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(s) Status
Claims 1-15 are currently pending
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.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim claims a computer program product or a computer-readable storage medium that does not exclude a signal per se, therefore the claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 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. In particular, claim 1 recites “a communication element adapted to transmit a signal to an external device and/or entity”, however it is unclear how the communication element would be adapted to transmit a signal to an entity since the entity has not been defined to be in possession of a device configured to receive the signal. Furthermore, the external device as claimed has not been defined to enable reception of the signal. Therefore, the limitations are indefinite. Claims 2-10 and 15 have the same issue due to dependency.Furthermore, claim 11 has similar issues as claim1 and therefore are indefinite. Consequently claims 12-14 have the same issues due to dependency. In particular, claim 4 recites “a vehicle communication element adapted to transmit a vehicle signal to an external device and/or entity”, however it is unclear how the vehicle communication element would be adapted to transmit a signal to an entity since the entity has not been defined to be in possession of a device configured to receive the signal. Furthermore, the external device as claimed has not been defined to enable reception of the signal. Therefore, the limitations are indefinite. Claims 5-10 have the same issues due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-2 and 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eustace (US 20160073722 A1, IDS). 1) Regarding claims 1 and 11, Eustace discloses a head protection device Fig. 1: 110), comprising: a chassis (Fig. 1: 112) for accommodating at least a part of a head of a user of the head protection device (¶¶24-25); a sensor arrangement adapted to detect a wear status (¶25; Fig. 1: helmet electronic 114), wherein the wear status is indicative of whether or not the head protection device is correctly worn by the user (¶25), and a communication element adapted to transmit a signal to an external device and/or entity (¶¶28-32; Fig. 1 with regard to electronics 114 being able to communicate with the remote device via activity electronic device 124), wherein the signal comprises information indicative of the wear status (¶32). 2) Regarding claim 2, wherein the sensor arrangement is adapted to independently detect that the head protection device is worn by the user and that the head protection device is positioned correctly on the head of the user (¶25). 3) Regarding claim 4, a protection system (Fig. 1: system 100), comprising: a head protection device according to claim l (see analysis of the rejection of claim 1); and a vehicle (Fig. 1: activity device 120) to be operated and/or accommodated by the user of the head protection device (¶¶23-24), wherein the vehicle comprises: a vehicle communication element (Fig. 1: activity electronics device 124) adapted to transmit a vehicle signal to an external device and/or entity (¶¶28-32; Fig. 1), wherein the vehicle signal comprises information indicative of an operation condition of the vehicle (¶32 “alert a user that the activity device 120 is likely engaged in a given activity during improper helmet usage” ). 4) Regarding claim 5, wherein the protection system is arranged to determine that the user of the head protection device is operating and/or accommodating the vehicle (¶¶32-41), in particular while the vehicle is in motion (¶¶32-41), and further in particular wherein the protection system is adapted to transmit a signal to the external device and/or entity (¶¶32-41), wherein the signal comprises information indicative of whether the head protection device is worn by the user of the head protection device and/or the user of the head protection device is operating and/or accommodating the vehicle (¶¶32-53). 5) Regarding claim 6, the vehicle further comprising a vehicle communication element adapted to transmit signal to an external device and/or entity (¶¶28-32; Fig. 1). 6) Regarding claim 7, wherein the communication element of the head protection device and/or the vehicle communication element is adapted to transmit the signal using a near-field communication method (according to applicant’s specification, in ¶¶40-41, Bluetooth technology is considered a near field method. Eustace discloses, in ¶43 with reference to Fig. 1, using Bluetooth). 7) Regarding claim 8, wherein the external device is at least one of a mobile computing device (¶¶33, 43) and/or the vehicle , and/or wherein the external entity is a computing system, in particular a cloud-based computing system. 8) Regarding claim 9, further comprising a position sensor for determining a global position of the head protection device (¶54), wherein the communication element of the head protection device is adapted to transmit the position information of the head protection device to the external device and/or entity (¶54), and/or a vehicle position sensor for determining a global position of the vehicle, wherein the vehicle communication element is adapted to transmit the position information of the vehicle to the external device and/or entity. 9) Regarding claim 10, wherein at least one of the head protection device, the protection system, the external device and/or the external entity is adapted to initiate a limitation and/or measure dependent on determining whether or not the user of the vehicle is correctly wearing the head protection device (¶¶27-31, 38). 10) Regarding claim 11, wherein detecting the wear status comprises independently determining that the head protection device is worn by the user and that the head protection device is positioned correctly on the head of the user (¶40). 11) Regarding claim 12, further comprising determining that the user of the head protection device is operating and/or accommodating the vehicle, in particular while the vehicle is in motion (¶¶27-31). 12) Regarding claim 13, further comprising initiating a limitation and/or measure dependent on determining whether or not the user of the vehicle is correctly wearing the head protection device (¶¶27-31, 38). 13) Regarding claim 15, a computer program product or a computer-readable storage medium (¶¶41, 44, 46, 48; Fig. 2: one or memory devices 210 and/or one or more memory devices 230) comprising instructions which, when executed by a processing element (¶¶35; Fig. 2: computing device 206 and/or computing device 224), cause at least one of a processing device (Fig. 2: computing device 206 and/or computing device 224), the external device and the external entity to carry out the steps of the method according to claim 1 (see analysis of the rejection of claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eustace in view of Park et al. (“Park”, US 20210045486 A1). 1) Regarding claim 3, wherein the sensor arrangement comprises at least a first and a second sensor element wherein the sensor elements are arranged as independent sensor elements, wherein the first sensor (Figs. 1-2 with regard to ¶40 disclosing that a sensor can be placed in the chin guard are the strap snap fastening features providing on the strap 116) element is arranged for detecting that the head protection device is securely worn by the user (¶40). As per the limitation wherein the second sensor element is arranged for detecting that the head protection device is positioned correctly on the head of the user. ¶40 discloses that multiple sensor may be used to determine helmet positioning, hence the sensor in the chin guard can be one position sensor the sensor in the strap snap fastening features can be another sensor. As per the limitation in particular wherein the first sensor element is a sensor for detecting that a fastening strap for fastening the head protection device to the head of the user is closed, in particular a hall sensor, a proximity sensor (¶¶39-40), a conductivity sensor, a temperature sensor or a CO2 sensor. As per the limitation wherein the second sensor element is a sensor element for detecting that the head protection device is positioned correctly on the head of the user, in particular a brainwave sensor or a CO2 sensor. Park discloses, in ¶53, the concept of detecting brainwave signals of a wearer of a protection helmet used by the wearer when using a vehicle.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of detecting brainwave signals of a wearer of a protection helmet used by the wearer when using a vehicle, with the motivation to enhance the sensor features of the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20170072840 A1; US 20230144922 A1, system detecting if a user is wearing headgear. US 20190380612 A1; US 20170072840 A1; US 20170072840 A1, detecting brainwaves.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHICO A FOXX whose telephone number is (571)272-5530. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 M-F.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-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.
CHICO A. FOXX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
/CHICO A FOXX/Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights