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 .
Response to Amendment
The response filed on 10/3/2025 is not in conformance with the Office’s rules and regulations regarding claim amendments. In particular, some of the deletions of one or two characters were done with a strikethrough, for example, “the” in claim 25, line 6; “the” in claim 26, line 4; “es” in “compasses” in claim 29, line 3; “s” in “sensors” in claim 29, line 3; and “/or” in “and/or” in claim 29, line 3; and “s” in “magnetometers” in claim 29, line 3. The Applicant should be mindful that such deletions are very difficult to see, especially if the deletion is a single letter in a word. The Applicant should use double brackets to delete characters of five characters or less. In an effort to continue prosecution, the amendments have been entered, but the Applicant should be mindful of the proper format for making amendments.
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 23 and 29 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 23 recites “position data” in line 2, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “location” of the motion data in claim 19, lines 6-8. If they are the same, consistent terminology should be used. If they are different, their relationship should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other.
Claim 29 recites “motion data” in line 2, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “motion data” in claim 19, line 6. If they are the same, “motion data” in claim 29 should be “the motion data”. If they are different, their relationship should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 23 recites “wherein the motion data includes position data” in lines 1-2. According to one interpretation, “position data” is the same as “location” of the motion data in claim 19, lines 6-8. Since claim 23 does not contain any other limitation, claim 23 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 19 from which it depends. Thus, claim 23 is of improper dependent form.
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.
Claims 19, 21, 23-27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0262694 (Calcano)(previously cited), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0142097 (Moor)(previously cited), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0070864 (Schuster)(previously cited), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0100692 (Cotton) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0007277 (Aibara).
Calcano discloses a system for monitoring, identifying, and reporting one or more impact events in real-time, comprising: an impact event monitoring device comprises an impact sensing unit (the personal impact monitor (PIM) 110/204 of Calcano; paragraph 0038 of Calcano). The impact sensing unit is configured to monitor the one or more impact events of at least object (paragraphs 0034, 0036, 0038, 0041, and 0049 of Calcano, the PIM 204 of Calcano determines/detects whether one or more types of impact may have occurred). Calcano further teaches the use of sensors comprising gyroscopes (the gyroscopes of Calcano; paragraphs 0038 and 0106 of Calcano), a compass (the compass of Calcano; paragraph 0106 of Calcano), accelerometers (the accelerometers of Calcano; paragraphs 0036, 0038-0039, 0041-0045 and 0106 of Calcano), and other sensors similar to accelerometers and gyroscopes (paragraph 0039 of Calcano).
Calcano teaches that the PIM 204 may also include one or more storage devices (e.g., a memory chip) adapted to store raw or processed data from the one or more sensors. The PIM may be adapted to store data that is relevant while not storing data deemed not relevant using, for example, the event selection operations. For example, the peak accelerations above a threshold can be stored while other accelerations below the threshold are not stored. The stored data may be sent via a wired or wireless communication (e.g., via radio) to a remote device. The stored data may be retained for long-term storage, such as, when trying to compile a repository of information and/or may be periodically deleted (paragraph 0042 of Calcano).
Moor teaches that the recording of impact data (such as, readings from gyroscopes and accelerometers) enables the data received therefrom to be mapped and plotted to understand movement and rotational impact/force of the body, head, and brain before, during and after the impact event (paragraph 0152 of Moor). Biomechanical data and event data can be stored by the memories on the wearable device and that such storage may take place after it has been determined that an impact has exceeded a pre-defined threshold, and may include the data recorded before, at the time of, and after the impact (paragraph 0154 of Moor). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to retain data from the sensors of Calcano from a predetermined time period upon detection of the event, the predetermined time period starting before the event and finishing after the event, as suggested by Moor, since it enables the data received therefrom to be mapped and plotted to understand movement and rotational impact/force of the use before, during and after the impact event.
Calcano teaches that a review system may provide context by displaying an animation of impact motion waveforms provided by an impact monitoring system (e.g., by displaying a visual representation of a head that may be animated to mimic the motions characterized by the waveforms)(paragraph 0172 of Calcano). Calcano further teaches a review system in the form of the monitoring station 212 (FIGS. 2-3 of Calcano) and the remote notification device 214 (paragraphs 0032, 0037, 0042, 0048, 0055, 0067, and 0143 of Calcano). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the monitoring station 212 or the remote notification device 214 of Calcano as the review system of paragraph 0172 of Calcano since (1) Calcano teaches the use of a review system and provides examples of such a review system and/or (2) it embodies a more concrete example of a network infrastructure suggested by the more generalized teaching.
Calcano teaches that a review system may provide context by displaying an animation of impact motion waveforms provided by an impact monitoring system (e.g., by displaying a visual representation of a head that may be animated to mimic the motions characterized by the waveforms)(paragraph 0172 of Calcano). Schuster teaches that motion data from accelerometers and gyroscopes may be converted and retained into quaternion form before being converted into animation data (e.g., an avatar) since it reduces motion data size and avoids degenerate solutions, such as, gimbal lock using Euler angles (paragraphs 0008, 0014, 0018-0019, 0023-0024, 0028, 0030, 0034, 0061-0062, 0067-0068, 0074, 0076-0077, 0080-0088, 0111-0120 of Schuster). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to convert and retain the motion data from the sensors of Calcano into quaternion form before being converted into animation data since it reduces motion data size and avoids degenerate solutions.
The combination teaches the production of quaternions suggested by Schuster. Cotton teaches that quaternions can be easily converted back into Euler angles (roll, pitch, and yaw)(paragraph 0034 of Cotton). Aibara teaches that the roll, pitch, and yaw values are desirable values to display for the user’s benefit in addition to a pictorial display (FIG. 14 and paragraph 0117 of Aibara). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to convert the quaternions back into Euler angles (roll, pitch, and yaw) for display purposes since this information is beneficial to the user in addition to the animation.
With respect to claim 19, the combination teaches or suggests an event monitoring system configured to capture an object’s motion during an event for analysis of the event, the event monitoring system comprising:
an event monitoring device (the personal impact monitor (PIM) 110/204 of Calcano; paragraph 0038 of Calcano) comprising:
a set of sensors comprising an accelerometer and a gyroscope (the altimeter, the gyroscopes, the compass, and the accelerometers of Calcano; paragraphs 0036, 0038-0039, 0041-0045, 0052, and 0106 of Calcano), the set of sensors configured to measure the object’s motion to produce motion data including Euler angles (the Euler angles of Cotton), location (paragraphs 0052, 0152-0153, and 161 of Calcano), acceleration (the acceleration of Calcano; paragraphs 0036, 0038-0039, 0041-0045, 0052, 0081, 0083, and 0106 of Calcano), velocity (the velocity of Calcano; paragraphs 0036, 0038-0039, 0041-0045, 0052, 0083, and 0106 of Calcano), and a quaternion representing a rotation of the object (the production of quaternions suggested by Schuster);
a network module (the devices/means for wireless transmission; paragraphs 0032-0033, 0035, 0037, 0042, 0048, 0055, 0064, 0101, and 0169 of Calcano; see also paragraphs 0043-0045 of Moor); and
a processing device (the processing device in the PIM 204; paragraphs 0041-0042 of Calcano) connected to the set of sensors and the network module; and
a first computing device (the monitoring station 212 with the software 216/302 of Calcano; FIGS. 2-3 of Calcano OR the remote notification device 214 of Calcano; paragraphs 0032, 0037, 0042, 0048, 0055, 0067, and 0143 of Calcano) in communication with the network module,
wherein the processing device of the event monitoring device is configured to use the motion data from the set of sensors to detect the event (paragraphs 0034, 0036, 0038, 0041, and 0049 of Calcano, the PIM 204 of Calcano determines/detects whether one or more types of impact may have occurred),
wherein the first computing device is configured to, upon detection of the event, retain the quaternion representing the rotation of the object from a predetermined time period upon the detection of the event, the predetermined time period starting before the event and finishing after the event (the retention of data suggested by Moor; the production of quaternions suggested by Schuster), and convert the retained quaternion representing the rotation of the object into animation data in which the object’s motion during the predetermined time period is reproduced for the analysis of the event (the monitoring station 212 or the remote notification device 214 of Calcano converts the data into animation and context information (paragraphs 0169 and 0172 of Calcano) using the quaternions suggested by Schuster).
With respect to claim 21, the combination teaches or suggests that the event monitoring system is an impact event monitoring system, wherein the event monitoring device is an impact event monitoring device, and wherein the event is an impact event (the combination is a system for monitoring, identifying and reporting one or more impact events in real-time; abstract and paragraphs 0026-0034 of Calcano).
With respect to claim 23, the combination teaches or suggests that the motion data includes position data (paragraphs 0052, 0152-0153, and 161 of Calcano).
With respect to claim 24, the combination teaches or suggests that the first computing device comprises an event reporting module comprising a position detecting module and an image processing module, wherein the processing device sends the motion data to the first computing device via the network module; wherein the position detection module retains the quaternion; and wherein the image processing module converts the retained quaternion into the animation data (the monitoring station 212 or the remote notification device 214 of Calcano has components to carry out these functions of reviewing and converting the data into animation and context information (paragraphs 0169 and 0172 of Calcano) using the quaternions suggested by Schuster).
With respect to claim 25, the combination teaches or suggests a second computing device (the remote notification device 214 of Calcano; paragraphs 0032, 0037, 0042, 0048, 0055, 0067, and 0143 of Calcano), wherein the first computing device (the monitoring station 212 of Calcano; FIGS. 2-3 of Calcano) is configured to be operated by a user of the event monitoring device; wherein the second computing device is configured to be operated by a second end user selected from a group consisting of: a medical professional, an emergency responder, a relative, and an emergency service provider (the physician of Calcano; paragraph 0067 of Calcano); and wherein the processing device or the first computing device is configured to send the retained quaternion and/or the animation data to the second computing device upon the detection of the event (paragraphs 0032, 0034, 0037, 0042, 0048, 0055, 0067, and 0143 of Calcano).
With respect to claim 26, the combination teaches or suggests that the object (the helmet of Calcano; paragraph 0030 of Calcano), wherein the event monitoring device is integrated into the object, wherein the object is selected from a group consisting of: a vehicle, a car seat, a wristband, a helmet, and a headband (the helmet of Calcano; paragraph 0030 of Calcano).
With respect to claim 27, Moor teaches that, depending upon the application, as an example, the data may be recorded for: (1) a period of between 10 to 20 seconds before the impact, (2) a period corresponding to the impact event itself, and (3) for a period of between 10 to 20 seconds following the impact event (paragraph 0149 of Moor). From these teachings, Moor teaches that the ranges from which to choose the recording time periods before and after the impact are the same and that they are subject to change. The times of pre-recording and post-recording of the impact would depend upon the factors of storage utilization and the desired accuracy when trying to understand movement and rotational impact/force of the body, head, and brain before, during and after the impact event (paragraph 0152 of Moor). As such, the times of pre-recording and post-recording of the impact are results-effective variables that would have been optimized through routine experimentation based on the factors of storage utilization and the desired accuracy. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the times of pre-recording and post-recording of the impact, using the ranges of Moor as a starting point, so as to obtain the desired storage utilization and accuracy.
Alternatively, Moor teaches that, depending upon the application, as an example, the data may be recorded for: (1) a period of between 10 to 20 seconds before the impact, (2) a period corresponding to the impact event itself, and (3) for a period of between 10 to 20 seconds following the impact event (paragraph 0149 of Moor). It would have been obvious to choose 20 seconds for both the periods before and after the impact so as to maximize the understanding of the movement and rotational impact/force of the body, head, and brain before, during and after the impact event (paragraph 0152 of Moor).
Alternatively, Moor teaches that, depending upon the application, as an example, the data may be recorded for: (1) a period of between 10 to 20 seconds before the impact, (2) a period corresponding to the impact event itself, and (3) for a period of between 10 to 20 seconds following the impact event (paragraph 0149 of Moor). It would have been obvious to choose 10 seconds for both the periods before and after the impact so as to minimize the storage needed to store the data while obtaining enough information to achieve the understanding of the movement and rotational impact/force of the body, head, and brain before, during and after the impact event (paragraph 0152 of Moor).
In view of the above, the feature of “wherein the predetermined time period comprises an equal number of seconds before and after the event” would have been obvious.
With respect to claim 30, the combination teaches or suggests that the event monitoring device further comprises an image capture unit to capture and record image data of the object during the predetermined time period (the video camera; paragraphs 0055, 0058, 0090, 0167, 0172-0173, and 0175 of Calcano).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calcano, in view of Moor, and further in view of Schuster, and further in view of Cotton and Aibara, and further in view of WO 2020/259858 (Jessop).
Calcano teaches the use of one or more sensors may be accelerometers, gyroscopes, or some other such sensors (paragraph 0039 of Calcano). Jessop teaches that magnetometers are such sensors used along with accelerometers and gyroscopes so as to determine position, orientation, and movement (paragraphs 0020 and 0054 of Jessop). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use magnetometers along with the accelerometers and gyroscopes of Calcano since (1) Calcano teaches other such sensors may be used and Jessop teaches one such sensor and/or (2) it provides more data in the determinations of position, orientation, and movement so as to be more accurate in these determinations.
With respect to claim 29, the combination teaches or suggests that the set of sensors configured to measure the object’s motion to produce motion data further comprises a compass (the compass of Calcano; paragraphs 0106 of Calcano), a pressure sensor (the pressure sensors of Calcano, paragraphs 0053 and 0112 of Calcano), and a magnetometer (the magnetometer of Jessop).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calcano, in view of Moor, and further in view of Schuster, and further in view of Cotton and Aibara, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0296129 (Petterson).
Calcano teaches the use of one or more sensors may be accelerometers, gyroscopes, or some other such sensors (paragraph 0039 of Calcano). Petterson teaches that magnetometers are such sensors used along with accelerometers and gyroscopes so as to determine orientation including yaw, roll, and pitch (paragraphs 0040, 0044, 0050, and 0142 of Petterson). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use magnetometers along with the accelerometers and gyroscopes of Calcano since (1) Calcano teaches other such sensors may be used and Petterson teaches one such sensor and/or (2) it provides more data in the determination of orientation including yaw, roll, and pitch so as to be more accurate in this determination.
With respect to claim 29, the combination teaches or suggests that the set of sensors configured to measure the object’s motion to produce motion data further comprises a compass (the compass of Calcano; paragraphs 0106 of Calcano), a pressure sensor (the pressure sensors of Calcano, paragraphs 0053 and 0112 of Calcano), and a magnetometer (the magnetometer of Petterson ).
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed 10/3/2025 have been fully considered.
Claim objections
In view of the claim amendments filed on 10/3/2025, the claim objections are withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph
There are new grounds of claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, that were necessitated by the claim amendments filed on 10/3/2025.
35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph
There are new grounds of claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph, that were necessitated by the claim amendments filed on 10/3/2025.
Prior art rejection
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 19, 21, 23-27, and 29-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. That is, there are new grounds of prior art rejections.
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 MATTHEW KREMER whose telephone number is (571)270-3394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am to 6 pm; every other Friday off.
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, JACQUELINE CHENG can be reached at (571) 272-5596. 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.
/MATTHEW KREMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791