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 amendments filed 04 September 2025 have been entered. Claims 1 - 20 are pending. Applicant’s amendments overcome each and every objection to the specification previously applied in the office action dated 04 March 2025. Applicant’s amendments have not overcome each and every objection to the drawings previously applied in the office action dated 04 March 2025 Applicant’s amendments overcome each and every rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 previously applied in the office action dated 04 March 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because
Figure 5: The x-axis does not include what the units of “average workload” are, whether they are, for example, “g-forces” or “newton-meters” or “joules”. It is unclear to what the numeric scale of 0 – 140 is referring.
Figure 7: The y-axis does not include what the units of “Proximity Value” are, whether they are, for example, “Volts”. It is unclear to what the numeric scale of 0 – 1400 is referring.
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
Applicant has not made an amendment regarding the 112(f) Claim interpretation applied in the Office Action dated 04 March 2025. Applicant has not provided any reason to withdraw the 112(f) claim interpretation, so the interpretation detailed in the Office Action dated 04 March 2025 is maintained for the term “sensing device” in Claims 1 – 20.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“first and second signals from the control sensor” is suggested to be revised to “first and second control signals from the control sensor” in order to increase ease of readability for the claim.
“as a true positive signal” in line 15 is suggest to be revised to “as the true positive signal” in order to increase ease of readability for the claims.
“during an early portion of the impact event” is suggest to be revised to “during an earlier portion of the impact event” to increase readability for it being understood as a comparative portion to the “later portion of the impact event”
Claims 3 (line 2), Claim 4 (line 2), Claim 5 (line 2), and Claim 6 (line 6) are similarly objected to because of the following informalities:
“first signal” and “second signal” are suggested to be revised to “first control signal” and “second control signal” in order to increase ease of readability for the claims.
Claim 11 is object to because of the following informalities:
“the proximity level of the second control signal” is suggested to be revised to “a proximity level of the second control signal” to increase readability.
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.
Claims 1 -20 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 the limitation "an impact to the user" in line. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same or different impact as the “impact event” previously recited in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the term “an impact” is deemed to claim, “the true positive impact.” Claims 2 – 8 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the impact signal" in lines 10, 14, and 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the impact signal is intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited signal based on the impact event. For the purposes of examination, the term “the impact signal” is deemed to claim “the signal based on the impact event.” Claims 2 – 8 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “if the impact signal is not identified as a true positive”. It is unclear if this term is intended to refer to the same or different than the previously-recited “true positive impacts” or the also previously-recited “true positive signal”. In the “identify” term, it appears that the impact signal is deemed a “true positive signal”. As recited, the “true positive impacts” of the preamble is not recited elsewhere in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the term “a true positive” is deemed to claim “the true positive signal”.
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.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1). The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1).
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites "an act or step, or series of acts or steps" and is therefore a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1). The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1).
Each of claims 1 – 20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1 – 20 recites at least one step or instruction for observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, which are grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG. The claimed invention involves making observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, which are concepts performed in the human mind under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, each of Claims 1 – 20 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claims 1 – 20 recite (underlined are observations, judgments, evaluations, or opinions, which are grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG) (additional elements bolded, see Step 2A, prong 2);
Claim 1:
A system for sensing true positive impacts to a user, the system comprising:
a sensing device configured for secured coupling to a user and comprising:
a motion sensor configured for sensing accelerations associated with an impact event and for generating a signal based on the impact event;
a control sensor for sensing when the sensing device is in position for sensing;
a computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon for:
receiving and capturing the signal from the motion sensor; and
comparing first and second signals from the control sensor to determine if the impact signal is a true positive signal, the first control signal from the control sensor being captured at a time prior to the impact event or during an early portion of the impact event and the second control signal from the control sensor being captured at a later portion of the impact event or after the impact event; and
a processor for processing the instructions to capture the impact signal, perform the comparing, and identify the impact signal as a true positive signal indicative of an impact to the user based on the comparing.
Claim 9
A method of sensing isolating true positive impacts from false positive impacts and storing the true positive impacts, the method comprising:
using a motion sensor arranged on a sensing device securely coupled to a user and configured for sensing accelerations and generating a signal of the accelerations, sensing and recording a signal of an impact event from a motion sensor and generating an impact signal;
using a control sensor arranged on the sensing device:
sensing a first control signal prior to the impact event; and
sensing a second control signal after the impact event; using a computer processor:
receiving the impact signal from the motion sensor;
receiving the first control signal from the control sensor;
receiving the second control signal from the control sensor after the impact event;
comparing the first control signal to the second control signal; and
identifying the impact signal as a true positive signal based on the comparing; and
discarding the impact signal if the impact signal is not identified as a true positive.
(observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
These underlined limitations describe a mathematical calculation and/or a mental process, as a skilled practitioner is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner notes that nothing from the claims suggests that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or by using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps in real time. Examiner additionally notes that nothing from the claims suggests and undue level of complexity that the mathematical calculations and/or the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps. For example, in Independent Claims 1 and 9, these limitations include:
observation of accelerations associated with an impact event
observation and judgement of an impact signal
observation and judgment to receive a first control signal
observation and judgment to receive a second control signal after the impact event
observing and communicating a signal based on the impact event
observation and judgment of when the sensing device is in position for sensing
observing and recording (writing down, tabulating) the signal from the motion sensor
observing and judgment to compare first and second signals from the control sensor to determine if the impact signal is a true positive signal;
observing and judgment to compare signals
observing and judgment to identify the impact signal as a true positive signal indicative of an impact to the user
observation and judgment to discard the impact signal if the impact signal is not observed and judged as a true positive.
all of which are grouped as mental processes or mathematical calculations under the 2019 PEG.
Certain methods of directing human activity:
using a control sensor arranged on the sensing device:
using a computer processor:
Similarly, Dependent Claims 2 – 8, and 10 - 20 include the following abstract limitations, in addition the aforementioned limitations in Independent Claims 1 and 9 (underlined observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG):
identify the signal as true positive when the second signal differs from the first signal by no more than 15% or no more than 5%.
Observation and judgment to identify the signal as true positive when the second signal differs from the first signal by no more than 15% or not more than 5%.
comparing the first signal from the control sensor to a threshold value indicating that the sensing device is in position for sensing.
Observation and judgment to compare the first signal from the control sensor to a threshold value indicating that the sensing device is in position for sensing.
comparing a proximity level of the first control signal to the proximity level of the second control signal to identify a difference in proximity level.
Observation and judgment to compare a proximity level of the first control signal to the proximity level of the second control signal to identify a difference in proximity level.
the difference in proximity level is further compared to a threshold.
the difference in proximity level is further observed and judged to compare to a threshold.
the threshold is met when the second control signal differs from the first control signal by less than 15%.
the threshold is observed and judged to be met when the second control signal differs from the first control signal by less than 15%.
discarding the signal when the threshold is not met.
Observation and judgment to discard the signal when the threshold is not met.
accumulating the true positive signals over time to establish a workload for the user; and reporting the workload to the user
Observation and judgment accumulate the true positive signals over time to evaluate a workload for the user;
reporting the workload to the user
Observation and judgment to communicate the workload to the user.
parsing the true positive signals into head impacts where the g-force exceeds 15 and collisions where the g-force is less than 15.
Observation and judgment to evaluate the true positive signals into head impacts where the g-force exceeds 15 and collisions where the g-force is less than 15.
calculating a historical or weekly workload average.
evaluating a historical or weekly workload average.
populating a workload interface
Observation and judgment to fill out a workload interface with information
displaying the workload interface.
repeating the method for a series of users
observation and judgment to repeat the method for a series of users.
tabulating results for several users.
observation and judgment to communicate results for several users
all of which are grouped as mental processes or mathematical calculations under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract ideas in each of Independent Claims 1 and 9 (and their respective Dependent Claims) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in Independent Claims 1 and 9), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of:
“sensing device”
“motion sensor“
“control sensor”
“computer-readable storage medium”
“processor”
“proximity sensor”
“mouthguard”
Additional elements recited include an “sensing device”, “motion sensor”, “control sensor”, “computer-readable storage medium”, “processor”, ”proximity sensor”, and “mouthguard” in the Independent Claims 1 and 9, their dependent claims. These component are recited at a high level of generality, , i.e., as a generic ECG sensing device performing a generic function of sensing ECG data. These generic hardware component limitations for “sensing device”, “motion sensor”, “control sensor”, “computer-readable storage medium”, “processor”, ”proximity sensor”, and “mouthguard” are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and hardware components. As such, these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further additional elements from Independent Claims 1 and 9 include pre-solution activity limitations, such as:
a sensing device configured for secured coupling to a user
a computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon
a processor for processing the instructions to capture the impact signal,
the first control signal from the control sensor being captured at a time prior to the impact event or during an early portion of the impact event and the second control signal from the control sensor being captured at a later portion of the impact event or after the impact event
sensing a first control signal prior to the impact event; and
sensing a second control signal after the impact event; using a computer processor:
and from the dependent claims:
wherein the control sensor is a proximity sensor.
wherein the sensing device is a mouthguard configured for secured coupling to teeth of a user.
wherein the control sensor is arranged on the mouthguard facing the teeth of a user.
wherein the first and second control signals are proximity sensor signals.
These pre-solution measurement elements are insignificant extra-solution activity, setting up the parameters of the system, and serve as data-gathering for the subsequent steps.
The “sensing device”, “motion sensor”, “control sensor”, “computer-readable storage medium”, “processor”, ”proximity sensor”, and “mouthguard” as recited in Independent Claims 1 and 9 and their dependent claims are generically recited computer and hardware elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract ideas identified above in Independent Claims 1 and 9 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer processor as claimed. In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in Independent Claims 1 and 9 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, Independent Claims 1 and 9 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B –
None of Claims 1 – 20 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: “sensing device”, “motion sensor”, “control sensor”, “computer-readable storage medium”, “processor”, ”proximity sensor”, and “mouthguard” as recited in Independent Claims 1 and 9 and their dependent claims.
The additional elements of the “sensing device”, “motion sensor”, “control sensor”, “computer-readable storage medium”, “processor”, ”proximity sensor”, and “mouthguard” Claims 1 - 20, as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and hardware components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per applicant’s specification, the “sensing device” is described generically in [032] that it “may be the same or similar to those that are shown and described in” four patent numbers, further stating, “Still other sensing devices and process may be used.” There is a lack of specificity of the particular requirements for the “sensing device”, as it can be any of sensing devices or mouthguard appliances given in 12 different patent documents. Further, the “sensing device” 108 is presented in Figure 2 as a generic semicircular mouthguard shape with rectangles on its surface. It is further described in [022] that the alternative wearable devices may be used, “for example, a body or skin patch, a clothing patch, a head band, mouthpiece, earpiece, or other wearable device”. There is nothing particular to the structure of the “sensing device” that deems it more than well-understood, routine, or conventional.
Per applicant’s specification, the “motion sensor” is described generically in [025] as “The sensors may include accelerometers including linear accelerometers, angular accelerometers, gyroscopes, or other motion sensing micro electro-mechanical devices.” And in [026] “the sensor 112 may be kinematic sensors”. The “motion sensor” is shown as a “kinematic sensor” 112 black-box generic rectangle in Figure 2.
Per applicant’s specification, the “control sensor” is described generically as optionally [026] “the control sensors may be proximity sensors, capacitive sensors, or other sensors…” The “control sensors” are shown as a “control sensors” 128 black-box generic rectangles in Figure 2.
Per applicant’s specification, the “computer-readable storage medium” is described generically in [083] as “…computer-readable storage medium, which is intended to cover all physical, non-transitory, or similar embodiments of computer-readable media.” The “computer-readable storage medium” is shown as “data storage medium” 114 generic rectangle in Figure 2.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “processor” is described generically as optionally a [030] “high performance unit such as a 32-bit microcontroller from ST Microelectronics”, or [084] “These computer-executable program portions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus…” and that code portions “execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus”. The “processor” is shown as “processor” 116 generic rectangle in Figure 2.
Per Applicant’s specification, the ”proximity sensor” is described generically in [026] “the control sensors may be proximity sensors, capacitive sensors, or other sensors…” and readings from the proximity sensors are described as [043] “the proximity or other control sensor readings”. The “proximity sensors” are shown as a “control sensors” 128 black-box generic rectangles in Figure 2. There is nothing particular to the structure or specification of the “proximity sensor” that deems it more than well-understood, routine, or conventional.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “mouthguard” is described generically in [021] as “a mouthguard worn by athletes during athletic events” and in [022] is described as a “In the case of a mouthguard, the mouthguard my include a dentition portion” that is “generally flat and u-shaped”, and is “adapted for molding to the teeth using a heating and biting process or the dentition may be custom-fitted and molded”. The physical characteristics of the described mouthguard are well-understood, routine, and conventional characteristics of all-purpose mouthguards formed for athletic mouthguards, anti-bruxism mouthguards, orthodontic mold mouthguards, and the like. The mouthguard is shown in Fig 2. as “sensing device” 108 with a generic semicircular mouthguard shape with rectangles on its surface. As claimed, a specialized mouthguard is not necessary. As such, this additional element does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the claimed abstract idea.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed terms “sensing device”, “motion sensor”, “control sensor”, “computer-readable storage medium”, “processor”, ”proximity sensor”, and “mouthguard” are reasonably construed as a generic computing and hardware devices. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the “sensing device”, “motion sensor”, “control sensor”, “computer-readable storage medium”, “processor”, ”proximity sensor”, and “mouthguard” This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1 – 20 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the apparatus and method of Claims 1 - 20 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general-purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 1 - 20 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements for Step 2A Prong 2 in Independent Claims 1 and 9 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1 - 20 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1 - 20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1 - 20 are not patent eligible and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cam, et. al., (US 2014/0257051 A1), hereinafter Cam.
Regarding Claim 1, Cam discloses A system for sensing true positive impacts to a user (Fig 1A, device; [Abstract] “The device also includes a processing unit that includes methodology to detect false positives such as chewing, dropping, and throwing. [0090] “Data from motion sensors can be classified as true or false on-body impacts using various signal processing techniques.”; [0121] “…numbers of true positives (TP)…are calculated”), the system comprising:
a sensing device (Fig 1A, “a device is an oral appliance”; Fig 1, “base member” 1) configured for secured coupling to a user ([0059] “(a) a base member 1 having a generally U-shaped form defining a channel to receive a row of teeth.”) and comprising:
a motion sensor (Fig 1A, “motion sensor” 5) configured for sensing accelerations associated with an impact event ([0082] “Single-axial and multi-axial accelerometers can be used to detect the magnitude and direction of the proper acceleration (or g-force), as a vector quantity, and can be used to sense orientation, coordinate acceleration, shock, and falling in a resistive medium”; [0104] “…mouthguard records all events with linear acceleration exceeding 7 g.”) and for generating a signal based on the impact event ([0091] “…motion signals associated with an event”);
a control sensor ([0107] “an engagement sensor”) for sensing when the sensing device is in position for sensing ([Abstract] “…one or more engagement sensors to detect whether the device is properly placed on the human subject”; Fig 11, Block 119, “Device is on-teeth, record impacts”);
a computer-readable storage medium ([0085] “…the memory can be any non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing program code…”) having instructions stored thereon ([0085] “…for implementing software methodologies described in the present disclosure. One such data processing methodology for the impact detection is illustrated in Fig 11.”) for:
receiving and capturing the signal from the motion sensor ([0085]”…a memory and a processor for receiving and processing data collected from sensors to detect on-body impacts”); and
comparing ([0121] “First, events in the testing data with proximity sensor readings below the on-teeth and off-teeth threshold…”; Fig 11, Blocks 116 -119, which are “Infrared Reflection NOT Detected”, “Device is NOT on-teeth, data not recorded”, “Infrared Detection”, and “Device is on-teeth, record impacts”) first (Fig 16A, “Off-teeth Distribution” µ = 0.17) and second signals ([0104] “A proximity sensor reading in 10-bit resolution is obtained at the end of the 100 ms kinematic recording period for each triggered event.”) from the control sensor ([0107] “an engagement sensor”) to determine if the impact signal ([0091] “…motion signals associated with an event”) is a true positive signal ([0121] “First, events in the testing data with proximity sensor readings below the on-teeth and off-teeth threshold are rejected as off-teeth, non-impact events, while events with proximity sensor readings above the threshold remain unclassified as potential impacts.”, “After the classification, numbers of true positives (TP)…are calculated”) the first control signal from the control sensor ([0121] “…proximity sensor readings below the on-teeth and off-teeth threshold…”; Fig 11, Blocks 116-119, Fig 16A, “Off-teeth Distribution” µ = 0.17; Fig 13A) being captured at a time prior to the impact event (Examiner notes that the first control signal occurs before the second control signal. Cam’s disclosure performs calibration data for the proximity sensor before acquiring further impact measurements, described in [0107], “In vitro sensing behavior of an infrared proximity sensor is characterized by unit-testing sensor components”. Based on the sensor itself, its calibration baseline average “off-teeth” signal is µ = 0.17 in Figure 16A.) or during an early portion of the impact event and the second control signal from the control sensor being captured at a later portion of the impact event or after the impact event ([0104] “A proximity sensor reading in 10-bit resolution is obtained at the end of the 100 ms kinematic recording period for each triggered event.”; Fig 13A)(Examiner notes for subsequent measurements on the user, the second signal (as above, proximity sensor readings that occur at the end of each 100 ms kinematic reading from the motion sensor) is compared against the reference sensor calibration baseline average signal (or first control signal) µ = 0.17. This comparison occurs against the threshold value that is based on the calibration “off-teeth” baseline average signal µ = 0.17, as µ = 0.17 + 29σ, or 0.81 on Figure 16A. ([0111] “A threshold at 5 standard deviations below the on-teeth mean (a normalized proximity value of 0.81) is chosen. This threshold is also 29 standard deviations above the off-teeth mean…”); and
a processor ([0085] “…a processor for receiving and processing data collected from sensors to detect on-body impacts”) for processing the instructions ([0085] “…for implementing software methodologies described in the present disclosure. One such data processing methodology for the impact detection is illustrated in Fig 11.”) to capture ([0082] “Single-axial and multi-axial accelerometers can be used to detect the magnitude and direction of the proper acceleration (or g-force), as a vector quantity, and can be used to sense orientation, coordinate acceleration, shock, and falling in a resistive medium”; [0104] “…mouthguard records all events with linear acceleration exceeding 7 g.”) the impact signal ([0091] “…motion signals associated with an event”), perform the comparing ([0121] “First, events in the testing data with proximity sensor readings below the on-teeth and off-teeth threshold…”; Fig 11, Blocks 116 -119, which are “Infrared Reflection NOT Detected”, “Device is NOT on-teeth, data not recorded”, “Infrared Detection”, and “Device is on-teeth, record impacts”) and identify the impact signal as a true positive signal indicative of an impact to the user based on the comparing ([0121] “First, events in the testing data with proximity sensor readings below the on-teeth and off-teeth threshold are rejected as off-teeth, non-impact events, while events with proximity sensor readings above the threshold remain unclassified as potential impacts.”, “After the classification, numbers of true positives (TP)…are calculated”; Fig 13A) (See examiner notes above regarding the first and second control signal comparison.)
Regarding Claim 2, Cam discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the control sensor ([0107] “an engagement sensor”) is a proximity sensor ([0087]“…an engagement sensor, such as an infrared proximity sensor”).
Regarding Claim 3, Cam discloses The system of claim 2, wherein comparing ([0121] “First, events in the testing data with proximity sensor readings below the on-teeth and off-teeth threshold are rejected as off-teeth, non-impact events, while events with proximity sensor readings above the threshold remain unclassified as potential impacts.”) comprises comparing a proximity level of the first signal (Fig 16A, “Off-teeth Distribution” µ = 0.17; [0112] “On-teeth and off-teeth proximity sensor output distributions are shown in Fig 16A”) to the proximity level of the second signal ([0104] “A proximity sensor reading in 10-bit resolution is obtained at the end of the 100 ms kinematic recording period for each triggered event.”; [0121] “First, events in the testing data with proximity sensor readings below the on-teeth and off-teeth threshold are rejected as off-teeth, non-impact events, while events with proximity sensor readings above the threshold remain unclassified as potential impacts.”)
Regarding Claim 4, Cam discloses The system of claim 3, wherein the processor ([0085] “…a processor for receiving and processing data collected from sensors to detect on-body impacts”) is configured to identify the signal ([0091] “…motion signals associated with an event”) as true positive ([0121] “After the classification, numbers of true positives (TP)…are calculated”) when the second signal ([0104] “A proximity sensor reading in 10-bit resolution is obtained at the end of the 100 ms kinematic recording period for each triggered event.”) differs from the first signal (Fig 16A, “Off-teeth Distribution” µ = 0.17) by no more than 15% (Fig 16A, “Off-teeth distribution”, “µ = 0.17”, “σ = 0.026”, “On-Teeth/Off-Teeth Threshold = 0.81”) (Examiner notes that a second signal measurement signal that differs by 15%, or “µ = 0.17” +/- 15% would be a range of 0.1615 - 0.1785, which is entirely below than the “On-Teeth/Off-Teeth Threshold = 0.81”)
Regarding Claim 5, Cam discloses The system of claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to identify the when the second signal differs from the first signal as described above in Claim 4. Cam further discloses by no more than 5% (Fig 16A, “Off-teeth distribution”, “µ = 0.17”, “σ = 0.026”, “On-Teeth/Off-Teeth Threshold = 0.81”) (Examiner notes that a second signal measurement signal that differs by 5%, or “µ = 0.17” +/- 5% would be a range of 0.1675 - 0.1725, which is entirely below than the “On-Teeth/Off-Teeth Threshold = 0.81”)
Regarding Claim 6, Cam discloses The system of claim 4, further comprising wherein the processor ([0085]) is further configured for comparing the first signal (Fig 16A, “Off-teeth Distribution” µ = 0.17) from the control sensor ([0107] “an engagement sensor”) to a threshold value (Fig 16A, “On-Teeth and Off-Teeth Proximity Sensor Distribution output distributions”; “on-teeth/off-teeth threshold = 0.81) indicating that the sensing device is in position for sensing ([Abstract] “…one or more engagement sensors to detect whether the device is properly placed on the human subject”; Fig 11, Block 119, “Device is on-teeth, record impacts”).
Regarding Claim 7, Cam discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the sensing device (Fig 1A, “a device is an oral appliance”; Fig 1, “base member” 1) is a mouthguard (Fig 1A, “base member” 1; [0012] “In some embodiments, the base member of the device includes one of a mouthguard”) configured for secured coupling to teeth of a user ([0059] (a) a base member 1 having a generally U-shaped form defining a channel to receive a row of teeth.”).
Regarding Claim 8, Cam discloses The system of claim 7, wherein the control sensor ([0107] “an engagement sensor”) is arranged on the mouthguard (Fig 1A, “base member” 1; [0012] “In some embodiments, the base member of the device includes one of a mouthguard”) facing the teeth of a user (Fig 5A, “emitter and receiver pairs” 52; [0108] “…by embedding a sensor in the mouthguard to face the tooth, a device can use the infrared signal drop to detect mouthguard dislocation.”).
Regarding Claim 9, Cam discloses A method of isolating true positive impacts from false positive impacts (Fig 13A) and storing the true positive impacts (Fig 13A “Save on-teeth, SVM-filtered events as head impacts”) (Fig 1A, device; [Abstract] “The device also includes a processing unit that includes methodology to detect false positives such as chewing, dropping, and throwing. [0090] “Data from motion sensors can be classified as true or false on-body impacts using various signal processing techniques.”; [0121] “…numbers of true positives (TP)…are calculated”) the method comprising:
using a motion sensor (Fig 1A, “motion sensor” 5) arranged on a sensing device (Fig 1A, “a device is an oral appliance”; Fig 1, “base member” 1) securely coupled to a user ([0059] “(a) a base member 1 having a generally U-shaped form defining a channel to receive a row of teeth.”) and configured for sensing accelerations ([0082] “Single-axial and multi-axial accelerometers can be used to detect the magnitude and direction of the proper acceleration (or g-force), as a vector quantity, and can be used to sense orientation, coordinate acceleration, shock, and falling in a resistive medium”; [0104] “…mouthguard records all events with linear acceleration exceeding 7 g.”) and generating a signal of the accelerations ([0082] “…the magnitude and direction of the proper acceleration (or g-force), as a vector quantity…””;
sensing an impact event ([0082] “…the magnitude and direction of the proper acceleration (or g-force), as a vector quantity, and can be used to sense orientation, coordinate acceleration, shock, and falling in a resistive medium”; [0104] “…mouthguard records all events with linear acceleration exceeding 7 g.”; [0091] “…motion signals associated with an event”; Fig 1A, “motion sensor” 5) and generating an impact signal ([0091] “…motion signals associated with an event”)
Using a control sensor ([0107] “an engagement sensor”) arranged on the sensing device ([0011] “…engagement sensor affixed to the base member”):
Sensing a first control signal prior to the impact event ([0107], “In vitro sensing behavior of an infrared proximity sensor is characterized by unit-testing sensor components”)(Examiner notes that Cam’s disclosure performs calibration data for the proximity sensor before acquiring further impact measurements, described in [0107]. Based on this earlier calibration from measurements from the sensor itself, its calibration baseline average signal is µ = 0.17 in Figure 16A); and
Sensing a second control signal after the impact event ([0104] “A proximity sensor reading in 10-bit resolution is obtained at the end of the 100 ms kinematic recording period for each triggered event.”);
Using a computer processor ([0085] “…a processor for receiving and processing data collected from sensors to detect on-body impacts”):
Receiving the impact signal from the motion sensor ([0085] “processor…receiving and processing data collected from sensors to detect on-body impacts”; [0104]; [0091]);
receiving the first control signal (Fig 16A, “Off-teeth Distribution” µ = 0.17) from the control sensor ([0107] “an engagement sensor”; [0107], “In vitro sensing behavior of an infrared proximity sensor is characterized by unit-testing sensor components”)(Examiner notes that Cam’s disclosure performs calibration data for the proximity sensor before acquiring further impact measurements, described in [0107]. Based on this earlier calibration from measurements from the sensor itself, its calibration baseline average signal is µ = 0.17 in Figure 16A);
receiving the second control signal from the control sensor ([0104] “A proximity sensor reading in 10-bit resolution is obtained at the end of the 100 ms kinematic recording period for each triggered event.”)
comparing ([0121] “First, events in the testing data with proximity sensor readings below the on-teeth and off-teeth threshold…”; Fig 11, Blocks 116 -119, which are “Infrared Reflection NOT Detected”, “Device is NOT on-teeth, data not recorded”, “Infrared Detection”, and “Device is on-teeth, record impacts”) the first control signal (Fig 16A, “Off-teeth Distribution” µ = 0.17) to the second control signal ([0104] “A proximity sensor reading in 10-bit resolution is obtained at the end of the 100 ms kinematic recording period for each triggered event.”)(See Examiner note in Claim 1 for comparing the first and second control signals); and
identifying the impact signal ([0091] “…motion signals associated with an event”) as a true positive signal based on the comparing ([0121] “First, events in the testing data with proximity sensor readings below the on-teeth and off-teeth threshold are rejected as off-teeth, non-impact events, while events with proximity sensor readings above the threshold remain unclassified as potential impacts.”, “After the classification, numbers of true positives (TP)…are calculated”; Fig 13A)(Examiner notes that Cam’s disclosure performs calibration data for the proximity sensor before acquiring further impact measurements, described in [0107], “In vitro sensing behavior of an infrared proximity sensor is characterized by unit-testing sensor components”. Based on the sensor itself, its calibration baseline average signal is µ = 0.17 in Figure 16A. For subsequent measurements on the user, the second signal (as above, proximity sensor readings that occ