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 Amendments
The amendments filed with the written response received on 20 January 2026 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, and 11 has/have been amended. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-11 is/are pending in this application with an action on the merits to follow.
Because of the applicant's amendment, the following in the office action filed 19 September 2025, are hereby withdrawn:
Objections to the Drawings
Objections to the Claims
Rejections under 35 USC 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carmeli US 20090055053.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Carmeli discloses a system (Figs. 1-6B #10/20/40) for protecting a rider (Abstract) on a horse (Abstract notes, “an airbag equipped garment worn by a rider of a vehicle”; the vehicle could reasonably be a horse), the system comprising: an airbag vest (Figs. 1-2 #10) to be worn by the rider (¶0018), said vest having at least one inflatable sheath (Figs. 1-2 #12/12a-b/14a-f), a gas generator (¶0020); a gas cartridge (Figs. 1-2 #15a-f); and an electronic unit (Fig. 2 #20) connected to the gas generator (¶0021-0022), the electronic unit configured for the triggering inflation of the at least one inflatable sheath (¶0020-0021); said system further comprising a motion sensor (Fig. 4 #41/42/43/44) configured to be installed on the horse (¶0031 notes the sensors are installed on the motorcycle which could be substituted for a horse) and configured to detect a fall of the horse (¶0031, 0037) by detecting an overpass of a limit angle (¶0032-0046) which corresponds to an abnormal orientation of the horse (¶0032-0046), and in that said motion sensor is connected to the electronic unit so as to trigger the inflation of the at least one inflatable sheath when the fall of the horse has been detected (¶0032-0046).
Regarding Claim 2, Carmeli discloses the protection system according to claim 1, wherein the motion sensor is configured to detect the fall of the horse by detecting the overpass of the limit angle, the limit angle being a measuring of an angular position of said horse according to at least one axis (¶0032-0046).
Regarding Claim 3, Carmeli discloses the protection system according to claim 2, wherein the motion sensor is configured to detect the fall of the horse by detecting the overpass of the limit angle which measures the angular position of the horse according to the at least one axis, and the angular position is measured when the value of an angle of lateral or longitudinal inclination is larger than a predetermined limit value (¶0032-0046).
Regarding Claim 4, Carmeli discloses the protection system according to claim 1, wherein the motion sensor comprises a gyrometer (¶0050) and an accelerometer (¶0050).
Regarding Claim 5, Carmeli discloses the protection system according to claim 1, wherein the motion sensor is connected to the electronic unit via a radio-frequency wireless link (¶0023).
Regarding Claim 6, Carmeli discloses the protection system according to claim 1, wherein the airbag vest further comprises a cable intended to be detachably connected to the horse (¶0006), said cable triggering the inflation of the at least one inflatable sheath as the cable detaches from the vest (¶0006).
Regarding Claim 7, Carmeli discloses the protection system according to claim 1, further comprising automatic activation means configured to activate the motion sensor only when the motion sensor is installed on the horse (¶0032-0046).
Regarding Claim 8, Carmeli discloses the protection system according to claim 1, further comprising an additional a motion sensor (Fig. 2 #22/24) installed on the airbag vest while being connected to the electronic unit (¶0032-0046), the additional motion sensor configured to detect a fall of the rider (¶0032-0046).
Regarding Claim 9, Carmeli discloses the protection system according to claim 8, wherein the airbag vest does not comprise a cable configured to be connected to the horse and to trigger the inflation of the at least one inflatable sheath (¶0062).
Regarding Claim 10, Carmeli discloses the protection system according to claim 1, further comprising a saddle on which the motion sensor is installed (Fig. 4 #41/44; ¶0032-0046, 0062).
Regarding Claim 11, Carmeli discloses the protection system according to claim 10, wherein the motion sensor is fastened at a rear of the saddle (Fig. 4 #44), in particular at a level of a cantle of said saddle (Fig. 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 20 January 2026, with respect to the 35 USC 102 rejection of claims 1-11 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 102 rejection of claim 1, Applicant argues:
“The Examiner's rejection is improperly framed as a 102 anticipation rejection, as the Examiner's own analysis admits to a substitution or modification of elements of the prior art, which inherently requires an obviousness analysis under 35 USC 103. Accordingly, Applicant requests that a new Non-Final Office Action be issued recharacterizing the rejection under 103, if appropriate, to allow for proper traversal and amendment. Under 102, "[a] claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference," Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987), and that "[t]he identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ... claim," Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See MPEP 2131. Here, the Examiner explicitly states that a vehicle could reasonably be a horse and that the motorcycle of Carmeli could be substituted for a horse (see the analysis on page 10 of the Office Action). This admission of a substitution concedes that Carmeli does not disclose the exact claimed arrangement but instead requires a substitution of the sensor placement (in addition to considerations in the differences between motorcycle dynamics vs horse riding safety thresholds as will be further discussed below). Such a substitution is not inherent or expressly disclosed in Carmeli to be suitable for a 102 rejection; rather it is modification that the Examiner is at the very least relying on the knowledge or reasoning of a person skilled in the art to bridge the gap (which the Applicant refutes). This transforms the rejection into one of obviousness, not novelty (see Net MoneylN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1370, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 2008) holding that anticipation cannot involve "picking and choosing" or modifying elements from the prior art). If the prior art requires alteration to meet the claim, it cannot anticipate. By framing the rejection as a 102, the Office Action deprives Applicant of the procedural safeguards and rebuttal opportunities afforded under 103. For instance: Under 103, Applicant could argue non-obviousness by presenting evidence of secondary considerations (e.g., commercial success, long-felt need, unexpected results), which are irrelevant to 102; A 103 rejection requires the Examiner to articulate a clear rationale for why the modification would be obvious, including motivation to modify, which has not been provided here and therefore the Applicant cannot reasonably respond without guessing as to the Examiner's framing of the argument; The current rejection fails to meet the Examiner's burden under 102, as it relies on extrinsic reasoning rather than the four corners of the reference. This mischaracterization is not harmless error, but shifts the burden on the Applicant and hinders the ability to amend claims or submit evidence tailored to the correct statutory grounds. Pursuant to MPEP 706.07(h) and 37 CFR 1.111, Applicant respectfully requests the current Office Action be withdrawn and a new, non-Final Office Action be issued, correctly characterizing the rejection under 103 so that the Examiner can fully articulate the obviousness rationale and afford the Applicant a fair opportunity to respond…. Those skilled in the art would recognize that a mere substitution is not a "simple" or predictable change, as it would require substantial redesign of the sensor array, algorithms, and mounting to accommodate the disparate fall mechanics (see KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 417 (2007); obviousness requires more than "predictable use of prior art elements according to their established function"; here, the functions are incompatible). There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in Carmeli to make this leap, as equine fall detection operates in a non-analogous field with unique challenges not addressed by the vehicular/motorcycle systems” (Remarks Pg. 5-6 & 9)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The preamble of the invention recites, “a system for protecting a rider on a horse” which is interpreted as “a system” being the claimed invention and “for protecting a rider on a horse” being the function of the claimed invention, not a necessary component of the invention itself. Further, a horse and a motorcycle are both modes of transportation that require a rider to perform the same core activities such as straddling and balancing on a saddle seat, maintain upward posture, guiding movement with the arms and hands, weight transfer when taking turns, and controlling delicate inputs in a gradual and controlled manner. The Examiner does not believe and did not believe at the time of composing the original 35 USC 102 rejection of 19 September 2025 (which is still above) that she needed to compose a 35 USC 103 to modify a motorcycle with a horse since the rejection is based on “the system” not the horse or the rider, and since riding a horse and riding a motorcycle require the same core functions. Further, the prior art of Carmeli has all of the structures as claimed in the present invention, regardless of whether a horse or a motorcycle is riden. See 35 USC 102 rejection above.
Applicant submits that the dependent claims are patentable based on their dependencies from claim(s) 1; however, as discussed in the rejection and in the arguments above, claim(s) 1 are not allowable over the prior art. Therefore, these arguments have not been found convincing and the rejections of the independent claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 have been maintained.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL M. WEIS whose telephone number is 571-272-6804. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 0800-1700.
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, ALISSA J. TOMPKINS can be reached on 571-272-3425. 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.
/RAQUEL M. WEIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights