DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to claims filed on 01/14/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. An action on the merits of claims 1-20 is as follows.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/14/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, line 2, “a crown” should read “the crown”
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 6 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.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the limitation “the sensor comprises an accelerometer” in lines 1-2. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to refer to the accelerometer from claim 1, line 5, or a different accelerometer. If it is referring to the accelerometer from claim 1, it needs to refer back to it. If it is referring to a different accelerometer, it needs to be distinguished from the accelerometer from claim 1. For purposes of examination, it is being interpreted as referring to the accelerometer from claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ralston (US 20180110466) in view of Olivares Velasco (US 10653199) and Bhowmik (US 20240285190).
Regarding independent claim 1, Ralston teaches a system for measuring low-level impacts to a user's body during use thereof ([0159]: “FIG. 50 illustrates a system 5000 configured in accordance with an embodiment of the invention.”), the system comprising:
a brain impact sensor apparatus comprising a brain impact sensor configured to be positioned on the user's head ([0002]: “This invention relates generally to electronic sensors. More particularly, this invention is directed toward sensors for multivariate impact injury risk and recovery monitoring”; [0078]: “The present invention demonstrates that the cumulative mechanical power transferred to the brain is a valid neuro-mechanical biomarker for cumulative impact trauma, and that the linear, rotational, and total mechanical power can be calculated directly from the outputs of a MEMS accelerometer and MEMS gyroscope within a universally deployable wearable device”; Abstract: “An apparatus has a housing adapted for mechanical coupling with a skull of a human. A first sensor is positioned in the housing to collect linear motion signals. A second sensor is positioned in the housing to collect rotational motion signals. A processor is positioned in the housing connected to the first sensor and the second sensor”. The apparatus containing the sensors are positioned on the head of the user to measure the impact on the user’s brain.).
However, Ralston is silent on the specific location on the head of the user.
Olivares Velasco discloses a data collecting head guard. Specifically, Olivares Velasco teaches a sensor positioned at a crown of the user’s head (Column 4, lines 25-27: “the head guard can be configured to cover various parts of the wearer's head, such as the crown”). Ralston and Olivares Velasco are analogous arts as they both relate to devices worn on the head that use sensors to measure the impacts felt by the user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the position of the sensor at the crown of the head from Olivares Velasco into the system from Ralston as the system is silent on the specific location on the head of the user, and Olivares Velasco teaches a suitable location in an analogous device.
The Ralston/Olivares Velasco combination teaches a processor electronically connected to the sensor (Ralston, Abstract: “An apparatus has a housing adapted for mechanical coupling with a skull of a human. A first sensor is positioned in the housing to collect linear motion signals. A second sensor is positioned in the housing to collect rotational motion signals. A processor is positioned in the housing connected to the first sensor and the second sensor”), wherein the brain impact sensor comprises an accelerometer (Ralston, [0088]: “the IMD is configured with an accelerometer”),
wherein the brain impact sensor measures low-level impacts to the user during use thereof of the user's gait during walking, jogging or running (Ralston, [0083]: “An IMD attached to a specific body part can be used to determine the above impact forces, torques, displacements, and impact durations, which in turn can be used to calculate the energy and power transferred to the body part due to impact exposure”; [0138]: “The present invention enables significant advances and improvements in real-time monitoring of impact injury risks by allowing supervisory personnel to continuously monitor balance control and motion deficits and correlate these changes in real time with cumulative head impact power, using a single IMD device that can calculate: head impact power when an impact is detected by the IMD; postural sway power when a period of quiet stance is detected by the IMD; and variations in step-to-step and stride-to-stride acceleration when the user is determined by the IMB to be walking or running”. The IMD is the impact monitoring device which includes the impact sensors.).
However, the Ralston/Olivares Velasco combination does not teach measuring impacts to the user’s feet.
Bhowmik discloses ear-wearable systems for gait analysis. Specifically, Bhowmik teaches wherein the sensor measures impacts to the user’s feet during use thereof ([0173]: “the ear-wearable device 100 can be configured to distinguish between a right step and a left step based on data from one or more sensors herein. For example, a left step can generally be detected by observing that previous movement toward the left (as part of side-to-side motion during walking) ceases coinciding with motion sensor data associated with the impact of the foot fall and/or microphone data associated with the impact of the footfall. Similarly, a right step can generally be detected by observing that previous movement toward the right ceases coinciding with motion sensor data associated with the impact of the foot fall and/or microphone data associated with the impact of the footfall. In various embodiments, the ear-wearable device 100 can be configured to distinguish between a right step and a left step based on an input received from an accessory device”. The motion sensor is an accelerometer attached to the head of a user which is able to associate the impacts with the impacts of the user’s foot.). Ralston, Olivares Velasco, and Bhowmik are analogous arts as they all relate to devices worn on the head that use sensors to measure the impacts felt by the user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the sensor measuring impacts to the user’s feet from Bhowmik into the Ralston/Olivares Velasco combination as it allows the system to attribute the impacts to the user’s different legs, which can provide more information to be used to analyze the user’s gait.
The Ralston/Olivares Velasco/Bhowmik combination teaches wherein the processor tracks the user's gait based on the low-level impacts (Ralston, [0134]: “The baseline values may be determined directly from postural sway and gait measurements of the user made with the IMD”; Claim 10: “the processor is configured to execute a gait measurement session during which the human wearing the housing is instructed to walk for a specified period of time while linear motion signals and rotational motion signals are collected to form current gait data.”), and matches the low-level impacts detected by the brain impact sensor to the user's left leg impact or right leg impact when walking, jogging, or running (Bhowmik, [0173]: “the ear-wearable device 100 can be configured to distinguish between a right step and a left step based on data from one or more sensors herein. For example, a left step can generally be detected by observing that previous movement toward the left (as part of side-to-side motion during walking) ceases coinciding with motion sensor data associated with the impact of the foot fall and/or microphone data associated with the impact of the footfall. Similarly, a right step can generally be detected by observing that previous movement toward the right ceases coinciding with motion sensor data associated with the impact of the foot fall and/or microphone data associated with the impact of the footfall. In various embodiments, the ear-wearable device 100 can be configured to distinguish between a right step and a left step based on an input received from an accessory device”. The motion sensor is an accelerometer attached to the head of a user which is able to associate the impacts with the impacts of the user’s foot.).
Regarding claim 2, the Ralston/Olivares Velasco/Bhowmik combination teaches the system of claim 1.
However, the Ralston/Olivares Velasco/Bhowmik combination does not teach wherein the brain impact sensor is disposed in a hat.
Olivares Velasco teaches wherein the brain impact sensor is disposed in a hat (Column 4, lines 16-19: “the head guard may be incorporated into, formed with, or otherwise coupled to various head coverings, such as a baseball hat, a winter hat, a hood on a sweatshirt or jacket, or other styles of hat”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the sensor device from the Ralston/Olivares Velasco/Bhowmik combination from claim 1 into the hat disclosed in Olivares Velasco, as it allows for the sensor device to be incorporated into a normally worn accessory to make the device less noticeable and more wearable.
Regarding claim 3, the Ralston/Olivares Velasco/Bhowmik combination teaches the system of claim 2 wherein the brain impact sensor is disposed at the crown of the hat (Olivares Velasco, Column 4, lines 25-27: “the head guard can be configured to cover various parts of the wearer's head, such as the crown”; Column 4, lines 16-19: “the head guard may be incorporated into, formed with, or otherwise coupled to various head coverings, such as a baseball hat, a winter hat, a hood on a sweatshirt or jacket, or other styles of hat”. If the sensor is disposed at the crown of the user’s head and is disposed in a hat, then it is obvious that it is at the crown of the hat.).
Regarding claim 4, the Ralston/Olivares Velasco/Bhowmik combination teaches the system of claim 1.
However, the Ralston/Olivares Velasco/Bhowmik combination does not teach wherein the brain impact sensor is disposed in a head band.
Olivares Velasco teaches wherein the brain impact sensor is disposed in a head band (Column 10, lines 16-17: “Headband-style head guards in accordance with the present disclosure can also incorporate a sensory input and communications system”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the sensor device from the Ralston/Olivares Velasco/Bhowmik combination from claim 1 into the headband disclosed in Olivares Velasco, as it allows for the sensor device to be incorporated into a normally worn accessory to make the device less noticeable and more wearable.
Regarding claim 5, the Ralston/Olivares Velasco/Bhowmik combination teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the sensor, when positioned at a crown of the user's head, contacts the crown of the user's head (Olivares Velasco, Column 4, lines 25-27: “the head guard can be configured to cover various parts of the wearer's head, such as the crown”. If the device is covering the crown of the user’s head, then it is in contact with the user’s head).
Regarding claim 6, the Ralston/Olivares Velasco/Bhowmik combination teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the sensor comprises an accelerometer (Ralston, [0088]: “the IMD is configured with an accelerometer”).
Regarding claim 7, the Ralston/Olivares Velasco/Bhowmik combination teaches the system of claim 1 further comprising: a computing device separate from the brain impact sensor; and a communication module configured to communicate with the computing device (Ralston, [0159]: “The system includes the disclosed IMD in communication with a mobile device operating an application. Communication is via network, which may be any combination of wired and wireless networks”. The mobile device is the computing device that is separate from the brain impact sensor and the network is the communication module.).
Regarding claim 8, the Ralston/Olivares Velasco/Bhowmik combination teaches the system of claim 7 wherein the communication module is configured to communicate via a wired or a wireless connection to the computing device (Ralston, [0159]: “The system includes the disclosed IMD in communication with a mobile device operating an application. Communication is via network, which may be any combination of wired and wireless networks”).
Regarding claim 9, the Ralston/Olivares Velasco/Bhowmik combination teaches the system of claim 7 wherein the computing device is selected from the group of a personal computer, a smart phone, a tablet computer, and a smart watch (Ralston, [0150]: “components other than the head-mounted motion sensors are combined together with a smartphone, tablet computer, or laptop computer into a mobile system for cumulative head impact monitoring”).
Regarding claim 10, the Ralston/Olivares Velasco/Bhowmik combination teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the sensor is configured to measure the low-level impacts to the user's body while the user is walking, jogging, or running (Ralston, [0083]: “An IMD attached to a specific body part can be used to determine the above impact forces, torques, displacements, and impact durations, which in turn can be used to calculate the energy and power transferred to the body part due to impact exposure”; [0138]: “The present invention enables significant advances and improvements in real-time monitoring of impact injury risks by allowing supervisory personnel to continuously monitor balance control and motion deficits and correlate these changes in real time with cumulative head impact power, using a single IMD device that can calculate: head impact power when an impact is detected by the IMD; postural sway power when a period of quiet stance is detected by the IMD; and variations in step-to-step and stride-to-stride acceleration when the user is determined by the IMB to be walking or running”. The IMD is the impact monitoring device which includes the impact sensors.).
Regarding independent claim 11, Ralston teaches a method of using a brain impact sensor apparatus ([0076]: “we have developed a corresponding IMD device and neuro-mechanical biomarker method to detect the onset of this damage and alert users and supervisory personal in real time”) comprising the steps of:
providing the brain impact sensor apparatus comprising a sensor configured to be positioned on a user's head ([0002]: “This invention relates generally to electronic sensors. More particularly, this invention is directed toward sensors for multivariate impact injury risk and recovery monitoring”; [0078]: “The present invention demonstrates that the cumulative mechanical power transferred to the brain is a valid neuro-mechanical biomarker for cumulative impact trauma, and that the linear, rotational, and total mechanical power can be calculated directly from the outputs of a MEMS accelerometer and MEMS gyroscope within a universally deployable wearable device”; Abstract: “An apparatus has a housing adapted for mechanical coupling with a skull of a human. A first sensor is positioned in the housing to collect linear motion signals. A second sensor is positioned in the housing to collect rotational motion signals. A processor is positioned in the housing connected to the first sensor and the second sensor”. The apparatus containing the sensors are positioned on the head of the user to measure the impact on the user’s brain.).
However, Ralston is silent on the specific location on the head of the user.
Olivares Velasco discloses a data collecting head guard. Specifically, Olivares Velasco teaches a sensor positioned at a crown of the user’s head (Column 4, lines 25-27: “the head guard can be configured to cover various parts of the wearer's head, such as the crown”). Ralston and Olivares Velasco are analogous arts as they both relate to devices worn on the head that use sensors to measure the impacts felt by the user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the position of the sensor at the crown of the head from Olivares Velasco into the method from Ralston as the method is silent on the specific location on the head of the user, and Olivares Velasco teaches a suitable location in an analogous device.
The Ralston/Olivares Velasco combination teaches a processor electronically connected to the sensor (Ralston, Abstract: “An apparatus has a housing adapted for mechanical coupling with a skull of a human. A first sensor is positioned in the housing to collect linear motion signals. A second sensor is positioned in the housing to collect rotational motion signals. A processor is positioned in the housing connected to the first sensor and the second sensor”), wherein the sensor is configured to measure low level impacts to the user's body during use thereof (Ralston, [0083]: “An IMD attached to a specific body part can be used to determine the above impact forces, torques, displacements, and impact durations, which in turn can be used to calculate the energy and power transferred to the body part due to impact exposure”. The IMD is the impact monitoring device which includes the impact sensors.);
measuring low-level impacts to the user's body via the brain impact sensor to form impact data, tracking the user's walking gait via the processor using the impact data (Ralston, [0034]: “FIG. 23 illustrates IMD sensors being utilized with additional system components to control, configure, or manage multiple sensors, manage user and team rosters, assign sensors to specific users, download and display impact data, and transfer data from sensor devices to computer or cloud-based data storage, analytics, and reporting components”; [0083]: “An IMD attached to a specific body part can be used to determine the above impact forces, torques, displacements, and impact durations, which in turn can be used to calculate the energy and power transferred to the body part due to impact exposure”; [0134]: “The baseline values may be determined directly from postural sway and gait measurements of the user made with the IMD”; Claim 10: “the processor is configured to execute a gait measurement session during which the human wearing the housing is instructed to walk for a specified period of time while linear motion signals and rotational motion signals are collected to form current gait data.”. The impact force, torques, displacements, and impact durations are the impact data.),
and matching the low-level impacts detected by the brain impact sensor to impacts when walking, jogging, or running (Ralston, [0083]: “An IMD attached to a specific body part can be used to determine the above impact forces, torques, displacements, and impact durations, which in turn can be used to calculate the energy and power transferred to the body part due to impact exposure”; [0138]: “The present invention enables significant advances and improvements in real-time monitoring of impact injury risks by allowing supervisory personnel to continuously monitor balance control and motion deficits and correlate these changes in real time with cumulative head impact power, using a single IMD device that can calculate: head impact power when an impact is detected by the IMD; postural sway power when a period of quiet stance is detected by the IMD; and variations in step-to-step and stride-to-stride acceleration when the user is determined by the IMB to be walking or running”. The IMD is the impact monitoring device which includes the impact sensors).
However, the Ralston/Olivares Velasco combination does not teach matching the low-level impacts detected by the brain impact sensor to the user's left leg impact or right leg impact.
Bhowmik discloses ear-wearable systems for gait analysis. Specifically, Bhowmik teaches wherein the sensor measures impacts to the user’s feet during use thereof ([0173]: “the ear-wearable device 100 can be configured to distinguish between a right step and a left step based on data from one or more sensors herein. For example, a left step can generally be detected by observing that previous movement toward the left (as part of side-to-side motion during walking) ceases coinciding with motion sensor data associated with the impact of the foot fall and/or microphone data associated with the impact of the footfall. Similarly, a right step can generally be detected by observing that previous movement toward the right ceases coinciding with motion sensor data associated with the impact of the foot fall and/or microphone data associated with the impact of the footfall. In various embodiments, the ear-wearable device 100 can be configured to distinguish between a right step and a left step based on an input received from an accessory device”. The motion sensor is an accelerometer attached to the head of a user which is able to associate the impacts with the impacts of the user’s foot.). Ralston, Olivares Velasco, and Bhowmik are analogous arts as they all relate to devices worn on the head that use sensors to measure the impacts felt by the user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the sensor measuring impacts to the user’s feet from Bhowmik into the Ralston/Olivares Velasco combination as it allows the system to attribute the impacts to the user’s different legs, which can provide more information to be used to analyze the user’s gait.
The Ralston/Olivares Velasco/Bhowmik combination teaches storing the impact data within a storage module within the brain impact sensor apparatus (Ralston, [0034]: “FIG. 23 illustrates IMD sensors being utilized with additional system components to control, configure, or manage multiple sensors, manage user and team rosters, assign sensors to specific users, download and display impact data, and transfer data from sensor devices to computer or cloud-based data storage, analytics, and reporting components”; [0087]: “the IMD includes at least one sensor, a central processing unit (CPU) … The CPU includes a processor, data memory to receive and store data from the linear and rotational motion sensors”); and
sending the impact data to a separate computing device (Ralston, [0034]: “FIG. 23 illustrates IMD sensors being utilized with additional system components to control, configure, or manage multiple sensors, manage user and team rosters, assign sensors to specific users, download and display impact data, and transfer data from sensor devices to computer or cloud-based data storage, analytics, and reporting components”; [0159]: “The system includes the disclosed IMD in communication with a mobile device operating an application. Communication is via network, which may be any combination of wired and wireless networks”. The mobile device is the computing device that is separate from the brain impact sensor.).
Regarding claim 12, the Ralston/Olivares Velasco/Bhowmik combination teaches the method of claim 11.
However, the Ralston/Olivares Velasco/Bhowmik combination does not teach wherein the brain impact sensor is disposed in a hat or a headband worn on the user's head.
Olivares Velasco teaches wherein the brain impact sensor is disposed in a hat or a headband worn on the user's head (Column 4, lines 25-27: “the head guard can be configured to cover various parts of the wearer's head, such as the crown”; Column 4, lines 16-19: “the head guard may be incorporated into, formed with, or otherwise coupled to various head coverings, such as a baseball hat, a winter hat, a hood on a sweatshirt or jacket, or other styles of hat”; Column 10, lines 16-17: “Headband-style head guards in accordance with the present disclosure can also incorporate a sensory input and communications system”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the sensor device from the Ralston/Olivares Velasco/Bhowmik combination from claim 11 into the hat or headband disclosed in Olivares Velasco, as it allows for the sensor device to be incorporated into a normally worn accessory to make the device less noticeable and more wearable.
Regarding claim 13, the Ralston/Olivares Velasco/Bhowmik combination teaches the method of claim 11 wherein the low-level impacts to the user's body are caused by the user walking or running (Ralston, [0138]: “The present invention enables significant advances and improvements in real-time monitoring of impact injury risks by allowing supervisory personnel to continuously monitor balance control and motion deficits and correlate these changes in real time with cumulative head impact power, using a single IMD device that can calculate: head impact power when an impact is detected by the IMD; postural sway power when a period of quiet stance is detected by the IMD; and variations in step-to-step and stride-to-stride acceleration when the user is determined by the IMB to be walking or running”).
Regarding claim 14, the Ralston/Olivares Velasco/Bhowmik combination teaches the method of claim 11 further comprising the step of: processing the impact data at the processor electronically connected to the brain impact sensor to form processed impact data (Ralston, [0087]: “the IMD includes at least one sensor, a central processing unit (CPU) … The CPU includes a processor, data memory to receive and store data from the linear and rotational motion sensors, and instruction memory to store programming instructions operable by the processor to perform a variety of functions as desired, including calculation of the neuro-mechanical biomarker”).
Regarding claim 15, the Ralston/Olivares Velasco/Bhowmik combination teaches the method of claim 11 further comprising the step of: processing the impact data by the separate computing device to form processed impact data (Ralston, [0159]: “The system 5000 includes the disclosed IMD 1000 in communication with a mobile device operating an application 5002. Communication is via network 5004, which may be any combination of wired and wireless networks. The mobile device with application 5002 may perform some or many of the computations discussed in connection with IMD 1000 and communicate the results of such computations to the IMD 1000. Such an approach has an advantage of allowing for an IMD 1000 with less computational power and lower power consumption. Similarly, the mobile device with mobile application 5002 may communicate with a system server 5006 via network 5004. The system server 5006 may be used to perform computations otherwise performed by the IMD 1000 or the mobile device 5002. The results of such computations may be communicated directly to the IMD 1000 or may alternately by relayed to the IMD 1000 via mobile device with application 5002”).
Regarding claim 16, the Ralston/Olivares Velasco/Bhowmik combination teaches the method of claim 11 further comprising the steps of: providing a communication module configured to communicate with the separate computing device; and sending the impact data to the separate computing device via the communication module (Ralston, [0159]: “The system 5000 includes the disclosed IMD 1000 in communication with a mobile device operating an application 5002. Communication is via network 5004, which may be any combination of wired and wireless networks. The mobile device with application 5002 may perform some or many of the computations discussed in connection with IMD 1000 and communicate the results of such computations to the IMD 1000. Such an approach has an advantage of allowing for an IMD 1000 with less computational power and lower power consumption. Similarly, the mobile device with mobile application 5002 may communicate with a system server 5006 via network 5004. The system server 5006 may be used to perform computations otherwise performed by the IMD 1000 or the mobile device 5002. The results of such computations may be communicated directly to the IMD 1000 or may alternately by relayed to the IMD 1000 via mobile device with application 5002”; The mobile device is the computing device that is separate from the brain impact sensor and the network is the communication module.).
Regarding claim 17, the Ralston/Olivares Velasco/Bhowmik combination teaches the method of claim 11 further comprising the step of: sending the impact data to the separate computing device via a wired or wireless connection between the brain impact sensor apparatus and the separate computing device (Ralston, [0159]: “The system 5000 includes the disclosed IMD 1000 in communication with a mobile device operating an application 5002. Communication is via network 5004, which may be any combination of wired and wireless networks. The mobile device with application 5002 may perform some or many of the computations discussed in connection with IMD 1000 and communicate the results of such computations to the IMD 1000. Such an approach has an advantage of allowing for an IMD 1000 with less computational power and lower power consumption. Similarly, the mobile device with mobile application 5002 may communicate with a system server 5006 via network 5004. The system server 5006 may be used to perform computations otherwise performed by the IMD 1000 or the mobile device 5002. The results of such computations may be communicated directly to the IMD 1000 or may alternately by relayed to the IMD 1000 via mobile device with application 5002”; The mobile device is the computing device that is separate from the brain impact sensor and the network is the communication module.).
Regarding claim 18, the Ralston/Olivares Velasco/Bhowmik combination teaches the method of claim 11 wherein the separate computing device is selected from the group of a personal computer, a smart phone, a tablet computer, and a smart watch (Ralston, [0150]: “components other than the head-mounted motion sensors are combined together with a smartphone, tablet computer, or laptop computer into a mobile system for cumulative head impact monitoring”).
Regarding claim 19, the Ralston/Olivares Velasco/Bhowmik combination teaches the method of claim 11 further comprising the step of: analyzing the impact data at the separate computing device (Ralston, [0159]: “The system 5000 includes the disclosed IMD 1000 in communication with a mobile device operating an application 5002. Communication is via network 5004, which may be any combination of wired and wireless networks. The mobile device with application 5002 may perform some or many of the computations discussed in connection with IMD 1000 and communicate the results of such computations to the IMD 1000. Such an approach has an advantage of allowing for an IMD 1000 with less computational power and lower power consumption. Similarly, the mobile device with mobile application 5002 may communicate with a system server 5006 via network 5004. The system server 5006 may be used to perform computations otherwise performed by the IMD 1000 or the mobile device 5002. The results of such computations may be communicated directly to the IMD 1000 or may alternately by relayed to the IMD 1000 via mobile device with application 5002”; The mobile device is the computing device that is separate from the brain impact sensor and the network is the communication module.).
Regarding claim 20, the Ralston/Olivares Velasco/Bhowmik combination teaches the method of claim 11 further comprising the step of: providing an audible or visual alarm (Ralston, [0114]: “Once an alarm has been set as described above, the IMD can utilize one of several methods to signal the alarm condition directly to the wearer of the device or to supervisory personnel monitoring the wearer of the device. In some embodiments of the invention, the I/O component of the IMD may include the ability to signal the alarm condition directly to the wearer through an onboard vibrational or auditory element, such as a MEMS speaker, or directly to local supervisory personnel via an auditory element, such as a MEMS speaker, or an optical element, such as an LED.”); analyzing the impact data (Ralston, [0099]: “the IMB calculates the impact power transferred to the brain from an individual impact; updates the accumulated impact power transferred to the brain for all impact events that have occurred during the current period of time for which this value is being monitored”); and triggering the audible or visual alarm after analyzing the impact data (Ralston, [0099]: “sets an alarm if a threshold is met or exceeded”).
Response to Arguments
All of applicant’s argument regarding the rejections and objections previously set forth have been fully considered and are persuasive unless directly addressed subsequently.
Applicant's arguments with regards to Olivares Velasco have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Olivares Velasco does not teach measuring low level impacts when the user is walking, jogging, or running, yet Olivares Velasco is not relied upon to teach this limitation. Ralston is relied upon to teach this limitation, as Ralston measures impacts when the user is walking or running ([0083]: “An IMD attached to a specific body part can be used to determine the above impact forces, torques, displacements, and impact durations, which in turn can be used to calculate the energy and power transferred to the body part due to impact exposure”; [0138]: “The present invention enables significant advances and improvements in real-time monitoring of impact injury risks by allowing supervisory personnel to continuously monitor balance control and motion deficits and correlate these changes in real time with cumulative head impact power, using a single IMD device that can calculate: head impact power when an impact is detected by the IMD; postural sway power when a period of quiet stance is detected by the IMD; and variations in step-to-step and stride-to-stride acceleration when the user is determined by the IMB to be walking or running”. The IMD is the impact monitoring device which includes the impact sensors). Additionally Ralston discloses the sensor being on the user’s head, which includes the crown of the user’s head ([0002]: “This invention relates generally to electronic sensors. More particularly, this invention is directed toward sensors for multivariate impact injury risk and recovery monitoring”; [0078]: “The present invention demonstrates that the cumulative mechanical power transferred to the brain is a valid neuro-mechanical biomarker for cumulative impact trauma, and that the linear, rotational, and total mechanical power can be calculated directly from the outputs of a MEMS accelerometer and MEMS gyroscope within a universally deployable wearable device”; Abstract: “An apparatus has a housing adapted for mechanical coupling with a skull of a human. A first sensor is positioned in the housing to collect linear motion signals. A second sensor is positioned in the housing to collect rotational motion signals. A processor is positioned in the housing connected to the first sensor and the second sensor”. The apparatus containing the sensors are positioned on the head of the user to measure the impact on the user’s brain.), and Olivares Velasco is used to show a suitable location on the crown of the head for a device that measures impact (Column 4, lines 25-27: “the head guard can be configured to cover various parts of the wearer's head, such as the crown”).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Romrell 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN K MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (703)756-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at 5712727540. 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.
/E.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/MATTHEW KREMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791