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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I drawn to claims 2-15 and Subspecies II of Species I in the reply filed on 02/17/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Therefore, claims 16-21 are withdrawn.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species II in the reply filed on 02/17/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the subspecies are not mutually exclusive. Examiner finds this argument to be persuasive and thus the restriction regarding Species II is withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-5 and 12-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 2, and 5-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,406,558 (hereinafter “ ‘558 “).
Regarding claim 2, ‘558 discloses a system for reducing a severity of a brain injury incurred by an individual due to a change in head acceleration of the individual, the system comprising: a sensor configured to detect an occurring or impending event that would result in the change in head acceleration of the individual; an actuation device configured to contact the abdomen of the individual, the actuation device comprising: a plurality of electrodes configured to stimulate one or more abdominal muscles or one or more abdominal nerves of the individual when an electric signal is applied to the plurality of electrodes; and communication electronics on or within at least one of the sensor or the actuation device, the communication electronics configured to: transmit, subsequent to detection of the occurring or impending event by the sensor, an input to the actuation device, the input triggering an actuated state of the actuation device, during which the actuation device applies the electric signal to the plurality of electrodes (Claim 1).
Regarding claims 3-5, ‘558 discloses the system of claim 2, and ‘558 further discloses the limitations of claims 3-5 (Claims 1 and 2).
Regarding claims 12-15, ‘558 discloses the system of claim 2, and ‘558 further discloses the limitations of claims 12-15 (Claims 1 and 5-8).
Claims 6-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of ‘558 in view of US20140330186A1 to Hyde et al. (hereinafter “Hyde”).
Regarding claim 6, ‘558 discloses the system of claim 2, but does not disclose wherein the sensor is a remote sensor. However, Hyde teaches an active torso stimulation device which uses a remote sensor (Fig. 3 remote sensor system 304, sensor 320; Paragraph 0047-0048 disclose the sensor may detect an input indicative of a posture or activity of the subject; Paragraph 0048 discloses the sensor may be a camera 320a; Paragraph 0047 discloses a sensor system comprising multiple sensors to observe the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor of Huang to have a remote sensor, as taught by Hyde, in order to provide information about the activity or posture of the subject from images obtained by the sensor (Paragraph 0073). Examiner notes having multiple sensors by also keeping the helmet sensor will provide a more thorough assessment of the activity of the user.
Regarding claim 7, ‘558 in view of Hyde discloses the system of claim 6, and ‘558 as modified by Hyde further discloses wherein the remote sensor is configured to: track one or more of positions or speeds of a plurality of individuals (Hyde Paragraph 0073 discloses the camera can capture images of the user’s activity/posture; Examiner notes this would be a position of a plurality of individuals); and detect an impending collision of the plurality of individuals based on the one or more positions or speeds (Examiner notes Hyde’s camera would be able to detect an impending collision based on image data of multiple individuals (i.e. one person moving toward another)).
Regarding claim 8, ‘558 discloses the system of claim 2, and ‘558 as modified by Hyde further discloses wherein the actuation device is a waistband (Hyde Fig. 1 torso support 102 is a waistband).
Regarding claim 9, ‘558 discloses the system of claim 2, and ‘558 as modified by Hyde further discloses an inner wall and an outer wall (See Annotated Fig. 1 for the designation of the inner and outer walls); an actuating component (Fig. 1 force applying elements 106a-d; Paragraph 0042 discloses the force applying element may be expandable air filled bladders); and an expandable cavity between the inner wall and the outer wall (Examiner notes the force applying elements will be at least partially between the inner and outer walls when expanded).
PNG
media_image1.png
465
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, ‘558 in view of Hyde discloses the system of claim 9, and ‘558 as modified by Hyde further discloses wherein the actuation component comprises one or more of a gas, a liquid, or a gel (Fig. 1 force applying elements 106a-d; Paragraph 0042 discloses the force applying element may be expandable air filled bladders; Examiner notes that air is a gas).
Regarding claim 11, ‘558 in view of Hyde discloses the system of claim 9, and ‘558 as modified by Hyde further discloses wherein the expandable cavity is configured to increase intraabdominal pressure of the individual (Examiner notes that expansion of air filled bladders against the individual’s abdomen will inherently result in increasing intra-abdominal pressure of the individual).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 06/07/2023, 08/15/2023, and 02/20/2026 have been filed and received.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20140323921A1 to Huang (hereinafter “Huang”) in view of US20140330186A1 to Hyde et al. (hereinafter “Hyde”) and US5397337A to Jaeger et al. (hereinafter “Jaeger”).
Regarding claim 2, Huang discloses a system for reducing a severity of a brain injury incurred by an individual due to a change in head acceleration of the individual (Fig. 1 head component 24; Paragraph 0028 discloses the device is used for reducing traumatic brain injury in an individual due to an impact to the individual’s head), the system comprising:
a sensor configured to detect an occurring or impending event that would result in the change in head acceleration of the individual (Fig. 1 sensor 12; Paragraph 0029 discloses the sensor measures linear as well as rotational acceleration of the user’s head due to an impact);
communication electronics on or within at least one of the sensor or the actuation device (Paragraph 0032 discloses the first sensor and an optional second sensor may be in communication with a wireless transmitter to transmit sensor measurements to the processing element 18), the communication electronics configured to:
transmit, subsequent to detection of the occurring or impending event by the sensor (Fig. 13 steps 402 & 403; Paragraphs 0079-008 disclose if a value detected by the sensor is greater than or equal to one more injury levels a signal may be sent to actuate the device).
Huang does not disclose an actuation device configured to contact the abdomen of the individual, the actuation device comprising: an electrode configured to stimulate one or more abdominal muscles or one or more abdominal nerves of the individual when an electric signal is applied to the electrode; and an input to the actuation device, the input triggering an actuated state of the actuation device, during which the actuation device applies the electric signal to the electrode. However, Hyde teaches an active torso stimulation device which contacts an individual’s abdomen and an electrode configured to stimulate one or more abdominal muscles of the individual when an electric signal is supplied to the electrode, and an input triggering an actuated state of the actuation device, during which the actuation device applies the electric signal to the electrode (Figs. 1 & 3 torso support 102, muscle stimulator 384; Paragraph 0066 discloses the electrode may deliver an electrical stimulus to stimulate the user’s abdominal muscle via an electrical control signal; Paragraphs 0037-0038 disclose the device is used to minimize injuries to muscles or other structures in the torso due to loading, and the device responds to posture or activity where a subject may produce motion in the subject’s torso likely to result in injury. The device responds to that activity by applying force to the torso support).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Huang to further include an actuation device configured to contact the abdomen of the individual, the actuation device comprising an electrode configured to stimulate one or more abdominal muscles or one or more abdominal nerves of the individual when an electric signal is applied to the electrode, an input to the actuation device, the input triggering an actuated state of the actuation device, during which the actuation device applies the electric signal to the electrode, as taught by Hyde, in order to provide a stimulus to a neural structure or muscle structure in the torso of the subject (Paragraph 0066). Examiner notes the control logic used by Huang to activate the lock mechanism in response to a sensed injury force would use the same logic to control the electrode on the belt of Hyde to reinforce the user.
Modified Huang does not disclose a plurality of electrodes. However, Jaeger teaches an apparatus for eliciting a cough reflex which uses a plurality of electrodes (Figs. 1 & 2 electrode positions 2, 3, electrodes 14; Col. 4 lines 62-68 – Col. 5 lines 1-4 disclose multiple pairs of electrodes may be used in the device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Huang to have a plurality of electrodes, as taught by Jaeger, in order to provide stimulation to multiple abdominal muscles (Col. 3 lines 30-35).
Regarding claim 4, Huang in view of Hyde and Jaeger discloses the system of claim 2, and Huang further discloses wherein the sensor is of a wearable device (Fig. 1 sensor 12 is in head component 24).
Regarding claim 5, Huang in view of Hyde and Jaeger disclose the system of claim 4, and Huang further discloses wherein the wearable device is a helmet (Fig. 1 head component 24).
Regarding claim 6, Huang in view of Hyde and Jaeger discloses the system of claim 2, but Huang does not disclose wherein the sensor is a remote sensor. However, Hyde teaches an active torso stimulation device which uses a remote sensor (Fig. 3 remote sensor system 304, sensor 320; Paragraph 0047-0048 disclose the sensor may detect an input indicative of a posture or activity of the subject; Paragraph 0048 discloses the sensor may be a camera 320a; Paragraph 0047 discloses a sensor system comprising multiple sensors to observe the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor of Huang to have a remote sensor, as taught by Hyde, in order to provide information about the activity or posture of the subject from images obtained by the sensor (Paragraph 0073). Examiner notes having multiple sensors by also keeping the helmet sensor will provide a more thorough assessment of the activity of the user.
Regarding claim 7, Huang in view of Hyde and Jaeger discloses the system of claim 6, and Huang as modified by Hyde further discloses wherein the remote sensor is configured to: track one or more of positions or speeds of a plurality of individuals (Hyde Paragraph 0073 discloses the camera can capture images of the user’s activity/posture; Examiner notes this would be a position of a plurality of individuals); and detect an impending collision of the plurality of individuals based on the one or more positions or speeds (Examiner notes Hyde’s camera would be able to detect an impending collision based on image data of multiple individuals (i.e. one person moving toward another)).
Regarding claim 8, Huang in view of Hyde and Jaeger discloses the system of claim 2, and Huang as modified by Hyde further discloses wherein the actuation device is a waistband (Hyde Fig. 1 torso support 102 is a waistband).
Regarding claim 9, Huang in view of Hyde and Jaeger discloses the system of claim 2, and Huang as modified by Hyde further discloses wherein the actuation device comprises: an inner wall and an outer wall (See Annotated Fig. 1 for the designation of the inner and outer walls); an actuating component (Fig. 1 force applying elements 106a-d; Paragraph 0042 discloses the force applying element may be expandable air filled bladders); and an expandable cavity between the inner wall and the outer wall (Examiner notes the force applying elements will be at least partially between the inner and outer walls when expanded).
PNG
media_image1.png
465
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Huang in view of Hyde and Jaeger discloses the system of claim 9, and Huang as modified by Hyde further discloses wherein the actuation component comprises one or more of a gas, a liquid, or a gel (Fig. 1 force applying elements 106a-d; Paragraph 0042 discloses the force applying element may be expandable air filled bladders; Examiner notes that air is a gas).
Regarding claim 11, Huang in view of Hyde and Jaeger disclose the system of claim 9, and Huang as modified by Hyde further discloses wherein the expandable cavity is configured to increase intraabdominal pressure of the individual (Examiner notes that expansion of air filled bladders against the individual’s abdomen will inherently result in increasing intra-abdominal pressure of the individual).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Hyde and Jaeger as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US20170182318A1 to Fisher et al. (hereinafter “Fisher”).
Regarding claim 3, Huang in view of Hyde and Jaeger discloses the system of claim 2, but does not disclose after a duration of time from transmitting the first input, transmit a second input to the actuation device, the second input causing the actuated state to cease and to transition into a rest state of the actuation device, during which the actuation device no longer applies the electric signal to the plurality of electrodes. However, Fisher teaches and electrostimulation belt which has a controller configured to after a duration of time from transmitting the first input, transmit a second input to the actuation device, the second input causing the actuated state to cease and to transition into a rest state of the actuation device, during which the actuation device no longer applies the electric signal to the plurality of electrodes (Figs. 6 & 8 device 100 microcontroller 355, treatment mode starts 730, end treatment 770; Paragraph 0101 discloses the microcontroller in the device may control the generation and deliver of stimulation signals to the pairs of electrodes; Paragraphs 0079-0080 disclose the treatment procedure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control logic of modified Huang to deliver a first input to start electrode stimulation and a second input to cease operation, as taught by Fisher, in order to provide automatic control over the generation and delivery of stimulation signals to the user’s body (Paragraph 0101).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Hyde and Jaeger as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US20140276278A1 to Smith et al. (hereinafter “Smith”).
Regarding claim 12, Huang in view of Hyde and Jaeger discloses the system of claim 2, and Huang as modified by Hyde further discloses wherein the actuation device is a first actuation device (Hyde Fig. 1 torso support 102). Huang does not disclose the system further comprising, a second actuation device comprising, a first end, a second end, and a housing configured to be circumferentially positioned around a neck of the individual, wherein the first extendable protrusion of the second actuation device is configured to compress a left internal jugular vein when in the actuated state, and wherein the second extendable protrusion is configured to compress a right internal jugular vein of the individual when in the actuated state. However, Smith teaches a compressive collar for restricting blood flow in the neck which has an actuation device (See Fig. 17 generally) comprising, a first end, a second end (See Annotated Fig. 17 for the designation of the first and second ends), and a housing configured to be circumferentially positioned around a neck of the individual (Fig. 17 collar body of circumferential collar type device 102), the housing comprising a first extendable protrusion and a second extendable protrusion (Fig. 17 pad-like protuberances 103), wherein the first extendable protrusion of the second actuation device is configured to compress a left internal jugular vein when in the actuated state, and wherein the second extendable protrusion is configured to compress a right internal jugular vein of the individual when in the actuated state (Paragraphs 0016-0018 and 0150 disclose the protuberances are configured to restrict blood flow through the user’s neck veins; Examiner notes that restricting blood flow comes from compressing the veins with the protuberances 103).
PNG
media_image2.png
775
802
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang to include the system further comprising, a second actuation device comprising, a first end, a second end, and a housing configured to be circumferentially positioned around a neck of the individual, wherein the first extendable protrusion of the second actuation device is configured to compress a left internal jugular vein when in the actuated state, and wherein the second extendable protrusion is configured to compress a right internal jugular vein of the individual when in the actuated state, as taught by Smith, in order to mitigate traumatic brain injury by limiting SLOSH effects without any side effects (Paragraphs 0005 and 0142).
Regarding claim 13, Huang in view of Hyde, Jaeger, and Smith discloses the system of claim 12, and Huang as modified by Smith further discloses wherein the first extendable protrusion of the second actuation device is located on an inner surface of the second actuation device, and wherein the second extendable protrusion of the second actuation device is located on an inner surface of the second actuation device (See Annotated Fig. 17).
PNG
media_image2.png
775
802
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Huang in view of Hyde, Jaeger, and Smith discloses the system of claim 12, and Huang as modified by Smith further discloses wherein the housing of the second actuation device has a larger curvature in the actuated state than when in a rest state (Smith Paragraph 0150; Examiner notes due to inflation of the protuberances, the housing itself is deformed and results in a larger curvature of the structure of the collar).
Regarding claim 15, Huang in view of Hyde, Jaeger, and Smith discloses the system of claim 12, and Huang further discloses a computing system in communication with a sensor of the system (Fig. 6 first sensor 12, second sensor 14, processing element 18, memory element 20), the computing system configured to apply a trained machine-learning model to data corresponding to the occurring or impending event detected by the sensor to determine the input (Paragraph 0045 discloses software/models such as a finite-state machine and the processing element (computing system) is in communication with the sensor measurements which are detecting the occurring or impending collision).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-20140257051-A1 to Cam; US-20140236058-A1 to Lee; US-20130204169-A1 to Poepperling; US-20130110415-A1 to Davis; US-20120172679-A1 to Logan; US-20120016179-A1 to Paradis; US-20110093003-A1 to Lee; US-20170303620-A1 to Sicking; US-20170312517-A1 to Phillips; US-20170196293-A1 to Podboy; US-20170127747-A1 to Thalken; and US-20160243353-A1 to Ahmed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER RAUBENSTRAW whose telephone number is (571)272-0662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:30.
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, BRANDY LEE can be reached at 571-270-3525. 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.
/TYLER A RAUBENSTRAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRADLEY H PHILIPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
