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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Claim 5 recites “wherein the distances between each two piezoelectric sensors is larger than the distances between each two electrically conductive elements from the plurality of electrically conductive elements.” However, none of Applicant’s figures show relational distances between at least two piezoelectric sensors and at least two electrically conductive elements. Particularly, none of these elements are shown in Figs. 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, or 3.
Therefore, the feature(s) identified above must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“impact event, is selected from:” should read as “impact event is selected from”
“bast wave” should read instead as “blast wave”
“high explosive ammunition” should read as “high-explosive ammunition,” similar to other elements of the list recited in claim 8.
Multiple elements of claim 8 do not recite an impact event, but rather the source of the impact event.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“further comprising, receiving” should read instead as “further comprising receiving,” similar to other dependent claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“detection module” in claim 1.
The claim limitation uses the term “module” 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 (“to determine an impact event, based on at least one signal generated by at least one of said sensors”). The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“configured to…”). The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The corresponding structure for a “detection module” in Applicant’s Specification appears to be a generic computing device (Paragraph 0043: “The detection module typically comprises a processor comprising processing circuitry which is configured to receive a temporal signal from each one of the sensors in the wearable system to detect a temporal change in the signal in response to the impact event and calculate a parameter of the impact event based the change in the signal”).
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 § 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 detection module 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 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 5: Gruentzig teaches the invention according to claim 4. Gruentzig further teaches the invention wherein the distances between each two piezoelectric sensors is larger than the distances between each two electrically conductive elements from the plurality of electrically conductive elements (Fig. 13A: each piezoelectric sensor 90 is rectangular, whereby conductive leads 92 are located bottom corners and a top row of piezoelectric sensors is separated from a bottom row of piezoelectric sensor by a distance more than long side of each rectangular piezoelectric sensor; see annotated Fig. 13A below).
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, bast 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 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
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