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 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.
Claims 9, 13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNelis (WO 96/10285) in view of Hangartner (2023/0130926).
With respect to claim 9, McNelis teaches receiving blast sensor data from each of a plurality of blast sensors (pg 9, lines 30-31; pg 10, lines 3-4), the blast sensor data comprising: blast exposure data comprising pressure trace data over time corresponding to a blast exposure (pg 8, lines 20-23); triangulating the blast exposure using the blast exposure data and the location data to locate a source of the blast exposure (pg 10, lines 24-31); identifying a blast signature of the blast exposure based on the blast exposure data Pg 12, lines 8); and identifying the source of the blast exposure based on a comparison of the blast signature with one or more predefined blast signature profiles (pg 12: lines 6- 11). However, it does not teach location data associated with a respective blast sensor of the plurality of blast sensors; and using a machine learning model that is trained with a set of historical blast data to identify the blast signature of the blast exposure.
Hangartner teaches location data associated with a respective blast sensor of the plurality of blast sensors ([0039], lines 8-9); and using a machine learning model that is trained with a set of historical blast data to identify the blast signature of the blast exposure ([0038], lines 23-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of McNelis with the location data of Hangartner since such a modification would have allowed for the shot to be geolocated instead of merely located relative to the sensors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of the McNelis with the machine learning model of Hangartner since such a modification would have allowed for it to be run more quickly and accurately.
With respect to claim 16, McNelis teaches receiving blast sensor data from each of a plurality of blast sensors (pg 9, lines 30-31; pg 10, lines 3-4), the blast sensor data comprising: blast exposure data comprising pressure trace data over time corresponding to a blast exposure (pg 8, lines 20-23); triangulating the blast exposure using the blast exposure data and the location data to locate a source of the blast exposure (pg 10, lines 24-31); identifying a blast signature of the blast exposure based on the blast exposure data Pg 12, lines 8); and identifying the source of the blast exposure based on a comparison of the blast signature with one or more predefined blast signature profiles (pg 12: lines 6- 11). However, it does not teach one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that cause a processor to execute the method; location data associated with a respective blast sensor of the plurality of blast sensors; and using a machine learning model that is trained with a set of historical blast data to identify the blast signature of the blast exposure.
Hangartner teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that cause a processor to execute the method ([0072]. lines 1-11); location data associated with a respective blast sensor of the plurality of blast sensors ([0039], lines 8-9); and using a machine learning model that is trained with a set of historical blast data to identify the blast signature of the blast exposure ([0038], lines 23-30). It would have been obvious to the of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of McNelis to be embodied on a machine-readable medium as taught by Hangartner since such a modification would have allowed it to be installed on or transferred between multiple processors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of McNelis with the location data of Hangartner since such a modification would have allowed for the shot to be geolocated instead of merely located relative to the sensors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of the McNelis with the machine learning model of Hangartner since such a modification would have allowed for it to be run more quickly and accurately.
With regards to claim 13, McNelis as modified teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach triggering recording by one or more microphones associated with the plurality of blast sensors responsive to the blast exposure data.
Hangartner teaches triggering recording by one or more microphones associated with the plurality of blast sensors responsive to the blast exposure data ([0039], lines 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of the present application with the recording of Hangartner since such a modification would have allowed for the dissemination of the signal data.
With regards to claim 17, McNelis as modified teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach transmitting a notification to at least one user device to notify one or more operators of the source in real-time responsive to the blast exposure.
Hangartner teaches transmitting a notification to at least one user device to notify one or more operators of the source in real-time responsive to the blast exposure ([0040], lines 1-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of McNelis with the notification of Hangartner since such a modification would have allowed for a quick response to be made to any threat or injury.
Claim(s) 12, 15, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNelis in view of Hangartner, and further in view of Duckworth (WO 00/73811).
With respect to claim 12 and 19, McNelis as modified teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach applying a clock synchronization technique to remove clock drift from the blast exposure data.
Duckworth teaches applying a clock synchronization technique to remove clock drift from the blast exposure data (pg 10, lines 12-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of McNelis with the clock synchronization of Duckworth since such a modification would have improved accuracy of the system.
With respect to claims 15, 20, and 21, McNelis as modified teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach determining a velocity of a projectile associated with the blast exposure based on the blast exposure data; and notifying one or more operators of the velocity of the projectile in real time.
Duckworth teaches determining a velocity of a projectile associated with the blast exposure based on the blast exposure data (pf 15, lines 7-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of McNelis with the velocity determination of Duckworth since such a modification would have improved shot position and target identification.
Hangartner teaches notifying one or more operators of the velocity of the projectile in real time ([0040], lines 1-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of McNelis with the notification of Hangartner since such a modification would have allowed for a quick response to be made to any threat or injury.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNelis in view of Hangartner and Duckworth, and further in view of Auerbach (20020003470).
With respect to claim 18, McNelis as modified teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach responsive to identifying the source of the blast exposure, selecting a weapon identifier corresponding to the source of the blast exposure; and causing display of the weapon identifier on the at least one user device.
Duckworth teaches selecting a weapon identifier corresponding to the source of the blast exposure (pg 13, lines 9-19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of McNelis with the weapon identification of Duckworth since such a modification would have allowed for any responders to be better prepared.
Auerbach teaches causing display of the weapon identifier on the at least one user device ([0104], lines 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of McNelis with the display of Auerbach since such a modification would have allowed for a responder to quickly and easily see the information.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 are allowed.
Claims 10-11, 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art which is cited but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references made herein are done so for the convenience of the applicant. They are in no way intended to be limiting. The prior art should be considered in its entirety.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTINE E BREIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday (9:30am-6:30pm); Tuesday & Friday (11:30am-5:30pm).
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571 272 6970. 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.
/KRYSTINE E BREIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights