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 § 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) 7, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rajan (US 20220141634 A1).
Regarding claims 7, 12, Rajan discloses a safety system and method comprising:
a helmet part that is attachable to a helmet (ID tag equipped on intelligent helmet, Para. 68); and
a lock part that is attachable to a vehicle and can lock the vehicle (ignition lock of motorcycle, Para. 68),
wherein the helmet part includes a wearing sensor that detects that the helmet is being worn (EEG-based biometric sensing, Para. 68),
and
the lock part includes:
a lock mechanism that releases a lock of the vehicle through manual
unlocking (unlock the bike for operation by touch, Para. 69); and
a permission unit that permits the manual unlocking of the lock mechanism
when wearing of the helmet is detected by the wearing sensor (Bike electronics equipped with authentication process to authenticate the rider via tag (helmet use, i.e. safety) or biometric signature (EEG-based, i.e. security) etc, Para. 69).
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.
Claim(s) 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajan, and further in view of Park (US 20170160812 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Rajan fails to disclose wherein the wearing sensor is activated by detecting a movement of the helmet.
Park teaches a sensor of a device can be maintained active or deactivated by detecting movement or lack of movement of the device (Para. 197-198).
From the teachings of Park, it would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rajan to include wherein the wearing sensor is activated by detecting a movement of the helmet in order to conserve battery consumption by keeping the wearing sensor deactivated until movement has been detected.
Regarding claim 9, Rajan and Park teach the claimed invention, wherein Rajan teaches wherein the lock part is activated by approaching of the helmet part with the wearing sensor activated (unlock the bike for operation by touch, Para. 69).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajan, and further in view of Jones (US 20170270761 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Rajan fails to disclose an alarm unit that emits an alarm when the helmet is removed.
Jones teaches a system that triggers an alarm when a helmet is removed (the helmet has been discarded or dislodged which also triggers the alarm, Para. 38).
From the teachings of Jones, it would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rajan to include an alarm unit that emits an alarm when the helmet is removed in order to improve safety.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajan, and further in view of Finlinson (US 20160380595).
Regarding claim 11, Rajan fails to disclose wherein the wearing sensor is a heartbeat sensor.
Finlinson teaches a biometrics sensor for a user wearable device can be a heartbeat sensor (Para. 37).
From the teachings of Finlinson, it would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rajan to include wherein the wearing sensor is a heartbeat sensor in order to detect a user’s presence; as simple substitution for one known device for another resulting in predictable outcomes, including presence detection, is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG HANG JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30-6 EST.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571)272-2957. 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.
/YONG HANG JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
