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 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 9-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shyu et al. (US 2023/0377448) in view of Lloyd (US 2017/0246331).
Regarding claim 9, Shyu discloses a system (abstract) comprising: head-worn personal protection
equipment (PPE) including one or more biometric sensors configured to produce one or more biometric
sensor signals (page 3, [0035-0036]).
Shyu discloses all the limitations above but fails to explicitly disclose containing physiological
information of a wearer of the PPE; a hardware processor and a memory, the memory including
instructions that when performed by the processor, cause the processor to process the physiological
information of the one or more biometric sensor signals to determine whether the PPE is being worn
and being worn properly.
However, Lloyd discloses containing physiological information of a wearer of the PPE (page 16,
[0154]); a hardware processor and a memory, the memory including instructions that when performed
by the processor (fig. 5), cause the processor to process the physiological information of the one or
more biometric sensor signals to determine whether the PPE is worn correctly (page 16, [0153-0154])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
first filed to incorporate the features of LLoyd within the system of Shyu in order to monitor personal wellness and safety protocol compliance thereby improving the reliability of the system.
Regarding claim 10, Shyu and LLoyd disclose all the limitations set forth in claim 9 and LLoyd
further discloses wherein the memory includes instructions that cause the processor to identify a
wearer of the PPE using the physiological information of the one or more biometric sensor signals (fig. 5; page 16, [0153-0154]).
Regarding claim 11, Shyu discloses wherein the PPE includes a head mounted display; and
wherein the memory includes instructions that cause the processor to load preferences of the
identified wearer for the head mounted display (page 3, [0034-0035]).
Regarding claim 12, Shyu discloses wherein the one or more biometric sensors include an electrical
signal sensor configured to sense at least one of an electroencephalogram (EEG) signal of the wearer or
a sensed electromyography (EMG) signal of the wearer (page 7, [0062]); and wherein the memory
includes instructions that cause the processor to identify the wearer using the at least one of the sensed
EEG signal or the sensed EMG signal (fig. 2; page 7, [0062-0063]).
Regarding claim 13, Shyu and LLoyd discloses all the limitations set forth in claim 9 and
LLoyd discloses wherein the one or more biometric sensors include a video sensor to provide a
video signal including image information of the wearer; and wherein the memory includes instructions
that cause the processor to: detect at least one of eye movement of the wearer or facial muscle
movement of the wearer using the video signal; and generate an indication of compliance in the wearing
of the PPE according to the detected eye movement or facial muscle movement (page 16, [0150-0154]).
Regarding claim 14, Shyu discloses wherein the one or more biometric sensors include a blood flow
sensor to provide a blood sensor signal containing blood flow information; and wherein the memory
includes instructions that cause the processor to: detect blood flow of the wearer using the blood flow
sensor signal; and generate an indication of compliance in the wearing of the PPE according to the
detected blood flow (fig. 2; page 4, [0045]; page 6, [0056]).
Regarding claim 15, Shyu and LLoyd disclose all the limitations set forth in claim 9 and LLoyd
further discloses wherein the one or more biometric sensors include an electrical signal sensor
configured to sense one or more physiological electrical signals of the wearer near the temporal area of
the wearer; and wherein the memory includes instructions that cause the processor to generate an
indication of compliance in the wearing of the PPE according to the detected physiological electrical
signals (page 16, [0150-0154]).
Regarding claim 16, Shyu discloses wherein the electrical signal sensor is configured to sense at least
one of an electroencephalogram (EEG) signal of the wearer or an electromyography (EMG) signal of the
wearer; and wherein the memory includes instructions that cause the processor to generate an
indication of compliance in the wearing of the PPE according to the at least one of the sensed EEG signal
or the sensed EMG signal (page 7, [0062-0063]).
Regarding claim 17, Shyu discloses including a transmitter configured to transmit a wireless
signal indicating one or both of an identifier of the PPE and an indication of compliance in wearing
of the PPE (page 3, [0033-0035]).
Regarding claim 18, Shyu and LLoyd disclose all the limitations set forth in claim 1 and LLoyd
further discloses wherein the PPE is one of safety goggles, a hard hat, or a helmet (page 16, [0151]).
Regarding claim 19, Shyu discloses a receiver configured to receive a wireless signal;
at least one hardware verifier device processor and a verifier device memory, the at least one
verifier device processor operatively coupled to the receiver, and the verifier device memory
including instructions that when performed by the verifier device processor, cause the at least one
verifier device processor to perform operations including: decoding an identifier of personal protection
equipment (PPE) included in the received wireless signal and an indication of compliance in wearing of
the PPE included in the received wireless signal (fig. 12; page 3, [0033-0035]).
Regarding claim 20, Shyu discloses wherein the verifier device memory further includes instructions
that cause the at least one verifier device processor to perform operations including enabling operation
of a machine according to the indication of compliance in wearing of the PPE (fig. 1; fig. 12; page 4,
[0042-0044]).
Regarding claim 21, Shyu discloses wherein the verifier device memory further includes instructions
that cause the at least one verifier device processor to perform operations including: detecting location
of the PPE relative to a controlled area; and enabling access to the controlled area according to the
indication of compliance in wearing of the PPE (fig. 1; fig. 12; page 3, [0035]).
Regarding claim 22, Shyu discloses wherein the verifier device memory further includes instructions
that cause the at least one verifier device processor to perform operations including: decoding an
identity of the wearer included in the received wireless; and enabling access to a controlled area
according to the identity of the wearer (fig. 1; fig. 12; page 3, [0033-0035]).
Regarding claim 23, Shyu discloses wherein the verifier device memory further includes instructions
that cause the at least one verifier device processor to perform operations including tracking location of
the PPE using the wireless signal (page 3, [0033-0035]).
Regarding claim 24, Shyu discloses wherein the verifier device memory further includes instructions
that cause the at least one verifier device processor to perform operations including:
detecting location of the PPE in a controlled area; and recording the identified PPE being in the
controlled area and the indication of compliance in wearing of the PPE in the controlled area (fig. 1; fig.
12, page 3, [0033-0035]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 9-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
For at least the above reason, the rejection of claims is sustained.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Petrov (US 9,846,483) discloses headset state detection.
Brunner et al. (US 2018/0151047) discloses method monitoring.
Panneer Selvam (US 2020/0187831) discloses standing desk biometrics.
Russell et al. (US 2018/0067547) discloses virtual reality system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to DANIEL PREVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-2971. The examiner can
normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM -6:00 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,
Wang Quan-Zhen can be reached at 571 272 3114. 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-centerfor 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.
DP
June 2, 2026
/DANIEL PREVIL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights