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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 6-12, and 14-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, line 7: “at least one of: the objects; and the first end-user;” should be “at least one of [[:]] the objects [[;]] and the first end-user [[;]]”;
in claim 1, line 8: “and” should be deleted;
in claim 2, lines 1-2: “a head position, and body position” should be “a head position of the first end-user, [[and]] a body position;
in claim 3, line 3: “an linear” should be “a linear”;
in claim 6, line 2: “is” before “configured” should be deleted;
in claim 6, line 3: “at least one of: the objects;” should be “the at least one of [[:]] the objects [[;]]”;
in claim 7, line 2: “is” before “configured” should be deleted;
in claim 7, lines 2-3: “at least one of: the objects;” should be “the at least one of [[:]] the objects [[;]]”;
in claim 8, line 2: “is” before “configured” should be deleted;
in claim 8, lines 2-3: “at least one of: head positions; and body positions;” should be “at least one of [[:]] head positions [[;]] and body positions [[;]]”;
in claim 9, lines 2-3: “at least one of: a geographical location of the objects;” should be “at least one of [[:]] a geographical location of the objects[[;]]”
in claim 9, line 3: “the time” should be “a time”;
in claim 10, line 2: “is” before “configured” should be deleted;
in claim 10, line 3: “a” should be inserted before “function”;
in claim 11, line 2: “is” before “configured” should be deleted;
in claim 11, line 3: “leaning” should be “learning”;
in claim 11, line 4: “the time” should be “a time”;
in claim 12, line 2: “the head” should be “a head”;
in claim 12, line 3: “a” should be inserted before “normal”;
in claim 14, line 1: “is” should be inserted before “configured”;
in claim 14, line 4: “at least one of: the objects;” should be “the at least one of [[:]] the objects [[;]]”;
in claim 15, line 1: “is” should be inserted before “configured”;
in claim 15, line 2: “at least one of: the objects; and the first end-user;” should be “the at least one of [[:]] the objects [[;]] and the first end-user [[;]]”;
in claim 16, line 1: “is” should be inserted before “configured”;
in claim 16, line 2: “the head” should be “a head”;
in claim 16, line 2: “the time” should be “a time”;
in claim 17, lines 2-3: “at least one of: the objects;” should be “the at least one of [[:]] the objects [[;]]”;
in claim 18, line 2: “the time” should be “a time”;
in claim 18, line 2: “at least one of: the objects;” should be “the at least one of [[:]] the objects [[;]] and”;
in claim 19, line 2: “at least one of: the objects; and the first end-user;” should be “the at least one of [[:]] the objects [[;]] and the first end-user [[;]]”; and
in claim 20, line 6: “at least one of: the objects; and the first end-user;” should be “at least one of [[:]] the objects [[;]] and the first end-user [[;]]”;
in claim 20, lines 15-16: “a central database; a first computing device;” should be “a central database, [[;]] a first computing device, [[;]]”; and
in claim 20, line 27: the semicolon should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “whereby the impact event monitoring and analyzing module also configured to analyze the Yaw, Pitch and Roll data with one or more machine learning techniques and one or more deep learning techniques to determine consciousness level and one or more injuries that occur to the first end-user in the impact event” in lines 18-22, which is clearly a computer-implemented recitation. Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 1, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function of analyzing the Yaw, Pitch and Roll data with one or more machine learning techniques and one or more deep learning techniques to determine consciousness level and one or more injuries that occur to the first end-user in the impact event. The specification provides no flowcharts, algorithms, or explanations as to how one analyzes Yaw, Pitch and Roll data with one or more machine learning techniques and one or more deep learning techniques so to determine consciousness level and one or more injuries that occur to the first end-user in the impact event. Further, the specification provides no flowcharts, algorithms, or explanations regarding the particulars of the one or more machine learning techniques and one or more deep learning techniques. As such, the specification does not provide enough support to show sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed impact event monitoring and analyzing module that is configured to analyze the Yaw, Pitch and Roll data with one or more machine learning techniques and one or more deep learning techniques to determine consciousness level and one or more injuries that occur to the first end-user in the impact event.
Claims 2-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 20 recites “analyzing the Yaw, Pitch and Roll data with one or more machine learning techniques and one or more deep learning techniques by the impact event monitoring and analyzing module to determine consciousness level and injuries that occur to the first end-user at the time of the impact event” in lines 22-25, which is clearly a computer-implemented recitation. See the Supplementary Examination Guidelines and the rejection of claim 1 for sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation. This claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function of analyzing the Yaw, Pitch and Roll data with one or more machine learning techniques and one or more deep learning techniques by the impact event monitoring and analyzing module to determine consciousness level and injuries that occur to the first end-user at the time of the impact event. The specification provides no flowcharts, algorithms, or explanations as to how one analyzes the Yaw, Pitch and Roll data with one or more machine learning techniques and one or more deep learning techniques by the impact event monitoring and analyzing module to determine consciousness level and injuries that occur to the first end-user at the time of the impact event. Further, the specification provides no flowcharts, algorithms, or explanations regarding the particulars of the one or more machine learning techniques and one or more deep learning techniques. As such, the specification does not provide enough support to show sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed impact event monitoring and analyzing module that is configured to analyzing the Yaw, Pitch and Roll data with one or more machine learning techniques and one or more deep learning techniques to determine consciousness level and injuries that occur to the first end-user at the time of the impact event.
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 “whereby the impact event monitoring device is integrated into one or more objects to detect the impact event” in lines 4-5, but it is not clear if the one or more objects is part of the claimed system. The one or more objects are not listed as a distinct element, but the object(s) is inextricably linked to the impact event monitoring device. This confusion renders claim 1 indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “impact data” in line 7, “sensor data” in line 11, and “impact data” in line 14, but it is not clear if each of these limitations are the same as, related to, or different from each other or “impact data” of claim 1, line 1. The relationship among these recitations should be made clear.
Claim 1 recites “accurate positions” in line 11, which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “accurate positions” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear how one judges an accurate position, what metrics are used, and how those metrics are judged.
Claim 1 recites “the Yaw, Pitch and Roll data are used to track one or more head movements of the first end-user” in lines 17-18, which is a method step in an apparatus claim. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because it creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. (MPEP 2173.05(p) citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 97 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Claim 1 recites “whereby the impact event monitoring and analyzing module also configured to analyze the Yaw, Pitch and Roll data with one or more machine learning techniques and one or more deep learning techniques to determine consciousness level and one or more injuries that occur to the first end-user in the impact event” in lines 18-22, which renders the claim indefinite. Deep learning is a form of machine learning (see the accompanying Merriam-Webster.com dictionary definition that accompanies this Office Action). If deep learning is, in fact, machine learning, it is not clear if “one or more machine learning techniques and one or more deep learning techniques” means just one or more deep learning techniques or an additional machine learning technique is required. This ambiguity renders claim 1 indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “consciousness level” in line 21, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “consciousness level” of claim 1, line 1. If they are the same, “consciousness level” in line 21 should be “the consciousness level”. 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), and any subsequent recitation should make it clear which recitation is being referred to.
Claim 1 recites “one or more injuries” in line 21, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “injuries” of claim 1, line 2. 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 (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), and any subsequent recitation should make it clear which recitation is being referred to.
Claim 1 recites “a second computing device…whereby the second computing device comprises an impact data accessing module configured to enable a second end-user to examine location and intensity of the impact event to understand the consciousness level and the injuries for providing better treatment to the first end-user” in lines 24-29, but it is not clear if the second computing device is part of the claimed system. The second computing device is not listed as a distinct element. If the second computing device is not part of the claimed system, it is not clear what meaning the rest of the recitation has since it further defines an element not part of the claimed system. These issues render claim 1 indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “location” in line 27, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “accurate positions and locations” of claim 1, line 11. The relationship among these recitations should be made clear.
Claim 1 recites “better treatment” in line 28, which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “better treatment” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear how one judges a better treatment, what metrics are used, and how those metrics are judged.
Claims 2-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “the rotational angle of the head of the individual, the rotational angle of the object, movement and/or motion of the first end-user or the object, an angular acceleration, an linear acceleration, acceleration and gyroscope vectors, and velocity” in lines 2-4 that renders claim indefinite. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the individual”, “the head” of the individual, “the rotational angle” of the head of the individual, and “the rotational angle of the object”. Second, it is not clear if the individual is the same as, related to, or different from the first end-user. If they are the same, consistent terminology should be used. Third, it is not clear to what element the angular acceleration, the linear acceleration, the acceleration and gyroscope vectors, and the velocity are describing.
Claim 4 recites “a network” in line 2, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “a network” of claim 1, line 25. If they are the same, “a network” in claim 4 should be “the network”. 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).
Claim 5 recites “from the impact event monitoring device in combination with the first computing device” in lines 2-3. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the first computing device” in the claim. Second, it is not clear if the first computing device is part of the claimed system. The first computing device is not listed as a distinct element, but appears to be inextricably linked to the structure of the claim. This ambiguity renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 8 recites “head positions; and body positions” in lines 2-3, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “one or more accurate positions and locations” of claim 1, lines 10-11. The relationship among these recitations should be made clear.
Claim 11 recites “one or more machine leaning techniques” in line 3, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “one or more machine learning techniques” of claim 1, lines 20-21. If they are the same, “one or more machine leaning techniques” in claim 11 should be “the one or more machine learning techniques”. 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).
Claim 11 recites “deep learning techniques” in line 3, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “one or more deep learning techniques” of claim 1, lines 20-21. If they are the same, “deep learning techniques” in claim 11 should be “the one or more deep learning techniques”. 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).
Claim 12 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 11.
Claim 12 recites “identifying no head movements” in line 2, but this recitation contradicts the existence of head movements in “one or more head movements of the first end-user” of claim 1, line 18. This contradiction renders claim 12 indefinite.
Claim 12 recites “normal movement range” in line 3, which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “normal movement range” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear how one judges a normal movement range, what metrics are used, and how those metrics are judged.
Claim 13 recites “the one or more emergency notifications” in lines 2-3, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “emergency notifications” of claim 1, line 24. If they are the same, “the one or more emergency notifications” in claim 13 should be “the emergency notifications”. 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). Also, if they are different, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the one or more emergency notifications” in claim 13.
Claim 13 recites “better treatment” in line 4, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “better treatment” of claim 1, line 28. If they are the same, “better treatment” in claim 13 should be “the better treatment”. 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).
Claim 13 recites “better treatment” in line 28, which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “better treatment” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear how one judges a better treatment, what metrics are used, and how those metrics are judged.
Claim 14 recites “the one or more first set of sensors” in line 1, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “a first set of sensors” of claim 1, line 8. If they are the same, “the one or more first set of sensors” in claim 14 should be “the first set of sensors”. If they are different, their relationship should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other. Also, if they are different, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the one or more first set of sensors” in claim 14.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the one or more first set of sensors configured to measure a linear acceleration, a linear velocity, an angular acceleration, jerks, quaternions, Euler angles, vital statistics, a rotational angle, a geographical location, movement and/or motion and gyroscope vectors of at least one of: the objects; and the first end-user” in lines 1-4, but it is not clear if the one or more first set of sensors are part of the claimed system. The one or more first set of sensors is not listed as a distinct element. If the one or more first set of sensors is not part of the claimed system, it is not clear what meaning the rest of the recitation has since it further defines an element not part of the claimed system. These issues render claim 14 indefinite.
Claim 14 recites “movement and/or motion” in line 1, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “one or more head movements” of claim 1, line 18. The relationship among these recitations should be made clear.
Claim 15 recites “the one or more second set of sensors” in line 1, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “a second set of sensors” of claim 1, line 8. If they are the same, “the one or more second set of sensors” in claim 15 should be “the second set of sensors”. If they are different, their relationship should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other. Also, if they are different, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the one or more second set of sensors” in claim 15.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the one or more second set of sensors configured to calibrate one or more orientations of at least one of: the objects; and the first end-user; by measuring Euler angles and/or quaternions” in lines 1-3, but it is not clear if the one or more second set of sensors are part of the claimed system. The one or more second set of sensors is not listed as a distinct element. If the one or more second set of sensors is not part of the claimed system, it is not clear what meaning the rest of the recitation has since it further defines an element not part of the claimed system. These issues render claim 15 indefinite.
Claim 16 recites “the one or more third set of sensors” in line 1, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “a third set of sensors” of claim 1, line 8. If they are the same, “the one or more third set of sensors” in claim 16 should be “the third set of sensors”. If they are different, their relationship should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other. Also, if they are different, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the one or more third set of sensors” in claim 16.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the one or more third set of sensors configured to monitor one or more vital statistics, rotational angle of the head of the first end-user at the time of the impact event” in lines 1-3, but it is not clear if the one or more third set of sensors are part of the claimed system. The one or more third set of sensors is not listed as a distinct element. If the one or more third set of sensors is not part of the claimed system, it is not clear what meaning the rest of the recitation has since it further defines an element not part of the claimed system. These issues render claim 16 indefinite.
Claim 16 recites “rotational angle of the head of the first end-user” in line 2, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “one or more head movements” of claim 1, line 18. The relationship between these recitations should be made clear.
Claim 17 recites “the motion detecting unit” in line 1, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “a motion detection unit” of claim 1, line 9. If they are the same, “the motion detecting unit” in claim 17 should be “the motion detection unit”. If they are different, their relationship should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other. Also, if they are different, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the motion detecting unit” in claim 17.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the motion detecting unit is configured to measure changes in the one or more orientations for continuous replication of a movement and/or motion of at least one of: the objects; and the first end-user” in lines 1-3, but it is not clear if the motion detecting unit (or the motion detection unit) is part of the claimed system. The motion detecting unit (or the motion detection unit) is not listed as a distinct element. If the motion detecting unit (or the motion detection unit) is not part of the claimed system, it is not clear what meaning the rest of the recitation has since it further defines an element not part of the claimed system. These issues render claim 17 indefinite.
Claim 17 recites “a movement and/or motion” in line 2, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “one or more head movements” of claim 1, line 18. The relationship among these recitations should be made clear.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the GPS module is configured to detect an accurate location at the time of the impact event that occurs to at least one of: the objects; the first end-user” in lines 1-2, but it is not clear if the GPS module is part of the claimed system. The GPS module is not listed as a distinct element. If the GPS module is not part of the claimed system, it is not clear what meaning the rest of the recitation has since it further defines an element not part of the claimed system. These issues render claim 18 indefinite.
Claim 18 recites “an accurate location” in line 1, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “accurate positions and locations” of claim 1, line 11 and/or “location” of claim 1, line 27. The relationship among these recitations should be made clear. Also, “an accurate location” is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “an accurate location” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear how one judges an accurate location, what metrics are used, and how those metrics are judged.
Claim 19 recites “the location of at least one of: the objects; and the first end-user” in lines 2-3, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “accurate positions and locations” of claim 1, line 11 and/or “location” of claim 1, line 27. The relationship among these recitations should be made clear.
Claim 20 recites “impact data” in line 6 and “sensor data” in line 10, but it is not clear if each of these limitations are the same as, related to, or different from each other or “impact data” of claim 20, line 1. The relationship among these recitations should be made clear.
Claim 20 recites “accurate positions” in line 10, which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “accurate positions” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear how one judges an accurate position, what metrics are used, and how those metrics are judged.
Claim 20 recites “analyzing the Yaw, Pitch and Roll data with one or more machine learning techniques and one or more deep learning techniques by the impact event monitoring and analyzing module to determine consciousness level and injuries that occur to the first end-user at the time of the impact event” in lines 22-25, which renders the claim indefinite. Deep learning is a form of machine learning (see the accompanying Merriam-Webster.com dictionary definition that accompanies this Office Action). If deep learning is, in fact, machine learning, it is not clear if “one or more machine learning techniques and one or more deep learning techniques” means just one or more deep learning techniques or an additional machine learning technique is required. This ambiguity renders claim 20 indefinite.
Claim 20 recites “consciousness level” in line 24, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “consciousness level” of claim 20, line 1. If they are the same, “consciousness level” in line 24 should be “the consciousness level”. 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), and any subsequent recitation should make it clear which recitation is being referred to.
Claim 20 recites “injuries” in line 24, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “injuries” of claim 20, line 2. 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 (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), and any subsequent recitation should make it clear which recitation is being referred to.
Claim 20 recites “location” in line 29, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “accurate positions and locations” of claim 20, line 10. The relationship among these recitations should be made clear.
Claim 20 recites “better treatment” in line 31, which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “better treatment” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear how one judges a better treatment, what metrics are used, and how those metrics are judged.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0290181 (Rao)1, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0028091 (Huang), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0066847 (Sales) and KR 20210034458 A (Lee). Citations to Lee will refer to the machine English translation that accompanies this Office Action.
Rao teaches a system comprising:
an impact event monitoring device (the impact event monitoring device 102 of Rao) configured to monitor an impact event that occurs to a first end-user, whereby the impact event monitoring device is integrated into one or more objects to detect the impact event (paragraph 0028 of Rao); the impact event monitoring device comprises a processing device (the processing device 103 of Rao) configured to collect impact data of at least one of: the objects; and the first end-user; using a first set of sensors (the sensors 204a, 204b, 204c of Rao), a second set of sensors (the sensors 206a, 206b, 206c of Rao), and a third set of sensors (the sensors 208a, 208b, 208c of Rao), an impact sensing unit (the impact sensing unit 210 of Rao), a motion detection unit (the motion detection unit 212 of Rao), a GPS module (the GPS module 214 of Rao), and an image capturing unit (the image capturing unit 216 of Rao) upon detecting the impact event, the impact data comprises one or more accurate positions and locations and sensor data (abstract, paragraphs 0012, 0014, 0016, 0033 of Rao);
a network module (the network module 218 of Rao) configured to send the impact data to an impact event monitoring and analyzing module (the impact event reporting module 114 of Rao); and
the impact event monitoring and analyzing module configured to report and send emergency notifications along with the impact data to a second computing device (the second computing device 108 of Rao; paragraphs 0028-0029 and 0041 of Rao) over a network (the network 110 of Rao), whereby the second computing device comprises an impact data accessing module configured to enable a second end-user to examine location and intensity of the impact event (paragraphs 0034, 0038-0041, and 0044-0045 of Rao).
Rao teaches that there is a need to be able to diagnose the extent and severity of an injury as a result of the impact event (paragraphs 0005, 0016, 0036, 0038, 0040, and 0047 of Rao) by delivering additional data or medical examiners (paragraph 0011 of Rao) such as positions, locations, sensor data, and media files (paragraph 0036 of Rao). Huang teaches that movements, components of force, and/or head accelerations in the pitch, roll, and yaw axes can be analyzed or monitored in real time by using machine-leaning techniques so as to determine non-injurious or potentially injurious head movements (paragraphs 0010, 0014-0016, 0038, 0060, 00064, 071-0081, 0083-0084, 0088-0089, 0095-0096, 0118, 0145, and 0165-0166 of Huang). 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 system of Rao to analyze movements, components of force, and/or head accelerations in the pitch, roll, and yaw axes by using machine-leaning techniques so as to determine non-injurious or potentially injurious head movements of the user and provide them to monitoring third parties so as to provide a level of safety of the users.
Sales teaches that a user’s consciousness level can be determined from the head pitch, roll, and yaw physiology (paragraphs 0044, 0053-0054, 0058, 0063, and 0068 and claim 18 of Sales). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use analyze the head pitch, roll, and yaw physiology of the combination to determine the user’s consciousness level so as to get a full picture of the physical status of the user and provide it to monitoring third parties so as to provide a level of safety of the users. Lee teaches the use of a convolution neural network and a recurrent neural network to equate state of consciousness with data so as to make the model self-aware (page 4 of Lee).2 It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a convolution neural network and a recurrent neural network to analyze the head pitch, roll, and yaw physiology so to determine the user’s consciousness level since it provides a more accurate result.
With respect to claim 1, the combination teaches or suggest a system for monitoring and analyzing impact data to determine consciousness level and injuries, comprising:
an impact event monitoring device (the impact event monitoring device 102 of Rao) configured to monitor an impact event that occurs to a first end-user, whereby the impact event monitoring device is integrated into one or more objects to detect the impact event (paragraph 0028 of Rao); the impact event monitoring device comprises a processing device (the processing device 103 of Rao) configured to collect impact data of at least one of: the objects; and the first end-user; using a first set of sensors (the sensors 204a, 204b, 204c of Rao), a second set of sensors (the sensors 206a, 206b, 206c of Rao), and a third set of sensors (the sensors 208a, 208b, 208c of Rao), an impact sensing unit (the impact sensing unit 210 of Rao), a motion detection unit (the motion detection unit 212 of Rao), a GPS module (the GPS module 214 of Rao), and an image capturing unit (the image capturing unit 216 of Rao) upon detecting the impact event, the impact data comprises one or more accurate positions and locations and sensor data (abstract, paragraphs 0012, 0014, 0016, and 0033 of Rao);
a network module (the network module 218 of Rao) configured to send the impact data to an impact event monitoring and analyzing module (the impact event reporting module 114 of Rao), wherein the impact event monitoring and analyzing module configured to receive impact data from the impact event monitoring device and convert the impact data into Yaw, Pitch and Roll data, wherein the Yaw, Pitch and Roll data are respective rotations of the first end-user around X, Y and Z axes and the Yaw, Pitch and Roll data are used to track one or more head movements of the first end-user, whereby the impact event monitoring and analyzing module also configured to analyze the Yaw, Pitch and Roll data with one or more machine learning techniques and one or more deep learning techniques to determine consciousness level and one or more injuries that occur to the first end-user in the impact event (paragraphs 0042-0045 of Rao; the analysis of the movements, components of force, and/or head accelerations in the pitch, roll, and yaw axes so as to determine non-injurious or potentially injurious head movements by using machine-leaning techniques; and the use of a convolution neural network and a recurrent neural network to analyze the head pitch, roll, and yaw physiology so to determine the user’s consciousness level); and
the impact event monitoring and analyzing module configured to report and send emergency notifications along with the impact data to a second computing device (the second computing device 108 of Rao; paragraphs 0028-0029 and 0041 of Rao) over a network (the network 110 of Rao), whereby the second computing device comprises an impact data accessing module configured to enable a second end-user to examine location and intensity of the impact event (paragraphs 0039, 0041 of Rao; providing the consciousness level and injury status to monitoring third parties) to understand the consciousness level and the injuries for providing better treatment to the first end-user.
With respect to claim 2, the combination teaches or suggests that the accurate positions and locations comprise a head position, and body position of the first end-user, a geographical position of the object, a geographical position of the first end-user (abstract, paragraphs 0012, 0014, 0016, and 0033-0035 of Rao).
With respect to claim 3, the combination teaches or suggests that the sensor data comprises quaternions, Euler angles, vital statistics, the rotational angle of the head of the individual, the rotational angle of the object, movement and/or motion of the first end-user or the object, an angular acceleration, an linear acceleration, acceleration and gyroscope vectors, and velocity (paragraphs 0033, 0038, 0040, 0043, 0049, 0051, and 0053 of Rao).
With respect to claim 4, the combination teaches or suggests that the impact event monitoring and analyzing module (the impact event reporting module 114 of Rao) is configured to collect the impact data from the impact event monitoring device (the impact event monitoring device 102 of Rao) over a network (the network 110 of Rao).
With respect to claim 5, the combination teaches or suggests that the impact event monitoring and analyzing module (the impact event reporting module 114 of Rao) is configured to collect the impact data from the impact event monitoring device in combination with the first computing device (paragraphs 0042-0045 of Rao).
With respect to claim 6, the combination teaches or suggests that the impact event monitoring and analyzing module (the impact event reporting module 114 of Rao) comprises an impact event detecting module (the impact analyzing module 304 of Rao) is configured to detect the impact event that occurs to at least one of: the objects; and the first end-user (paragraphs 0042-0045 of Rao).
With respect to claim 7, the combination teaches or suggests that the impact event monitoring and analyzing module (the impact event reporting module 114 of Rao) comprises an image capturing module (the image capturing module 306 of Rao) is configured to capture at least one of: the objects; and the first end-user after experiencing the impact event (paragraphs 0042-0045 of Rao).
With respect to claim 8, the combination teaches or suggests that the impact event monitoring and analyzing module (the impact event reporting module 114 of Rao) comprises a position detection module (the position detection module 308 of Rao) is configured to fetch at least one of: head positions; and body positions; of the first end-user after experiencing the impact event (paragraphs 0042-0045 of Rao).
With respect to claim 9, the combination teaches or suggests that the impact event monitoring and analyzing module (the impact event reporting module 114 of Rao) comprises a location detection module (the location detection module 309 of Rao) configured to fetch at least one of: a geographical location of the objects; and a geographical location of the first end-user at the time of the impact event (paragraphs 0042-0045 of Rao).
With respect to claim 10, Rao teaches that the position detection module 308 may be configured to fetch the object/subject positions “x” seconds before the impact interrupt and “x” seconds after the impact interrupt (paragraph 0044 of Rao). The image processing module 310 may be configured to convert the resulting “2x” seconds of the object/subject positions into a short animation/video by which the accurate object/subject positions at the time of the impact event may be reproduced (paragraphs 0044, 0047, and 0053 of Rao). Huang also teaches the use of time stamps for impact event measurements so as to keep track of the data over time (paragraphs 0065 and 0069-0070 of Huang). From these teachings, Rao and Huang are suggesting the impact data be time-stamped so that the data may be tracked and analyzed over a period of time before, during, and after an event. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to time stamp the impact data so that impact data is tracked and analyzed as a function of time before, during, and after the impact. Thus, the combination teaches or suggests that the impact event monitoring and analyzing module (the impact event reporting module 114 of Rao) comprises an impact data conversion module is configured to convert the impact data into function of time (the time stamping of the impact data).
With respect to claim 11, the combination teaches or suggests that the impact event monitoring and analyzing module comprises a data analyzing module is configured to analyze the Yaw, Pitch and Roll data with one or more machine leaning techniques and deep learning techniques to detect the consciousness level and injuries that occur to the first end-user at the time of the impact event (paragraphs 0042-0045 of Rao; the module that is used for the analysis of the movements, components of force, and/or head accelerations in the pitch, roll, and yaw axes so as to determine non-injurious or potentially injurious head movements by using machine-leaning techniques and that uses a convolution neural network and a recurrent neural network to analyze the head pitch, roll, and yaw physiology so to determine the user’s consciousness level).
With respect to claim 12, the combination teaches or suggests that the data analyzing module is configured to analyze the Yaw, Pitch and Roll data upon identifying no head movements and if the head is moving out of normal movement range (paragraphs 0042-0045 of Rao; the module that is used for the analysis of the movements, components of force, and/or head accelerations in the pitch, roll, and yaw axes so as to determine non-injurious or potentially injurious head movements by using machine-leaning techniques).
With respect to claim 13, the combination teaches or suggests that the impact event monitoring and analyzing module (the impact event reporting module 114 of Rao) comprises an alert generating module (the alert generating module 312 of Rao) configured to deliver the one or more emergency notifications to the second computing device for enabling the second end-user to estimate the intensity of the impact event to provide better treatment (paragraphs 0042-0045 of Rao).
With respect to claim 14, the combination teaches or suggests that the one or more first set of sensors configured to measure a linear acceleration, a linear velocity, an angular acceleration, jerks, quaternions, Euler angles, vital statistics, a rotational angle, a geographical location, movement and/or motion and gyroscope vectors of at least one of: the objects; and the first end-user (paragraphs 0037-0038 and 0040 and claim 2 of Rao).
With respect to claim 15, the combination teaches or suggests that the one or more second set of sensors configured to calibrate one or more orientations of at least one of: the objects; and the first end-user; by measuring Euler angles and/or quaternions (paragraphs 0037-0038 and 0040 and claim 3 of Rao).
With respect to claim 16, the combination teaches or suggests that the one or more third set of sensors configured to monitor one or more vital statistics, rotational angle of the head of the first end-user at the time of the impact event (paragraphs 0037-0038 and 0040 and claim 4 of Rao).
With respect to claim 17, the combination teaches or suggests that the motion detecting unit (the motion detection unit 212 of Rao) is configured to measure changes in the one or more orientations for continuous replication of a movement and/or motion of at least one of: the objects; and the first end-user (paragraphs 0042-0045 of Rao and claim 7 of Rao).
With respect to claim 18, the combination teaches or suggests that the GPS module (the GPS module 214 of Rao) is configured to detect an accurate location at the time of the impact event that occurs to at least one of: the objects; the first end-user (paragraphs 0039 and 0041-0045 of Rao and claim 8 of Rao).
With respect to claim 19, the combination teaches or suggests that the network module (the network module 218 of Rao) is configured to send the geographical location as a communication link, and an information identifying the location of at least one of: the objects; and the first end-user; to the second computing device for communicating the impact data stored in a memory unit of the impact event monitoring device (paragraphs 0039 and 0041-0045 of Rao and claims 9-10 of Rao).
With respect to claim 20, the combination teaches or suggests a method for monitoring and analyzing impact data to determine consciousness level and injuries, comprising:
monitoring an impact event using an impact event monitoring device (the impact even