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 .
Claims Pending
Claims 1-20 are currently under examination.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 8: The claim limitation “communications module configured to communicate with a server” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “module” coupled with functional language “configured to communicate with a server” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier that has a known structural meaning before the phrase “module”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
A generic computational structure, or equivalents thereof, as described in Par. 6 and Par. 14 of the disclosure filed on 12/21/2023.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 8-14, and 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 8 recites the limitation “comparing the impact acceleration to a threshold value, wherein when the impact acceleration equals or exceeds the threshold value: transmit an alert; transmit the sensor data to a server; wherein when the impact acceleration is less than the threshold value: transmit the sensor data to the server”, which fails to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim as it is unclear as to what “server” is being referred to. For example, Claim 8 also recites “a communications module configured to communicate with a server;”. Is this the same server as the above limitations? Is this a different server altogether? As such, the claim is indefinite as the applicant has failed to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim. For examination purposes, the above “server” will be interpreted as the same “server” from the limitation “a communications module configured to communicate with a server”.
Claims 9-14 are dependent on claim 8, and as such are also rejected.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 contains the trademark/trade name “Bluetooth”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe sensor data transmitted and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as without the indicated trade name.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards a judicial exception without significantly more. These claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test.
Claim 1, 8, and 15 are directed towards a method, system, and device, respectively, which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test.
Prong 1: Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the abstract idea of a mental process as follows: “receiving sensor data”, “determining impact acceleration from the sensor data”, “comparing the impact acceleration to a threshold value”, “when the impact acceleration equals or exceeds the threshold value: transmit an alert”, “when the impact acceleration equals or exceeds the threshold value: transmit the sensor data”, and “wherein when the impact acceleration is less than the threshold value: transmit the sensor data”.
The receiving sensor data, determining impact acceleration from the sensor data, comparing the impact acceleration to a threshold value, when the impact acceleration equals or exceeds the threshold value: transmit an alert, when the impact acceleration equals or exceeds the threshold value: transmit the sensor data, and wherein when the impact acceleration is less than the threshold value: transmit the sensor data can be practically performed by the human mind, with the aid of a pen and paper, but for performance on a generic processor, in a computer environment, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the steps.
A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably receive sensor data with a generic computer or by being handed a piece of paper with sensor data. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably determine impact acceleration from sensor data mentally, with a pen and paper, or with a generic computer based on being handed a piece of paper with acceleration data. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably compare impact acceleration to a threshold value, based on having a piece of paper with both pieces of information. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably transmit an alert and transmit sensor data with a generic computer based on impact acceleration data being equal to or greater than a threshold. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably transmit sensor data with a generic computer based on impact acceleration being less than a threshold.
There is currently nothing to suggest an undue level of complexity in the determining, receiving, comparing, or transmitting steps. Therefore, a person would be able to practically be able to perform the determining and comparing steps mentally or with the aid of pen and paper.
Prong Two: Claims 1, 8, and 15 do not recite additional elements that integrate the mental process into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are “directed to” the mental process. The additional elements merely:
Recite the words “apply it” or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. a server (Claims 1, 8, and 15), a communications module configured to communicate with a server (Claim 8), a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable program instructions (Claims 8 and 15), a processing device (Claims 8 and 15), a processing device communicatively coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable medium for executing the computer-executable program instructions (Claims 8 and 15) ) and
Add insignificant extra-solution activity (the pre-solution activity of: using generic data-gathering components (e.g. an accelerometer within a piece of protective gear (Claims 1, 8, and 15)).
For claims 1, 8, and 15. The additional elements merely serve to gather data to be used by the abstract idea. The server, communications module configured to communicate with a server, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable program instructions, processing device, and processing device communicatively coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable medium for executing the computer-executable program instructions are merely used as a pre-solution step of necessary data gathering to be used by the abstract idea. The high G accelerometer within a piece of protective gear is merely used as additional types data gathering. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. The processing that is performed remains in the abstract realm, i.e. the gathered data is not used for a treatment or meaningful purpose. Additionally, there is no overall improvement to existing technology present. The mental process merely functions on generic computer elements that do not change the functionality of the device itself. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test for Claims 1, 8 and 15.
Per the Berkheimer requirement, the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. For example,
An accelerometer within a piece of protective gear as disclosed by Fraylick (US Pub. No. 20180035952) hereinafter Fraylick, “The process of assimilating impact force and accelerometer sensors in conventional sports equipment is not contemporary; prior arts have included numerous helmet-mounted monitoring systems that can calculate collision data and compute probabilities of neural contusion for its users.” (Par. 10) and Naunheim et al, (“Comparison of Impact Data in Hockey, Football, and Soccer”, 2000) (Cited 305 times) hereinafter Naunheim, “A hockey defenseman was fitted with either a CCM helmet (Sports Mask, Inc., Quebec, Canada) or a Joffa helmet (Krahu, Quebec, Canada) meeting ANSI criteria for hockey play. A triaxial accelerometer, Techmark IS100 (Lansing, Mich) was placed at the vertex of the helmet inside a small cut-away section of the padding such that the accelerometer was touching the players hair.” (Page 938, Col. 1),
a communications module configured to communicate with a server and server as disclosed by Lynch (US Pub. No. 20180064393) hereinafter Lynch, “it is to be appreciated that various communications links and technologies, the nature of which are generally well-known in the art, may be used in accordance with the various embodiments to communicate patient vitals from a transmitting device 205, across network 208, and to one or more presentation devices and/or systems. In addition to those communications links describe above, such communications links include, but are not limited to, a third communications link 210 between the network 208 and a server 212 or a diagnostic device 211…” (Par. 35) and Sprigg (US Pub. No. 20130278414) hereinafter Sprigg “The server 105 and wireless receiver devices 103 may exchange data bi-directionally, which may enable the server 105 to employ the wireless receiver devices 103 to transmit wireless data signals to the wireless biometric sensor devices 102. Through the connection to the Internet 108, the server 105 may also exchange data with external devices capable of interacting with the Internet 108, such as a smart phone 109, a laptop 110, other servers, and a cloud data storage device 111. In this manner, communications (e.g., SMS text messages, e-mails, etc.) may be exchanged between the server 105 and other Internet-connected devices by methods well known in the art.” (Col. 25-26, lines 62-3),
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable program instructions and a processing device communicatively coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable medium for executing the computer-executable program instructions as disclosed by Herron (US Pub. No. 20170304670) hereinafter Herron “Memory 43 can act to store operating instructions in the form of program code for the processor 42 to execute. Although illustrated in FIG. 4 as a single component, memory 43 can include one or more physical memory devices such as, for example, local memory and/or one or more bulk storage devices. Additionally, memory 43 can also include one or more cache memories that provide temporary storage of at least some program code in order to reduce the number of times program code must be retrieved from the bulk storage device during execution. Each of these devices is well known in the art.” (Par. 39) and Darley (US Pat. No. 6876947) hereinafter Darley “The memories 402, 404, 424, and 432 may each store a plurality of instructions which, when executed by the processor coupled thereto, may perform one or more of the routines described below. The structure and capabilities of the various components of the computer 428 (i.e., the processor 430, memory 432, user interface 436, and display 438), as well as the network server 442, are well understood in the art, and therefore will not be described in further detail” (Col. 25-26, lines 62-3),
are all well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an inventive concept) as all of the elements are directed to the further describing of the abstract idea, pre-solution activities, and computer implementation.
The dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons: they merely further describe the abstract idea:
the threshold value is 70Gs (Claim 2, 9, and 16),
the threshold value is adjustable based on age of a user (Claims 3, 10, 17),
the alert is transmitted (Claims 4, 11, and 18)
alert and sensor data are transmitted (Claims 6, 13, and 20)
the alert includes a recommendation to remove a player (Claims 7 and 14)
Further describe the pre-solution activity (or structure used for such activity):
An accelerometer in at least one of a helmet, a headband, a hat, glasses, goggles, and a mouthpiece (Claims 5, 12, and 19)
one of Network File System (NFS), NIS+, and DNS protocols
one or more of: WiFi, Bluetooth, 3g, 4g, and 5g
Per the Berkheimer requirement, the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. For example,
The Office takes office notice that the additional features comprising the alert transmission protocols such as Network File System (NFS), NIS+, and DNS protocols and one or more of: WiFi, Bluetooth, 3g, 4g, and 5g were well-known routine and conventional at the time of invention and therefore constitute generic computer network structures recited at a high level of generality.
An accelerometer in a helmet as disclosed by Fraylick and Naunheim above
are all well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. The additional elements do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. The collective functions of the additional elements merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, data gathering, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a mobile device, output device, improves technology other than the technical field of the claimed invention, etc. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
The claims are generally direct towards a method of receiving sensor data from an accelerometer within a piece of protective gear, determining impact acceleration, and comparing the impact acceleration to a threshold. When the acceleration is equal to or exceeds a threshold, an alert is transmitted and sensor data is sent to a server. When the acceleration is less than a threshold, sensor data is sent to a server.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stempky (US Pat. No. 9244091) hereinafter Stempky, and further in view of Iuliano (US Pat. No. 9717457) hereinafter Iuliano and Greenwald (US Pat. No. 10952671) hereinafter Greenwald.
Regarding claim 1, Stempky teaches a method (Claim 1 (method)) comprising:
receiving sensor data from within a piece of protective gear (Claim 1, “receiving acceleration sensor data based on output values from at least one acceleration sensor”)(Claim 1 (acceleration sensor in protective headpiece)) (Col. 20, lines 24-27 (Acceleration sensor in headpiece)));
comparing the impact to a threshold value (Claim 1, “determining, based on the received acceleration sensor data, whether the impact force is associated with an impact force magnitude that is greater than a predetermined head injury threshold;”), wherein when the impact equals or exceeds the threshold value:
transmit an alert (Claim 1, “outputting an impact alert when the impact force magnitude is determined to be greater than the predetermined head injury threshold”).
Stempky fails to explicitly disclose a high G accelerometer.
However, Iuliano teaches a high G accelerometer (Col. 12-13, lines 53-5 (accelerometer)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Stempky with that of Iuliano to include a high G accelerometer through the substitution of sensor types as differing sensor types are known in the art (Iuliano (Col. 12-13, lines 53-24)) and it would have yielded the predictable result of explicitly providing an accelerometer for measurement of higher impacts (Iuliano (Col. 12-13, lines 53-24)).
Modified Stempky highly suggests fails to explicitly disclose determining impact acceleration from the sensor data, impact acceleration (Examiner's Note: Stempky fails to explicitly disclose a separate method step of determining impact acceleration).
However, Stempky does teach in an example characterization of impacts in G’s (Col. 11-12, lines 65-9 (determining impact characteristics from sensor data)) (Col. 12, lines 22-29 (G’s calculated)) (Col. 11, lines 15-29 (data provided for impact characterization)) (Claim 18 (data for impact characterization)).
Iuliano further teaches determining impact acceleration from the sensor data, impact acceleration (Col. 12-13, lines 53-2 (accelerometer)) (Col. 11, lines 26-38 (sensor data)) (Col. 11, lines 53-64 (thresholds based on comparison of impact)) (Col. 13, lines 25-48 (calculation and identification of impacts)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Stempky and Iuliano with that of Iuliano to include determining impact acceleration from the sensor data, impact acceleration through the combination of references as it would have yielded the same or similar result of quantifying impacts and determining the g’s of sustained impacts (Iuliano (Col. 12-13, lines 53-2 (accelerometer))).
Modified Stempky fails to explicitly disclose wherein when the impact acceleration equals or exceeds the threshold value: transmit the sensor data to a server; and wherein when the impact acceleration is less than the threshold value: transmit the sensor data to the server.
However, Iuliano further teaches wherein when the impact acceleration equals or exceeds the threshold value: transmit the sensor data (Col. 11, lines 41-47 “The impact detection device 24 can also have a wireless communication device 76 (e.g. 2.4 GHz ISM band) for transmitting the obtained sensor data 72 to a remote computer 78 within range of the wireless communication device 76. These transmissions can be in real-time for all detected impacts and/or only for transmission of those impacts that have exceeded one or more thresholds 82.”) (Col. 12-13, lines 53-2 (accelerometer)) (Col. 11, lines 26-38 (sensor data)) (Col. 11-12, lines 53-14 (threshold comparisons)); and
wherein when the impact acceleration is less than the threshold value: transmit the sensor data (Col. 11, lines 41-47 “The impact detection device 24 can also have a wireless communication device 76 (e.g. 2.4 GHz ISM band) for transmitting the obtained sensor data 72 to a remote computer 78 within range of the wireless communication device 76. These transmissions can be in real-time for all detected impacts and/or only for transmission of those impacts that have exceeded one or more thresholds 82.”) (Col. 12-13, lines 53-2 (accelerometer)) (Col. 11, lines 26-38 (sensor data)) (Col. 11-12, lines 53-14 (threshold comparisons)).
Greenwald teaches wherein when the impact equals or exceeds the threshold value: transmit the data to a server (Claim 1, “the remote handheld signaling device configured to: (i) transmit said impact information to a server, and (ii) display an alert when a value contained within the impact information is greater than a predetermined alert value; the server configured to receive and store said impact information that has been transmitted by the remote signaling device”(data transmission of impact information to server under all conditions));
and wherein when the impact is less than the threshold value: transmit the data to the server (Claim 1, “the remote handheld signaling device configured to: (i) transmit said impact information to a server, and (ii) display an alert when a value contained within the impact information is greater than a predetermined alert value; the server configured to receive and store said impact information that has been transmitted by the remote signaling device” (data transmission of impact information to server under all conditions)).
Stempky, Iuliano, and Greenwald are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they are involved with monitoring of head impacts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Stempky and Iuliano with that of Iuliano and Greenwald to include wherein when the impact acceleration of Iuliano equals or exceeds the threshold value: transmit the sensor data of Iuliano to a server of Greenwald; and wherein when the impact acceleration of Iuliano is less than the threshold value: transmit the sensor data of Iuliano to the server of Greenwald through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of allowing for remote monitoring (Greenwald (Col. 11, lines 30-44)) and explicitly allow for the monitoring of data for all impacts.
Regarding claim 8, Stempky discloses A system (Claim 1) (Abstract) (Col. 21, lines 14-16, “While any of the modules described herein may be embodied as computer-readable instructions executed by a processor, any of the modules may be embodied in hardware”) comprising:
a sensor within a piece of protective gear (Claim 1 (acceleration sensor within helmet)) (Claim 1, “receiving acceleration sensor data based on output values from at least one acceleration sensor”)(Claim 1 (acceleration sensor in protective headpiece)) (Col. 20, lines 24-27 (Acceleration sensor in headpiece)));
perform operations comprising (Claim 1):
receiving sensor data (Claim 1, “receiving acceleration sensor data based on output values from at least one acceleration sensor”)(Claim 1 (acceleration sensor in protective headpiece));
comparing the impact to a threshold value (Claim 1, “determining, based on the received acceleration sensor data, whether the impact force is associated with an impact force magnitude that is greater than a predetermined head injury threshold;”), wherein when the impact equals or exceeds the threshold value:
transmit an alert (Claim 1, “outputting an impact alert when the impact force magnitude is determined to be greater than the predetermined head injury threshold”).
Stempky fails to explicitly disclose a high G accelerometer within a piece of protective gear.
However, Iuliano teaches a high G accelerometer within a piece of protective gear (Col. 12-13, lines 53-5 (accelerometer)) (Col. 11, lines 14-25 (integrated in helmet)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Stempky with that of Iuliano to include high G accelerometer within a piece of protective gear through the substitution of sensor types as differing sensor types are known in the art (Iuliano (Col. 12-13, lines 53-24)) and it would have yielded the predictable result of explicitly providing an accelerometer for measurement of higher impacts (Iuliano (Col. 12-13, lines 53-24)).
Modified Stempky fails to explicitly disclose a communications module configured to communicate with a server.
However, Greenwald teaches a communications module configured to communicate with a server (Col. 11, lines 23-44 (device - 60 communicates with server - 80)) (Col. 10, lines 11-23 (signaling device – 60)).
Stempky, Iuliano, and Greenwald are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they are involved with monitoring of head impacts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Stempky and Iuliano with that of Greenwald to include a communications module configured to communicate with a server through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of allowing for remote monitoring of users ((Greenwald (Col. 11, lines 30-44)).
Modified Stempky fails to explicitly disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable program instructions; a processing device communicatively coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable medium for executing the computer-executable program instructions, wherein executing the computer-executable program instructions configures the processing device to perform operations comprising.
However, Stempky does teach in alternate embodiments a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable program instructions (Col. 21, lines 14-23 (processor executing instructions and machine readable medium with instructions)); a processing device communicatively coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable medium for executing the computer-executable program instructions (Col. 21, lines 14-23 (processor executing instructions)) (Col. 20-21, lines 60-13 (processing device executing instructions)), wherein executing the computer-executable program instructions configures the processing device to perform operations comprising (Col. 21, lines 14-23 (processor executing instructions)) (Col. 20-21, lines 60-13 (processing device executing instructions)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Stempky, Iuliano, and Greenwald with that of Stempky to explicitly include a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable program instructions; a processing device communicatively coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable medium for executing the computer-executable program instructions, wherein executing the computer-executable program instructions configures the processing device to perform operations comprising through the combination of embodiments as differing computer implementations are known in the art (Stempky (Col. 20-21, lines 60-23)) and it would have yielded the predictable result of providing the exact computational structures needed.
Modified Stempky fails to explicitly disclose the high G accelerometer.
However, Iuliano further teaches the high G accelerometer (Col. 12-13, lines 53-5 (accelerometer)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Stempky, Iuliano, and Greenwald with that of Iuliano to include the high G accelerometer through the substitution of sensor types as differing sensor types are known in the art (Iuliano (Col. 12-13, lines 53-24)) and it would have yielded the predictable result of explicitly providing an accelerometer for measurement of higher impacts (Iuliano (Col. 12-13, lines 53-24)).
Modified Stempky highly suggests fails to explicitly disclose determining impact acceleration from the sensor data, impact acceleration (Examiner's Note: Stempky fails to explicitly disclose a separate step of determining impact acceleration).
However, Stempky does teach in an example characterization of impacts in G’s (Col. 11-12, lines 65-9 (determining impact characteristics from sensor data)) (Col. 12, lines 22-29 (G’s calculated)) (Col. 11, lines 15-29 (data provided for impact characterization)) (Claim 18 (data for impact characterization)).
Iuliano further teaches determining impact acceleration from the sensor data, impact acceleration (Col. 12-13, lines 53-2 (accelerometer)) (Col. 11, lines 26-38 (sensor data)) (Col. 11, lines 53-64 (thresholds based on comparison of impact)) (Col. 13, lines 25-48 (calculation and identification of impacts)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Stempky, Iuliano, and Greenwald with that of Iuliano to include determining impact acceleration from the sensor data, impact acceleration through the combination of references as it would have yielded the same or similar result of quantifying impacts and determining the g’s of sustained impacts (Iuliano (Col. 12-13, lines 53-2 (accelerometer))).
Modified Stempky fails to explicitly disclose wherein when the impact acceleration equals or exceeds the threshold value: transmit the sensor data to a server; and wherein when the impact acceleration is less than the threshold value: transmit the sensor data to the server.
However, Iuliano further teaches wherein when the impact acceleration equals or exceeds the threshold value: transmit the sensor data (Col. 11, lines 41-47 “The impact detection device 24 can also have a wireless communication device 76 (e.g. 2.4 GHz ISM band) for transmitting the obtained sensor data 72 to a remote computer 78 within range of the wireless communication device 76. These transmissions can be in real-time for all detected impacts and/or only for transmission of those impacts that have exceeded one or more thresholds 82.”) (Col. 12-13, lines 53-2 (accelerometer)) (Col. 11, lines 26-38 (sensor data)) (Col. 11-12, lines 53-14 (threshold comparisons)); and
wherein when the impact acceleration is less than the threshold value: transmit the sensor data (Col. 11, lines 41-47 “The impact detection device 24 can also have a wireless communication device 76 (e.g. 2.4 GHz ISM band) for transmitting the obtained sensor data 72 to a remote computer 78 within range of the wireless communication device 76. These transmissions can be in real-time for all detected impacts and/or only for transmission of those impacts that have exceeded one or more thresholds 82.”) (Col. 12-13, lines 53-2 (accelerometer)) (Col. 11, lines 26-38 (sensor data)) (Col. 11-12, lines 53-14 (threshold comparisons)).
Greenwald further teaches wherein when the impact equals or exceeds the threshold value: transmit the data to a server (Claim 1, “the remote handheld signaling device configured to: (i) transmit said impact information to a server, and (ii) display an alert when a value contained within the impact information is greater than a predetermined alert value; the server configured to receive and store said impact information that has been transmitted by the remote signaling device”(data transmission of impact information to server under all conditions));
and wherein when the impact is less than the threshold value: transmit the data to the server (Claim 1, “the remote handheld signaling device configured to: (i) transmit said impact information to a server, and (ii) display an alert when a value contained within the impact information is greater than a predetermined alert value; the server configured to receive and store said impact information that has been transmitted by the remote signaling device” (data transmission of impact information to server under all conditions)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the System of Stempky, Iuliano, and Greenwald with that of Iuliano and Greenwald to include wherein when the impact acceleration of Iuliano equals or exceeds the threshold value: transmit the sensor data of Iuliano to a server of Greenwald; and wherein when the impact acceleration of Iuliano is less than the threshold value: transmit the sensor data of Iuliano to the server of Greenwald through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of allowing for remote monitoring (Greenwald (Col. 11, lines 30-44)) and explicitly allow for the monitoring of data for all impacts.
Regarding claim 15, Stempky discloses perform operations comprising (Claim 1) (abstract):
receiving sensor data from within a piece of protective gear (Claim 1, “receiving acceleration sensor data based on output values from at least one acceleration sensor”)(Claim 1 (acceleration sensor in protective headpiece)) (Col. 20, lines 24-27 (Acceleration sensor in headpiece)));
comparing the impact to a threshold value (Claim 1, “determining, based on the received acceleration sensor data, whether the impact force is associated with an impact force magnitude that is greater than a predetermined head injury threshold;”), wherein when the impact equals or exceeds the threshold value:
transmit an alert (Claim 1, “outputting an impact alert when the impact force magnitude is determined to be greater than the predetermined head injury threshold”).
Stempky fails to explicitly disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable program instructions, wherein when executed by a processing device, the computer-executable program instructions cause the processing device to perform operations comprising.
However, Stempky does teach in alternate embodiments a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable program instructions (Col. 21, lines 14-23 (processor executing instructions)) (Col. 20-21, lines 60-13 (non-transitory computer-readable medium)), wherein when executed by a processing device, the computer-executable program instructions cause the processing device to perform operations comprising (Col. 21, lines 14-23 (processor executing instructions)) (Col. 20-21, lines 60-13 (processing device executing instructions)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Stempky with that of Stempky to explicitly include a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable program instructions, wherein when executed by a processing device, the computer-executable program instructions cause the processing device to perform operations comprising through the combination of embodiments as differing computer implementations are known in the art (Stempky (Col. 20-21, lines 60-23)) and it would have yielded the predictable result of providing the exact computational structures needed.
Modified Stempky fails to explicitly disclose a high G accelerometer within a piece of protective gear.
However, Iuliano teaches a high G accelerometer within a piece of protective gear (Col. 12-13, lines 53-5 (accelerometer)) (Col. 11, lines 14-25 (integrated in helmet)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Stempky with that of Iuliano to include a high G accelerometer within a piece of protective gear through the substitution of sensor types as differing sensor types are known in the art (Iuliano (Col. 12-13, lines 53-24)) and it would have yielded the predictable result of explicitly providing an accelerometer for measurement of higher impacts (Iuliano (Col. 12-13, lines 53-24)).
Modified Stempky highly suggests fails to explicitly disclose determining impact acceleration from the sensor data, impact acceleration (Examiner's Note: Stempky fails to explicitly disclose a separate step of determining impact acceleration).
However, Stempky does teach in an example characterization of impacts in G’s (Col. 11-12, lines 65-9 (determining impact characteristics from sensor data)) (Col. 12, lines 22-29 (G’s calculated)) (Col. 11, lines 15-29 (data provided for impact characterization)) (Claim 18 (data for impact characterization)).
Iuliano further teaches determining impact acceleration from the sensor data, impact acceleration (Col. 12-13, lines 53-2 (accelerometer)) (Col. 11, lines 26-38 (sensor data)) (Col. 11, lines 53-64 (thresholds based on comparison of impact)) (Col. 13, lines 25-48 (calculation and identification of impacts)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Stempky and Iuliano with that of Iuliano to include determining impact acceleration from the sensor data, impact acceleration through the combination of references as it would have yielded the same or similar result of quantifying impacts and determining the g’s of sustained impacts (Iuliano (Col. 12-13, lines 53-2 (accelerometer))).
Modified Stempky fails to explicitly disclose wherein when the impact acceleration equals or exceeds the threshold value: transmit the sensor data to a server; and wherein when the impact acceleration is less than the threshold value: transmit the sensor data to the server.
However, Iuliano further teaches wherein when the impact acceleration equals or exceeds the threshold value: transmit the sensor data (Col. 11, lines 41-47 “The impact detection device 24 can also have a wireless communication device 76 (e.g. 2.4 GHz ISM band) for transmitting the obtained sensor data 72 to a remote computer 78 within range of the wireless communication device 76. These transmissions can be in real-time for all detected impacts and/or only for transmission of those impacts that have exceeded one or more thresholds 82.”) (Col. 12-13, lines 53-2 (accelerometer)) (Col. 11, lines 26-38 (sensor data)) (Col. 11-12, lines 53-14 (threshold comparisons)); and
wherein when the impact acceleration is less than the threshold value: transmit the sensor data (Col. 11, lines 41-47 “The impact detection device 24 can also have a wireless communication device 76 (e.g. 2.4 GHz ISM band) for transmitting the obtained sensor data 72 to a remote computer 78 within range of the wireless communication device 76. These transmissions can be in real-time for all detected impacts and/or only for transmission of those impacts that have exceeded one or more thresholds 82.”) (Col. 12-13, lines 53-2 (accelerometer)) (Col. 11, lines 26-38 (sensor data)) (Col. 11-12, lines 53-14 (threshold comparisons)).
Greenwald teaches wherein when the impact equals or exceeds the threshold value: transmit the data to a server (Claim 1, “the remote handheld signaling device configured to: (i) transmit said impact information to a server, and (ii) display an alert when a value contained within the impact information is greater than a predetermined alert value; the server configured to receive and store said impact information that has been transmitted by the remote signaling device”(data transmission of impact information to server under all conditions));
and wherein when the impact is less than the threshold value: transmit the data to the server (Claim 1, “the remote handheld signaling device configured to: (i) transmit said impact information to a server, and (ii) display an alert when a value contained within the impact information is greater than a predetermined alert value; the server configured to receive and store said impact information that has been transmitted by the remote signaling device” (data transmission of impact information to server under all conditions)).
Stempky, Iuliano, and Greenwald are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they are involved with monitoring of head impacts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Stempky and Iuliano with that of Iuliano and Greenwald to include wherein when the impact acceleration of Iuliano equals or exceeds the threshold value: transmit the sensor data of Iuliano to a server of Greenwald; and wherein when the impact acceleration of Iuliano is less than the threshold value: transmit the sensor data of Iuliano to the server of Greenwald through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of allowing for remote monitoring (Greenwald (Col. 11, lines 30-44)) and explicitly allow for the monitoring of data for all impacts.
Regarding claim 3, modified Stempky further discloses wherein the threshold value is adjustable based on age of a user (Stempky (Col. 13-14, lines 63-3 (adjustable based on age))).
Regarding claims 10 and 17, modified Stempky teaches the method of claim 3 above, which comprises the system of claims 10 and 17. As the claims are similar, claims 10 and 17 are rejected in the same manner as claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, modified Stempky further discloses wherein the piece of protective gear is one or more of a helmet (Stempky (Claim 1 (acceleration sensor within helmet))), a headband, a hat, glasses, goggles, and a mouthpiece.
Regarding claims 12 and 19, modified Stempky teaches the method of claim 5 above, which comprises the system of claims 12 and 19. As the claims are similar, claims 12 and 19 are rejected in the same manner as claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, modified Stempky fails to explicitly disclose wherein the alert and sensor data are transmitted over one or more of: WiFi, Bluetooth , 3g, 4g, and 5g.
However, Stempky does teach in an embodiment transmitting over WIFI and Bluetooth (Stempky (Col. 9, lines 45-54 (transmission over Wifi and Bluetooth)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Stempky, Iuliano, and Greenwald with that of Stempky to include wherein the alert and sensor data are transmitted over one or more of: WiFi, Bluetooth, 3g, 4g, and 5g through the combination of references as differing transmission protocols are known in the art (Stempky (Col. 9, lines 45-54)) and it would have yielded the same or similar result of transmitting the data.
Regarding claims 13 and 20, modified Stempky teaches the method of claim 6 above, which comprises the system of claims 13 and 20. As the claims are similar, claims 13 and 20 are rejected in the same manner as claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, modified Stempky fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim. However, Stempky does teach in an example wherein the alert includes a recommendation to remove a player from a game (Stempky (Col. 2, lines 52-58, “When an impact indicating light is activated, for example, a first time during a game, an associated player may have to come out for one play. If the impact indicator light (e.g., alert indicator 212 of FIG. 6) goes off again (a different color signal), the player may be out for four plays. If the impact indicator is activated one more time, the play may be out for a current game.”)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Stempky, Iuliano, and Greenwald with an example of Stempky to include wherein the alert includes a recommendation to remove a player from a game through the combination of embodiments as it would have yielded the predicable result of ensuring that a player does not continue to play with a concussion.
Regarding claim 14, modified Stempky teaches the method of claim 7 above, which comprises the system of claims 14. As the claims are similar, claim 14 is rejected in the same manner as claim 7.
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stempky in view of Iuliano and Greenwald as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Kreuger (US Pub. No. 20200214559) hereinafter Kreuger.
Stempky, Iuliano, and Greenwald teach the method of claim 1, system of claim 8, and system of claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 2, modified Stempky fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Kreuger teaches wherein the threshold value is 70Gs of force (Par. 248, “This impact threshold can be a value to alert the user and others that testing of the user is required to determine if there is evidence of a concussion/TBI. The determined value may differ, based on age of the player, sex, ethnicity, location of the impact and other factors. For many athletes, impacts resulting in a linear head acceleration of 70 to 75 g may be sufficient to result in concussion.”).
Stempky, Iuliano, Greenwald, and Kreuger are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they are involved with monitoring of head impacts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Stempky, Iuliano, and Greenwald with that of Kreuger to include wherein the threshold value is 70Gs of force through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of directly using a threshold that is correlated with concussions (Kreuger (Par. 248)) to better diagnose concussions.
Regarding claims 9 and 16, modified Stempky teaches the method of claim 2 above, which comprises the system of claims 9 and 16. As the claims are similar, claims 9 and 16 are rejected in the same manner as claim 2.
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stempky in view of Iuliano and Greenwald as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Bryan (US Pub. No. 20170304140) hereinafter Bryan.
Stempky, Iuliano, and Greenwald teach the method of claim 1, system of claim 8, and system of claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 4, modified Stempky fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Stempky does disclose transmitting an alert (Claim 1, “outputting an impact alert when the impact force magnitude is determined to be greater than the predetermined head injury threshold”).
However, Bryan teaches wherein the alert is transmitted using one of Network File System (NFS), NIS+, and DNS protocols (Par. 43, “the network 130 uses standard communications technologies and/or protocols, such as Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP), Uniform Resource Locators (URLs), and the Doman Name System (DNS).”).
Stempky, Iuliano, Greenwald, and Bryan are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they are involved with monitoring of head motion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Stempky, Iuliano, and Greenwald with that of Bryan to include Network File System (NFS), NIS+, and DNS protocols through the combination of references as differing communication protocols are known in the art (Bryan (Par. 43)) and it would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claims 11 and 18, modified Stempky teaches the method of claim 4 above, which comprises the system of claims 11 and 18. As the claims are similar, claims 9 and 16 are rejected in the same manner as claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARI SINGH KANE PADDA whose telephone number is (571)272-7228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 (571) 272-7540. 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.
/ARI S PADDA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/RENE T TOWA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791