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 Objections
Claims 21, 25, 28, 53 and 55 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21, line 10-11: “the historical and collection impact data” should read --the set of historical and collection impact data--
Claim 21, lines 13-14: “and aging factor” should read --an aging factor--
Claim 25, line 5: delete “and”
Claim 28, lines 3-13: all the recited factors should be presented in lower cases.
Claim 53, line 11: “the center of gravity” should read --a center of gravity--
Claim 55, line 2: “Sensing” should read --sensing--
Appropriate correction is required.
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 21, 24-29 and 53-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 21, 24-29 and 53-55 are directed to a method of assessing head impacts using a computing device, which is an abstract idea. Claims 21, 24-29 and 53-55 do not include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons provided below which are in line with the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, p 74618, December 16, 2014), the July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 146, p. 45429, July 30, 2015), the May 2016 Subject Matter Eligibility Update (Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 88, p. 27381, May 6, 2016), and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, page 50, January 7, 2019).
The analysis of claim 21 is as follows:
Step 1: Claim 21 is drawn to a process.
Step 2A- Prong One: Claim 21 recites an abstract idea. In particular, claim 21 recites the following limitations: "using a sensor rigidly tied to a skull of the user, sensing impact data resulting from an impact to the user, the sensor being rigidly tied to the skull of the user by being arranged in a mouthguard tightly coupled with upper teeth of the user; translating the impact data from the location of the sensor to a center of gravity of the head of the user to establish translated impact data; accessing a risk function in the form of an S-curve that is based on a set of historical and collected impact data from other impacts and associated clinical assessments of other users incurring the other impacts, the risk function plotting the historical and collected impact data against clinically determined concussion risk, wherein the risk function includes an exposure dose based on work energy and is based, in part, on a measure of cumulative impacts over a selected period of time where the measure of cumulative impacts comprises and aging factor that gives older impacts lesser weight; plotting the translated impact data against the risk function to arrive at a digitally determined concussion risk of the user; and reporting the digitally determined concussion risk”. These elements of claim 1 are drawn to an abstract idea since they involve a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and using pen and paper.
Step 2A- Prong Two: Claim 21 recites the following limitations that are beyond the judicial exception: "using a sensor rigidly tied to a skull of the user, sensing impact data resulting from an impact to the user, the sensor being rigidly tied to the skull of the user by being arranged in a mouthguard tightly coupled with upper teeth of the user", and “reporting the digitally determined concussion risk”.
These elements of claim 21 do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the elements "using a sensor rigidly tied to a skull of the user, sensing impact data resulting from an impact to the user, the sensor being rigidly tied to the skull of the user by being arranged in a mouthguard tightly coupled with upper teeth of the user" are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality with no specificity with respect to placement or type of sensor - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the element “reporting the digitally determined concussion risk” is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., outputting a result.
These elements of claim 21 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. In particular, the recitation "using a sensor rigidly tied to a skull of the user, sensing impact data resulting from an impact to the user, the sensor being rigidly tied to the skull of the user by being arranged in a mouthguard tightly coupled with upper teeth of the user" is merely insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea with no specificity with respect to placement or type of sensor. Alternatively, the impact sensors used for sensing are nothing more than accelerometers and rate sensors. Such sensors are conventional detecting components known by one skilled in the art such as accelerometers and gyroscopes as evidenced by:
WO 2013052586 (Alberts) (previously cited) discloses a method to assess an extent of a traumatic brain injury of a user using a combination of conventional gyroscope and accelerometer measurements. (Paragraphs [0056]-[0058], [00165]-[00166] of Alberts).
Alternatively, “using a sensor rigidly tied to a skull of the user, sensing impact data resulting from an impact to the user, the sensor being rigidly tied to the skull of the user by being arranged in a mouthguard tightly coupled with upper teeth of the user” is a conventional way of sensing the head impact data as evidenced by:
U.S. Patent No. 2018/0035952 (Fraylick) (Paragraph [0010] the process of assimilating impact force and accelerometer sensors in conventional sports equipment is not contemporary).
In view of the above, independent claim 21 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 24-29 depend from independent claim 21, and recites the same abstract idea and fails to cure the deficiencies of claim 21. It contains no claim limitations that integrate the exception into a practical application and no claim limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Looking at the limitations of each claim as an ordered combination in conjunction with the claims from which they depend (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a process, for example, or improves any other technology or process. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely method steps to be implemented on a conventional computer.
The analysis of claim 53 is as follows:
Step 1: Claim 53 is drawn to a process.
Step 2A- Prong One: Claim 53 recites an abstract idea. In particular, claim 53 recites the following limitations: "determining resulting linear and angular acceleration vectors of the impact at the reference point on the head; establishing the direction of the impact as a direction of the linear acceleration vector; and establishing the location of the impact by: calculating an arm vector originating at a center of gravity of the head and extending to a perpendicular intersection with a line of force; and calculating an intersection of the line of force with a surface of the head, wherein the intersection is the impact location.”
These elements of claim 53 are drawn to an abstract idea since they involve a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and using pen and paper.
Step 2A- Prong Two: Claim 53 recites the following limitations that are beyond the judicial exception: " using a sensor rigidly tied to a skull of the user, sensing impact data resulting from an impact to the user, the sensor being rigidly tied to the skull of the user by being arranged in a mouthguard tightly coupled with upper teeth of the user".
These elements of claim 53 do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the elements " using a sensor rigidly tied to a skull of the user, sensing impact data resulting from an impact to the user, the sensor being rigidly tied to the skull of the user by being arranged in a mouthguard tightly coupled with upper teeth of the user" are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality with no specificity with respect to placement or type of sensor - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g).
These elements of claim 53 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. In particular, the recitation "using a sensor rigidly tied to a skull of the user, sensing impact data resulting from an impact to the user, the sensor being rigidly tied to the skull of the user by being arranged in a mouthguard tightly coupled with upper teeth of the user"" is merely insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea with no specificity with respect to placement or type of sensor. Alternatively, the impact sensors used for sensing are nothing more than accelerometers and rate sensors. Such sensors are conventional detecting components known by one skilled in the art such as accelerometers and gyroscopes as evidenced by:
WO 2013052586 (Alberts) discloses a method to assess an extent of a traumatic brain injury of a user using a combination of conventional gyroscope and accelerometer measurements. (Paragraphs [0056]-[0058], [00165]-[00166] of Alberts).
Alternatively, “using a sensor rigidly tied to a skull of the user, sensing impact data resulting from an impact to the user, the sensor being rigidly tied to the skull of the user by being arranged in a mouthguard tightly coupled with upper teeth of the user” is a conventional way of sensing the head impact data as evidenced by:
U.S. Patent No. 2018/0035952 (Fraylick) (Paragraph [0010] the process of assimilating impact force and accelerometer sensors in conventional sports equipment is not contemporary).
In view of the above, independent claim 53 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 54-55 depend from independent claim 53, and recites the same abstract idea and fails to cure the deficiencies of claim 53. It contains no claim limitations that integrate the exception into a practical application and no claim limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Looking at the limitations of each claim as an ordered combination in conjunction with the claims from which they depend (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a process, for example, or improves any other technology or process. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely method steps to be implemented on a conventional computer.
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 21, 24-29, and 55 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 21 recites “the location” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Suggested correction: “a location”.
Claim 21 recites a “digitally determined” concussion risk. It is not clear what is meant by “digitally determined”. Is this a processor performed step? Furthermore, it is not clear where in the Specification this limitation is being described.
Claim 24 recites wherein the normalizing factor is used “to allow for comparisons of persons satisfying different factors”. It is not clear what is being compared in this limitation. Is it the level of satisfactions by different persons, or some aspects of the persons who satisfy different factors? What are the factors? Is there association with the normalizing factor and the aging factor?
For examination purposes, the claim was broadly interpreted by Stein (U.S. Patent No. 20150051514) which teaches that during data collection, appropriate correction factors may be applied to each of the collected data sets to allow for direct comparison and/or normalization of each of the collected data sets based upon characteristics specific to each apparatus used to collect the data set. (Paragraph [0048]).
The dependent claims of the above rejected claims are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim 55 recites “separately determined clinical finding data”. It is not clear what is meant by “separately determined”, i.e., what is being separately determined? Is the clinical finding data determined separately at each of the identified damage locations?
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 21 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraylick (U.S. Patent No. 2018/0035952) in view of Rowson et al., “Rotational Head Kinematics in Football Impacts: An Injury Risk Function for Concussion”, Annals of Biomedical Engineering, January 2012, (40)(1), pages 1-13, printed on 8/17/2026, Ralston (U.S. Patent Pub No. 20180110466), and Borkholder (U.S. 9380961).
Regarding claim 21, Fraylick teaches a method of assessing impacts to a head of a user using a sensor coupled to the head rigidly tied to a skull of the user, sensing impact data resulting from an impact to the user, the sensor being rigidly tied to the skull of the user by being arranged in a mouthguard tightly coupled with upper teeth of the user. (Paragraphs [0014]-[0015] sensors located on teeth which are directly affixed to the skull); translating the impact data from the location of the sensor to a center of gravity of the head of the user to establish translated impact data (Paragraph [0015] In regards to the present invention's sensors, the accelerometer and gyroscope will both be located parallel to the location of the user's second molars in the rear of the mouth; if positioned in this site, the sensors would have a stronger correlation to the subject's neural center of gravity).
However, Fraylick does not teach “accessing a risk function in the form of an S-curve that is based on a set of historical and collected impact data from other impacts and associated clinical assessments of the users incurring the other impacts, the risk function plotting the historical and collected impact data against clinically determined concussion risk, wherein the risk function includes an exposure dose based on work energy and is based, in part, on a measure of cumulative impacts over a selected period of time where the measure of cumulative impacts comprises an aging factor that gives older impacts lesser weight; plotting the translated impact data against the risk function to arrive at a digitally determined concussion risk of the user; and, reporting the digitally determined concussion risk”.
Rowson, in a related field of endeavor teaches methods to accurately quantify head impact tolerance using the rotational kinematics of the head during concussive impacts. (Abstract). Rowson teaches accessing a risk function in the form of an S-curve that is based on a set of historical and collected impact data from other impacts and associated clinical assessments of the users incurring the other impacts, the risk function plotting the historical and collected impact data against clinically determined concussion risk; plotting the impact data against the risk function to arrive at a digitally determined concussion risk of the user; and, reporting the digitally determined concussion risk (Pages 7-9 The helmets of 335 football players were instrumented with accelerometer arrays that measured head acceleration following head impacts sustained during play, resulting in data for 300,977 subconcussive and 57 concussive head impacts. As shown in Figure 6, the Rowson study compares its results to the injury risk curve for concussion derived from the NFL data in the Pellman et al. study.)
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fraylick to provide the steps of “accessing a risk function in the form of an S-curve that is based on a set of historical and collected impact data from other impacts and associated clinical assessments of the users incurring the other impacts, the risk function plotting the historical and collected impact data against clinically determined concussion risk; plotting the impact data against the risk function to arrive at a digitally determined concussion risk of the user; and reporting the digitally determined concussion risk” as taught by Rowson. Doing so increases understanding of the biomechanics associated with concussion and they provide critical insight into injury mechanisms, human tolerance to mechanical stimuli, and injury prevention techniques. (Abstract).
Ralston, in a related field of endeavor, teaches a concussion impact monitor wherein the risk function includes an exposure dose based on work energy (Paragraphs [0077]-[0078] demonstrates that the cumulative mechanical power transferred to the brain is a valid neuro-mechanical biomarker for cumulative impact trauma, and that the linear, rotational, and total mechanical power can be calculated directly from the outputs of a MEMS accelerometer and MEMS gyroscope within a universally deployable wearable device; Figure 9 illustrates a function of total cumulative impact power (kW) transferred to the brain during direct or indirect head impacts, wherein greater impact power results in greater brain trauma as indicated by changes in white matter structure).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fraylick to provide “wherein the risk function includes an exposure dose based on work energy” as taught by Ralston. Doing so provides a cumulative impact metric that provides an indicator of risk of a concussion during head impact.
Borkholder, in a related field of endeavor, teaches an impact detection device for detecting impacts to a body part of a user. (Abstract).
Borkholder teaches wherein the risk function is based on a measure of cumulative impacts over a selected period of time where the measure of cumulative impacts comprises and aging factor that gives older impacts lesser weight (Col. 16, lines 55-67 discloses adaptive thresholds based on network-based data and concussion history of individual. In an example, the impact event history and medical history for an individual can be used to adaptively modify thresholds related to event capture triggering, indicator light operation, and the injury risk assessment score. Adaptive thresholds can be based on time-weighted sums of individual event severity or injury risk assessment scores, with more recent event weighted more heavily than older events).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fraylick to provide “wherein the risk function is based on a measure of cumulative impacts over a selected period of time where the measure of cumulative impacts comprises and aging factor that gives older impacts lesser weight” as taught by Borkholder. Doing so provides another approach to measuring and assessing risk of cumulative impacts.
Regarding claim 25, Fraylick teaches wherein the measure of cumulative impacts is based on an accumulation of the kinetics or kinematics of each impact. (Paragraph [0025] logging and accumulating collision data for a period up to 48 hours).
Regarding claim 26, Fraylick teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein the risk function is a normative risk curve”.
Rowson teaches (Figure 6) wherein the risk function is a normative risk curve (Page 8, col. 2 average concussive impact curves).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fraylick as modified to provide “wherein the risk function is a normative risk curve” as taught by Rowson. Doing so establishes a representative average risk curve that can be used to compare against individual concussive impact data and make clinical assessments.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraylick in view of Rowson, Ralston, Borkholder, further in view of Stein (U.S. Patent No. 20150051514).
Regarding claim 24, Fraylick as modified teaches all of the elements of the invention except “wherein a normalizing factor is used to allow for comparisons of persons satisfying different factors”.
Stein, in a related field of endeavor, teaches a method for assessing and diagnosing concussive injury, (Paragraph [0014]), wherein a normalizing factor is used to allow for comparisons of persons satisfying different factors. (Paragraph [0048] during data collection, appropriate correction factors may be applied to each of the collected data sets to allow for direct comparison and/or normalization of each of the collected data sets based upon characteristics specific to each apparatus used to collect the data set.)
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fraylick as modified to provide “wherein a normalizing factor is used to allow for comparisons of persons satisfying different factors" as taught by Stein. Doing so provides a method for objectively measuring predetermined parameters of a plurality of testing devices and comparing the measurements against either actual conditions, or against similar or different measurement devices. (Paragraph [0048]).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraylick in view of Rowson, Ralston, and Borkholder, further in view of Lovoi (WO 2017004445).
Regarding claim 27, Fraylick as modified teaches all of the elements of the invention except “wherein the risk function is a personalized risk curve”.
Lovoi, in a related field of endeavor, teaches (Figures 8a-8c) detection of a concussion wherein the risk function is a personalized risk curve of a number of subjects (dotted lines indicating thresholds of concussion risk). (Page 17, lines 22-35).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fraylick as modified to teach “wherein the risk function is a personalized risk curve" of a number of subjects of Lovoi. Doing so enables individualized detection and tracking of a subject’s probability of a concussion.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraylick in view of Rowson, Ralston, Borkholder, and Stein, further in view of Gonzales (U.S. Patent No. 20150119759).
Regarding claim 28, Fraylick as modified teaches all of the elements of the invention except wherein the “different factors include age, sex, weight…”
Gonzales teaches wherein the risk function incorporates factors including age and gender. (Paragraph [0051]).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fraylick as modified to teach wherein the “different factors include age, sex, weight” as taught by Gonzales. Doing so provides baseline variables routinely used in statistical modeling, actuarial tables, and medical diagnostics to stratify risk.
Claim 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraylick in view of Rowson, Ralston, and Borkholder, further in view of Gonzales.
Regarding claim 29, Fraylick as modified teaches all of the elements of the invention except wherein the “selected period of time includes a length of a game or event…”
Gonzales teaches wherein the selected period of time includes a length of a game. (Paragraph [0067]).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fraylick as modified to teach wherein the “selected period of time includes a length of a game or event” as taught by Gonzales. Doing so merely applies a known temporal metric to a known tracking mechanism to achieve the predictable result of evaluating data on a per-game basis, particularly when the system is processing gaming or athletic data.
Examiner’s Notes
Claims 53-55 are not rejected under prior arts.
Regarding claim 53, Fraylick teaches a method for calculation of a location and a direction of an impact to a head of a user, comprising using a sensor coupled to the head rigidly tied to a skull of the user at a reference point, sensing impact data from the impact, the sensor being rigidly tied to the skull of the user by being arranged in a mouthguard tightly coupled with upper teeth of the user. (Paragraph [0015] sensors located on teeth which are directly affixed to the skill).
Crisco (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20020060633) further teaches a method for calculation of a location and a direction of an impact to a head of a user, comprising: using a sensor coupled to the head of the user at a reference point, sensing impact data from the impact; based on the impact data, determining resulting linear and angular acceleration vectors of the impact at the reference point on the head; establishing the direction of the impact as a direction of the linear acceleration vector. (Paragraphs [0021], [0043], [0059]).
However, Crisco does not teach “establishing the location of the impact by calculating an arm vector originating at a center of gravity of the head and extending to a perpendicular intersection with a line of force; and calculating an intersection of the line of force with a surface of the free body, wherein the intersection is the impact location.”
Crisco et al., An Algorithm for Estimating Acceleration Magnitude and Impact Location Using Multiple Nonorthogonal Single-Axis Accelerometers, Journal of Biomedical Engineering, December 2004; 126(6): 849–854, teaches an algorithm for measuring linear acceleration magnitude and impact location using multiple single-axis accelerometers arranged normal to the object’s surface, but not constrained to be orthogonal to each other. (Page 849, Col. 2, paragraph 2).
Crisco teaches a method for calculation of a location and a direction of an impact to a head of a user, comprising: using a sensor coupled to the head of the user at a reference point, sensing impact data from the impact; based on the impact data, determining resulting linear and angular acceleration vectors of the impact at the reference point on the head; establishing the direction of the impact as a direction of the linear acceleration vector (see Figure 1, an impact generates linear acceleration of an object a player’s head in the field application, whose shape is approximated here as a hemisphere. The acceleration of the geometrical center (O) of the hemisphere is defined by the vector, H, and the direction of the sensing axis of each accelerometer, defined to be normal to the surface, ai. Estimates of head acceleration at point (O) and impact location are computed at specific impact locations using Equation 4 (below)).
PNG
media_image1.png
51
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Crisco does not teach “establishing the location of the impact by calculating an arm vector originating at a center of gravity of the head and extending to a perpendicular intersection with a line of force; and calculating an intersection of the line of force with a surface of the free body, wherein the intersection is the impact location.”
Benzel (U.S. 9585619), in a related field of endeavor, teaches (Figure 6) a methodology (170) for classifying an impact into an event class. At (172), at least one of linear acceleration data, angular velocity data, angular acceleration data, and orientation data are acquired from a sensor assembly. At (176), the conditioned sensor data and known anthropometric parameters of a user are used to calculate the linear and rotational kinematics and kinetics at the center of gravity of the head. At (178), a plurality of features are extracted from the sensor data. In accordance with an aspect of the present invention, a subset of at least two of the plurality of features can be derived from the calculated kinematics and kinetics at the center of gravity of the head. In addition, the plurality of features can include an age, height, or weight of the user as well as one or more numerical parameters derived from a medical history of the user. The extracted features represent the circumstances of the impact as a vector of numerical measurements, referred to as a feature vector.
Benzel further teaches (Figure 7) a methodology (200) for utilizing a head impact monitoring system. For example, at (204), impacts to participants in the athletic event are monitored. At (206), at least one characteristic is determined for any detected impacts. The determined characteristic can include a magnitude of a given impact, an associated location of the impact, or an event class of the impact, such as an impact source, or a likelihood of injury represented by the impact.
However, Benzel does not specifically teach “establishing the location of the impact by calculating an arm vector originating at a center of gravity of the head and extending to a perpendicular intersection with a line of force; and calculating an intersection of the line of force with a surface of the free body, wherein the intersection is the impact location.”
Crisco et al., “Frequency and Location of Head Impact Exposures in Individual Collegiate Football Players”, Journal of Athletic Training, December 2010, 45(6), pages 549-559, printed on 1/10/2023, teaches computing impact locations to the helmet and face mask as azimuth and elevation angles in an anatomic coordinate system relative to the estimated center of gravity of the head and categorized as front, left, right, back, and top (Figure 1C). For example, all impacts occurring above an elevation angle of 65° where 0° elevation was defined as a horizontal plane through the center of gravity of the head were considered impacts to the top of the helmet. (Page 552, Col. 1, paragraph 1).
However, Crisco does not specifically teach “establishing the location of the impact by calculating an arm vector originating at a center of gravity of the head and extending to a perpendicular intersection with a line of force; and calculating an intersection of the line of force with a surface of the free body, wherein the intersection is the impact location.”
Claims 54-55 are not rejected under prior arts by virtue of their dependence from claim 53.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Om A. Patel whose telephone number is (571)272-6331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached on 571-272-5596. 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.
/OM PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ETSUB D BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights