 45A);
a lock gear spaced from and coaxial to the bevel pinion gear (ref. 4842B), the lock gear including a second set of teeth (Fig. 45A); and
a gear (ref. 4844) disposed perpendicularly to the bevel pinion gear and the lock gear (Fig. 45B), wherein the gear includes a third set of teeth that mesh with the first set of teeth of the pinion gear such that rotation of the bevel pinion gear causes translation of the expansion rod along the longitudinal axis (Fig. 45A), wherein the lock gear is moveable between a first position (Fig. 45B) and a second position (Fig. 45C).
a gear bushing with a first side and a second disposed in the housing for guiding the expansion rod along the longitudinal axis (see remarked Fig. 45A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
449
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Charest is silent regarding a first force sensor disposed in the housing for measuring a compression force on the expansion rod, wherein the first force sensor is a piezoelectric sensor.
Bae teaches a communication device for an implantable growing rod assembly (Abstract) in which a force sensor (ref. 14, paragraph [0020, 22]) is disposed in the implantable device (ref. 12) for measuring a force and a wireless communication interface coupled to the sensor and adapted to wirelessly transmit the force (paragraph [0018]), wherein the sensor is a piezoelectric sensor (paragraph [0022]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Charest to include the piezoelectric sensor disposed in the rod for measuring a force and a wireless communication to transmit the data from the sensor, as taught by Bae, for the purpose of better alerting the physician (paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 4, Charest in view of Bae discloses the implantable growing rod assembly according to claim 1, further comprising a charge amplifier that amplifies the measured compression force and generates an amplified analog voltage output (Bae, paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 5, Charest in view of Bae discloses the implantable growing rod assembly according to claim 4, further comprising a rechargeable battery coupled to the charge amplifier and adapted to be chargeable through an external charging element (Bae, paragraph [0028] discloses a battery coupled to the other components of the device which is fully capable of being charged through an external charging element, e.g. electromagnetic induction).
Regarding claim 6, Charest in view of Bae discloses the implantable growing rod assembly according to claim 4, further comprising a rechargeable battery coupled to the charge amplifier and adapted to be chargeable through an external charging pad while a patient sleeps (Bae, paragraph [0028] disclose both a battery or capacitor, both which are rechargeable and fully capable of being charged though an external charging pad such as an electromagnetic induction pad).
Regarding claim 7, Charest in view of Bae discloses the implantable growing rod assembly of claim 1, further comprising: a wave spring disposed between the housing and the lock gear and configured to exert an upward force on the lock gear to bias the lock gear towards the first position (Charest, paragraph [0203], ref. 4449).
Regarding claim 8, Charest in view of Bae discloses the implantable growing rod assembly according to claim 1, further comprising: a keyed bushing disposed in the housing and wherein the expansion rod comprises a mating key located in the keyed bushing such that, as the expansion rod extends from the housing, the keyed bushing prevents the expansion rod from rotating (Charest, paragraph [0157]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charest et al. (US 2020/0030003 A1) in view of Bae (US 2019/0150835 A1) and further in view of Kwom et al. (US 2013/0139615 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Charest in view of Bae discloses the implantable growing rod assembly according to claim 1, except for further comprising a second force sensor disposed in the housing for measuring a tension force on the expansion rod.
Kwom teaches a strain gauge sensor, in the related field or measuring devices, for measuring both a tension force (paragraph [0069]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Charest in view of Bae to include the strain-gauge sensor for measuring tension forces, as taught by Kwom, for the purpose of measuring multi-axial force and torque (paragraph [0003]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 9 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.
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10 – 17 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Claim 1 is rejected, see above, because Bae teaches a piezoelectric sensor and other limiting limitations were deleted from the claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TESSA M MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-8817. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8am - 1pm.
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.
/TESSA M MATTHEWS/Examiner, Art Unit 3773
Prosecution Insights