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
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davenport [US 20170208874 A1].
As for claim 1, Davenport discloses a wearable protection device (garment 10) for protection of at least a body part of a wearer (see Figures), comprising an inflatable element (12, 14, and 16; see paragraph 0016), a sensor arrangement (30, paragraph 0021), and processing element(38; Figure 5),
wherein the inflatable element (12, 14, 16) is inflatable from a first, substantially uninflated condition to a second, substantially inflated condition, by application of a releasable source of a gas to the inflatable element, for at least partially filling of the inflatable element with said gas (paragraphs 0016-0017),
wherein the inflatable element (12, 14, 16), when being inflated to the second condition, assumes a defined three-dimensional shape to be arranged adjacent to a body part to be protected (Figures 4A-4C),
wherein the sensor arrangement (30) is adapted to determine sensor data related to the relative movement of the wearable protection device (32, 34; paragraphs 0025-0027), and
wherein the processing element (38) is adapted to determine from the sensor data whether the wearable protection device (10) is positioned correctly or incorrectly relative to the body of the wearer (paragraphs 0028-0030; Davenport discloses that the processor uses sensor data to determine whether to deploy the inflation mechanism based upon whether the protection device is positioned appropriately on the body of the user.).
As for claim 2, Davenport discloses that the processing element (38) is adapted to generate an indication whether release of the gas to inflate the inflatable element is enabled or disabled and/or whether the wearable protection device is positioned correctly or incorrectly relative to the body of the wearer (paragraphs 0020, 0028 and 0030).
As for claim 3, Davenport discloses wherein communicating the indication comprises at least one of signaling the indication to the wearer as a visual indication and/or as an acoustic indication (paragraphs 0020 and 0028).
Claim 6 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above.
Claim 7 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above. See paragraphs 0028-0030.
Claim 8 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above. See paragraph 0021.
As for claim 10, Davenport discloses that the wearable protection device is adapted to adaptively deploy the inflatable element depending on the sensor data, in particular depending on the position and/or orientation of the wearable protection device relative to the body of the wearer (paragraphs 0030-0031).
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.
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.
Claims 4-5, 8, 9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davenport et as applied to the claims above.
As for claim 4, Davenport discloses a communication element and/or information element, wherein the communication and/or information element is at least one element out of the group consisting of a visual indicator, an illumination element, an LED, electronic communicator and a speaker (paragraphs 0020 and 0028; see also paragraph 0035 for suggestion of wireless communication). Davenport does not specifically disclose an electrochemical transducer, a tactile transducer, electromagnetic transmitter and a wireless communication element. However, examiner takes official notice that various types of communication elements and/or information elements were well known and commonly used in the art. Having this knowledge on hand, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to try well known communication elements and/or information elements in the invention of Davenport. The skilled artisan would have had good reason to pursue the known options for providing information to the wearer and/or a third party.
Claim 5 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 4 above.
As for claim 8, Davenport discloses that the sensor arrangement is arranged with the wearable protection device and having a defined position relative to the wearable protection device (paragraph 0021; sensor network is shown mounted to the outer shell 22). Davenport does not specifically disclose that the sensor arrangement has a defined orientation. However, in paragraph 0021, Davenport teaches that the sensor arrangement can be mounted anywhere on or within the wearable protection device (garment 10). These teachings suggest that the position and orientation of the sensor network would be left to the artisan. Having these teachings on hand, it would have been obvious to a person possessing ordinary skill in the art to modify Davenport to have a defined position and orientation in regard to the wearable protection device in order to yield desirable results. Further, since Davenport discloses the use of a plurality of sensors and also teaches determining if the protection device is properly worn, it would have been obvious to the artisan to the various sensors may require defined positions and/or orientations in order to yield desired results. These modifications and adjustments would be reasonably made by the artisan using routine skill as known in the art.
As for claim 9¸ Davenport discloses wherein the processing element, for determining whether the wearable protection device is positioned correctly or incorrectly relative to the body of the wearer, is adapted to correlate the received sensor data with expected movement data (paragraphs 0029-0030), determine a deviation between the acquired movement data and the expected movement data (paragraph 0029), determine if the deviation exceeds a defined threshold value (paragraph 0029), and determine that the wearable protection device is positioned incorrectly relative to the body of the wearer based on sensor information (paragraph 0030).
Davenport does not specifically disclose that the device determines that it is positioned incorrectly relative to the body of the wear when the deviation exceeds the threshold value. Instead, Davenport uses an additional sensor (thermal sensor) along with the sensors providing movement data to determine if the wearable device is positioned correctly relative to the body of the wearer (paragraph 0030). Davenport’s additional sensor is used as a safeguard to prevent misfires from rapid changes in the movement data obtained from the gyroscope and accelerometer. The skilled artisan would have recognized the different combinations of sensors and thresholds could be used to determine if the wearable protection device was positioned correctly. The selection of a particular sensors and thresholds is viewed as a matter of engineering preference that would be left to the artisan.
As for claim 11, Davenport does not specifically disclose a degree of correctness. However, Davenport discloses that it was known for the processing element to use sensor data to determine whether to inflate or deflate the inflatable element (paragraphs 0027-0028). Davenport will cause an LED to illuminate only when certain conditions are met. These teachings read on the degree of correctness. Further, Davenport discloses that the processing element can generate indications to a wearer and/or third-party (see LED in paragraphs 0027-0028 and alarms in paragraph 0035). Having these teachings on hand, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to use the indicators and/or alarm to provide information to the wearer or third-party about the operation of the wearable protection device.
Claims 12 and 15 are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claims 1 and 9 above.
Claims 13-14 are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claims 1, 2, and 9 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of the cited references discloses inflatable protective devices that were known in the art at the time of filing the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M BLOUNT whose telephone number is (571)272-2973. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a - 5:30p.
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 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.
ERIC M. BLOUNT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
/Eric Blount/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
