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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed May 25, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4 and 7-15 are pending.
Applicant’s amendments have obviated the previously presented Drawing Objection to claim 5.
Applicant’s amendments have partially obviated the claim objection to claims 8, and fully obviated the claim objection of claim 13. Applicant’s amendments have necessitated new claim objections.
Applicant’s amendments have obviated interpretation of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended each independent claim to require a sensor capable of generating at least one signal, “wherein the at least one signal comprises temporal signal changes characterized by bouncing signals followed by damping zones.” As best understood, a “bouncing signal” is an initial large series of spikes in a sensor signal and a “dumping signal” appears to be lower-level waves or oscillations after the bouncing signal.
Regarding Applicant’s argument:
“Gruentzig discloses several different impact detection mechanisms, none of which teach the claimed temporal signal pattern.”
Examiner is presently interpreting “damping” recited in the claims as equivalent to “dumping” recited in the Specification and Figures. The temporal signal shown at Applicant’s Fig. 6A and as currently claimed is described as “the response of a piezoelectric sensor (e.g., sensor 124) to an impact event, where the impact was at a known distance from the piezoelectric sensor, not damaging the piezoelectric sensor” (Specification, Paragraph 00100). Thus, the claimed signal appears to arise from a piezoelectric sensor under certain conditions (i.e., intended use). Applicant further discusses several embodiments of Gruentzig which also utilize piezoelectric sensors (Remarks, pages 7-8), but fails to address how the piezoelectric sensors of Gruentzig would be incapable of providing a temporal signal change which differs from Applicant’s claimed response, particularly since such a response is described in the Specification as arising from a piezoelectric sensor (with no apparent structural modifications) under certain conditions. Applicant’s IDS dated May 25, 2026 cites the art of Van Albert et al. (US 20070260407 A1), which provides further evidence that a piezoelectric sensor under similar conditions is capable of producing an analogous signal (Figs. 18, 20, 22, 24, 25: each depicting one or more large initial amplitudes followed by a series of smaller amplitude oscillations; Examiner further notes that such signals also change depending on impact type (see changes in signals in Figs. 27-29 due to landmine blast), providing further indication that claiming such a signal is a recitation of intended use).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 14: “damping zones” is best understood to be recited instead as “dumping zones,” which is provided with written support in Applicant’s Specification. Should Applicant intend to use the term “damping zones” instead, Examiner recommends amending each instance of “dumping” in the Specification to instead recite “damping.”
Claim 8: Multiple elements of claim 8 do not recite an impact event, but rather the source of the impact event. For example, “kinetic ammunition” is not an impact event, but a form of ammunition from which an impact event may occur once discharged towards a target. Since sources of impact events are listed, Examiner recommends amending claim 8 to recite: “… wherein the impact event occurs from: a ballistic hit, an explosion hit…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by:
Gruentzig et al. (US 20210145450 A1) (disclosed as WO 2018213615 A2 by Applicant) (hereinafter – Gruentzig).
Re. Claim 1: Gruentzig teaches a wearable system comprising:
a wearable element designed to be worn on a body region of a subject (Title; Abstract; Fig. 1A-4B, 7, 8B-9, 12-13C, 17, 22A-22H, 26, 30B-32C, 34A, 34B, 37);
an array of sensors arranged at specified locations, attached to the wearable element and partially covering the wearable element (Figs. 3A: piezoelectric sensors 90 partially covering vest; Fig. 13A: piezoelectric sensors 90 having gaps between each piezoelectric sensor 90; Fig. 13B: conductive bands 114 having spacing therebetween; Fig. 13C; conductive squares 114 having spaced portions therebetween; Paragraph 0369: “… the system may be integrated into… a full-body suit, a vest, and a wound dressing (see, e.g., FIGS. 1A-1E). However, if desired, only selected areas of the body can be covered by the device, e.g., the device may be worn as a garment that covers only those areas of the body that are crucial for survival, e.g., the torso, neck, and/or groin (e.g., as a jacket shown in FIG. 2, or vest as shown in FIG. 3). Configuring the device to cover only a select area of the body will reduce the weight and will decrease the complexity of the device”); and
a processor comprising processing circuitry in communication with each of said sensors in the array and configured to determine an impact event, based on at least one signal generated by at least one of said sensors (Fig. 3B: controller in communication with each impact sensor; Fig. 9: controller in communication with each conductive wire in mesh; Fig. 13A: each piezoelectric sensor 90 has leads 92; Paragraphs 0029-0030: “In certain embodiments, any of the foregoing devices further include: (e) one or more (e.g., two or more, three or more, four or more, five or more, ten or more, twenty or more, fifty or more) information processing units connected to the one or more sensors, the information processing units being programmed to activate the device upon identification of an impact type”),
wherein the at least one signal comprises temporal signal changes characterized by bouncing signals followed by damping zones (Applicant’s Fig. 6A shows “the response of a piezoelectric sensor to an impact event” (Specification, Paragraph 00100); since the sensor system of Gruentzig also utilizes piezoelectric sensors, and Applicant does not differentiate the construction or operation of the claimed piezoelectric sensor from that of Gruentzig, it is reasonable to assume that the piezoelectric sensor of Gruentzig is also capable of producing such a claimed temporal signal; Examiner notes that claiming a particular response of a signal from the same type of sensor utilized in analogous fashion (i.e., for detecting ballistic events) is akin to intended use under certain conditions, whereby the sensor of Gruentzig appears to be capable of carrying out such detection),
wherein the specified locations are determined such that an impact event at any location in the wearable element will generate at least one signal at at least one sensor from the array of sensors (sensors having gaps therebetween (i.e., partially cover a surface) are shown in Figs. 13A-13C and represent the impact detection system integrated throughout the impact detection layer of the following wearable elements: Fig. 7, 12, 21A-22H, 26, 30B-32C, 34A ,34B; in each case, it appears at least one sensor is capable of generating a signal due to an impact event at any location on the garment, particularly in light of Paragraph 0589: “high impact velocity is detected on user 1 on the lower left side of his torso (FIG. 34B). The impact detection sensors identify the precise region where the impact occurred and the velocity upon impact”), and
wherein a maximum distance between each two sensors in the array is determined such that at least one of the sensors will generate a signal following an impact event that took place in an area between the two sensors (Figs. 13A-13C: piezoelectric sensors 90 and conductive bands and squares 114 possess gaps between each sensor unit, but form an entire layer capable of detecting impact; thus, such sensors are recognized as distributed such that an impact event is capable of being detected therebetween, particularly since such sensors respond to a change in force or pressure, including force or pressure distributed across intervening layers 64, 66, and outer layer 68 as shown in Fig. 8A).
Re. Claim 2: Gruentzig teaches the invention according to claim 1. Gruentzig further teaches the invention wherein the array of sensors comprises sensors selected from:
piezoelectric sensors (Fig. 13A: piezoelectric sensors 90 having conductive leads 92, Fig. 14: piezo-cables may be util) and
electrically conductive elements (Fig. 13B: conductive bands 114; Fig. 13C: conductive squares 114).
Re. Claim 3: Gruentzig teaches the invention according to claim 2. Gruentzig further teaches the invention comprising at least one piezoelectric sensor and a plurality of electrically conductive elements (Fig. 13A: each piezoelectric sensor comprises conductive leads 92 to transfer measured signals).
Re. Claim 4: Gruentzig teaches the invention according to claim 2. Gruentzig further teaches the invention comprising at least two piezoelectric sensors and a plurality of electrically conductive elements (Fig. 13A: each piezoelectric sensor comprises conductive leads 92 to transfer measured signals; Fig. 3B: inner and outer sensing layers as described in Paragraph 0433).
Re. Claim 7: Gruentzig teaches the invention according to claim 1. Gruentzig further teaches the invention wherein the impact event is at a velocity of a least 200 m/s (Paragraph 0065: “In certain embodiments, the impact is caused by a bullet, a knife, a bomb, shrapnel, a blunt force, or an animal bite;” Examiner notes that multiple elements of this list include causes of impact which produce velocities in a range which encompass the claimed range of at least 200 m/s; Fig. 35A: device is capable of measuring signals from projectiles having velocities of 600-3200 fps; Fig. 36: impact velocity detected as 3000 fps).
Re. Claim 8: Gruentzig teaches the invention according to claim 1. Gruentzig further teaches the invention wherein the impact event is selected from: a ballistic hit, an explosion hit, shrapnel, pressure wave, blast wave, fragmentation, kinetic ammunition, high-explosive ammunition, high-explosive anti-tank, high-velocity superplastic jet and shaped charge (Paragraph 0065: “In certain embodiments, the impact is caused by a bullet, a knife, a bomb, shrapnel, a blunt force, or an animal bite;” Paragraph 0503: “The information processing unit may be configured to identify the nature of the impact or wound by analyzing sensor data. For example, by sensing the pressure at an impact area, the information processing unit can use quantify the mass, velocity, and size (e.g., caliber) of the projectile hitting the device (FIGS. 35A-35B)”).
Re. Claim 9: Gruentzig teaches a method of detecting an impact event associated with a subject (Abstract),
the method comprising:
receiving from an array of sensors, partially covering a wearable element, one or more temporal signals related to an electrical conductivity of the array (Figs. 3A: piezoelectric sensors 90 partially covering vest; Fig. 13A: piezoelectric sensors 90 having gaps between each piezoelectric sensor 90; Fig. 13B: conductive bands 114 having spacing therebetween; Fig. 13C; conductive squares 114 having spaced portions therebetween; Paragraph 0369: “… the system may be integrated into… a full-body suit, a vest, and a wound dressing (see, e.g., FIGS. 1A-1E). However, if desired, only selected areas of the body can be covered by the device, e.g., the device may be worn as a garment that covers only those areas of the body that are crucial for survival, e.g., the torso, neck, and/or groin (e.g., as a jacket shown in FIG. 2, or vest as shown in FIG. 3). Configuring the device to cover only a select area of the body will reduce the weight and will decrease the complexity of the device”);
detecting temporal changes in the one or more signals (Paragraph 0013: “In some embodiments, the sensor detects the impact by detecting a change in pressure or conductivity;” Examiner notes that detection of a change in a physical parameter denotes a temporal signal; Paragraph 0435: piezo-cables generate signal when compressed or stretched, implying a return to an original state, which further implies that the signal generated is temporal; Fig. 35B); and
detecting the impact event if the detected changes are above a threshold value (Paragraph 0527: “The user of the application may adjust the threshold sensitivity of the sensors (FIG. 27G)…;” see further details in Paragraph 0528; Examiner notes that detection of any change qualifies a quantity of zero as a “threshold value”),
wherein the at least one signal comprises temporal signal changes characterized by bouncing signals followed by damping zones (Applicant’s Fig. 6A shows “the response of a piezoelectric sensor to an impact event” (Specification, Paragraph 00100); since the sensor system of Gruentzig also utilizes piezoelectric sensors, and Applicant does not differentiate the construction or operation of the claimed piezoelectric sensor from that of Gruentzig, it is reasonable to assume that the piezoelectric sensor of Gruentzig is also capable of producing such a claimed temporal signal; Examiner notes that claiming a particular response of a signal from the same type of sensor utilized in analogous fashion (i.e., for detecting ballistic events) is akin to intended use under certain conditions, whereby the sensor of Gruentzig appears to be capable of carrying out such detection),
wherein a location of the impact event is at any location on the wearable element (sensors having gaps therebetween (i.e., partially cover a surface) are shown in Figs. 13A-13C and represent the impact detection system integrated throughout the impact detection layer of the following wearable elements: Fig. 7, 12, 21A-22H, 26, 30B-32C, 34A ,34B; in each case, it appears at least one sensor is capable of generating a signal due to an impact event at any location on the garment, particularly in light of Paragraph 0589: “high impact velocity is detected on user 1 on the lower left side of his torso (FIG. 34B). The impact detection sensors identify the precise region where the impact occurred and the velocity upon impact”), and
wherein a maximum distance between each two sensors in the array is determined such that at least one of the sensors will generate a signal following an impact event that took place in an area between the two sensors (Figs. 13A-13C: piezoelectric sensors 90 and conductive bands and squares 114 possess gaps between each sensor unit, but form an entire layer capable of detecting impact; thus, such sensors are recognized as distributed such that an impact event is capable of being detected therebetween, particularly since such sensors respond to a change in force or pressure, including force or pressure distributed across intervening layers 64, 66, and outer layer 68 as shown in Fig. 8A).
Re. Claim 10: Gruentzig teaches the invention according to claim 9. Gruentzig further teaches the invention wherein the impact event is at a location on the wearable element not covered by any sensor (Figs. 13A-13C: piezoelectric sensors 90 and conductive bands and squares 114 possess gaps between each sensor unit, but form an entire layer capable of detecting impact).
Re. Claim 11: Gruentzig teaches the invention according to claim 9. Gruentzig further teaches the invention wherein the detected temporal change excludes a loss of electrical conductivity (While Gruentzig shows loss of conductivity by breakage of wires shown in 8B, Gruentzig also states that deformation of a piezoelectric layer is sufficient to determine impact (Paragraph 0429), which does not require breakage or loss of electrical conductivity; additionally, Gruentzig also states that merely compressing or stretching a piezoelectric cable is sufficient to generate a charge or voltage proportional to stress (Paragraph 0435)).
Re. Claim 12: Gruentzig teaches the invention according to claim 9. Gruentzig further teaches the invention wherein the array of sensors comprises sensors selected from:
piezoelectric sensors (Fig. 13A: piezoelectric sensors 90 having conductive leads 92) and
electrically conductive elements (Fig. 13B: conductive bands 114; Fig. 13C: conductive squares 114).
Re. Claim 13: Gruentzig teaches the invention according to claim 9. Gruentzig further teaches the invention further comprising receiving a plurality of temporal changes in the one or more signals (Fig. 35B: measured temporal signals produce velocity over time calculation); and
determining a level of severity of the impact based on the plurality of temporal changes (Paragraph 0376: “The impact detection system identifies… the degree and severity of the impact).
Re. Claim 14: Gruentzig teaches the invention according to claim 9. Gruentzig further teaches the invention further comprising calculating the location of the impact event based on the location of the sensors form which the one or more signals were received (Paragraph 0357: “Specific details shown on the screen include projectile velocity, impact location…;” Paragraph 0376: “The impact detection system identifies the location on the body where the impact 80 of an object occurred…”).
Re. Claim 15: Gruentzig teaches the invention according to claim 9. Gruentzig further teaches the invention further comprising determining the type of the impact event based on the intensity of the one or more temporal signals (Paragraph 0503: “The information processing unit may be configured to identify the nature of the impact or wound by analyzing sensor data. For example, by sensing the pressure at an impact area, the information processing unit can use quantify the mass, velocity, and size (e.g., caliber) of the projectile hitting the device (FIGS. 35A-35B)”).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN XU whose telephone number is (571)272-6617. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/JUSTIN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights