Jamshid Ghajar

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 1, 2019

13962852 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/962,852 08/08/2013 Jamshid Ghajar 061046-5007-US 2430
24341 7590 08/01/2019
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (PA)
1400 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1124
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CAMTU TRAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3786
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
padocketingdepartment@morganlewis.com
vskliba@morganlewis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAMSHID GHAJAR
____________

Appeal 2018-003898
Application 13/962,8521
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, LISA M. GUIJT, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5–16, and 18–25.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Jamshid Ghajar is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4.
2 Claims 3, 4, and 17 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 6.
Appeal 2018-003898
Application 13/962,852

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s “disclosure relates to devices for reducing brain and
cervical spine injury, and more particularly to devices and methods for
preventing the head from substantial rotational acceleration or deceleration
that could lead to tearing of brain or cervical spine tissue.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Claims 1 and 13 are independent claims. Claim 1 illustrates the
claimed subject matter:
1. An injury reduction system comprising:
a first motion detection sensor on a first apparatus
configured to be secured to a head of a subject to detect a first
motion of the head of the subject;
a second motion detection sensor on a second apparatus
configured to be secured to a torso of the subject to detect a
second motion of the torso of the subject;
a telescoping connector, coupled to the first apparatus and
the second apparatus, configured to dampen relative motion of
the subject’s head relative to the torso of the subject; and
a control unit configured to obtain information regarding
the first motion from the first motion detection sensor and the
second motion from the second motion detection sensor;
wherein the control unit contains instructions for:
calculating a relative motion of the head relative to
the torso of the subject by comparing the obtained first motion
and second motion;
determining whether the calculated relative motion
of the head relative to the torso of the subject exceeds a
predetermined threshold; and
in response to determining that the calculated
relative motion of the head relative to the torso of the subject
exceeds the predetermined threshold, dampening the relative
motion of the head relative to the torso of the subject using the
telescoping connector.
Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.).

Appeal 2018-003898
Application 13/962,852

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 5–7, 9–16, and 18–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Nagely (US 2008/0313791 A1, published Dec.
25, 2008), Buckman (US 2005/0067816 A1, published Mar. 31, 2005), and
Ryan (US 2007/0010772 A1, published Jan. 11, 2007).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Nagely, Buckman, Ryan, and Foster (US 6,819,354 B1, issued Nov. 16,
2004).

ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Nagely, Buckman, and Ryan
(Claims 1, 2, 5–7, 9–16, and 18–25)
Claims 1, 2, 5–7, 9–12, and 24
As for claim 1, the Examiner finds that Nagely discloses a first motion
sensor on a first apparatus (helmet 140) configured to be secured to a head
of a subject to detect a first motion of the subject’s head, a second apparatus
(harness assembly 200) configured to be secured to the torso of the subject, a
telescoping connector (strut member 180) coupled to the first and second
apparatuses and configured to dampen relative motion of the head of the
subject relative to the torso, and a control unit (actuation system 300). Non-
Final Act. 4–5 (citing Nagely ¶¶ 11, 16, 63 65, Fig. 1). The Examiner finds
that Nagely does not disclose a second motion detection sensor on the
second apparatus to detect a second motion of the torso, or that the control
unit (a) is configured to obtain information regarding the first and second
motions from the respective first and second motion detection sensors, or (b)
contains instructions for “calculating a relative motion of the head relative to
Appeal 2018-003898
Application 13/962,852

4
the torso of the subject by comparing the obtained first motion and second
motion” (hereinafter, the “calculating limitation”) or “determining whether
the calculated relative motion of the head relative to the torso of the subject
exceeds a predetermined threshold” (hereinafter, the “determining
limitation”) as claimed. Id. at 5.
The Examiner relies on Buckman as teaching a second apparatus
(harness 200) configured to be secured to the torso, two detection sensors
(sensors 204) on the second apparatus, and a control unit configured to
calculate the relative first motion and the relative second motion from the
respective sensors. Id. at 5–6 (citing Buckman, Fig. 11, ¶¶ 166–167. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to modify Nagely to include a second sensor on the second
apparatus and to program the control unit to compare the obtained first and
second motions from the two sensors, as taught by Buckman, “such that the
obtained first motion in the head with respect to the obtained relative second
motion in the torso makes available precautionary action in order to activate
the locking assembly, for purposes of stop all relative motion to the helmet.”
Id. at 6.
Although the Examiner indicates that the combination of Nagely and
Buckman does not teach the determining limitation, the Examiner also
appears to find that Buckman teaches this limitation. Id. (“paragraph 0188
teaches data from the sensors are compared against a threshold”). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the control
unit of Nagely and Buckman to “also determine whether calculated relative
motion of the head relative to the torso exceeds a predetermined threshold,
for purposes of preventing serious injury to the head.” Id. at 6–7.
Appeal 2018-003898
Application 13/962,852

5
The Examiner also finds that the combination of Nagely and Buckman
does not teach that the telescopic connector dampens in response to
determining that the calculated relative motion of the head relative to the
torso of the subject exceeds the predetermined threshold, as claimed. Id. at
7. The Examiner relies on Ryan as teaching an orthotic device comprising a
sensor, a damper, and a controller that compares a measured acceleration or
motion detected by the sensor against a predetermined threshold, and upon
the measured acceleration or motion value exceeding the predetermined
threshold, the controller activates the damper to increase its resistive force.
Id. (citing Ryan ¶¶ 130–137, 143). The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to one skilled in the art in view of Ryan to modify
Nagely’s telescopic connector as modified by Buckman’s control unit, such
that the telescopic connector dampens the relative motion in response to
determining that the calculated relative motion of the head relative to the
torso exceeds the predetermined threshold to increase damping effect. Id. at
7–8.
Appellant contends, inter alia, that the applied combination of
references does not teach or suggest the calculating limitation in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 13. Appellant emphasizes that this limitation uses two motion
sensors, one located at the subject’s head and the other at the subject’s torso,
to obtain, respectively, motion at the head and at the torso, and to compare
these motions to calculate relative motion of the head relative to the torso.
Id. at 14.
Appellant contends that Nagely teaches a protective helmet including
a motion restrictor device to protect a wearer from injuries caused by an
impact force striking from the top, or crown, of the helmet and acceleration
Appeal 2018-003898
Application 13/962,852

6
of the helmet beyond a safe threshold. Id. at 16 (citing Nagely ¶ 10).
Appellant contends that Nagely uses a single force sensor or a single
acceleration sensor disposed on the helmet, and teaches that, upon the force
sensor sensing a predetermined force or the acceleration sensor sensing a
predetermined acceleration, the locking assembly is put in a locked
configuration by stopping substantially all relative motion between ends of
the at least one strut member. Id. at 13 (citing Nagely ¶ 11); see also Nagely
¶ 59, Fig. 1.
Appellant contends that Buckman teaches a harness including two or
more motion sensors located at upper and lower levels of a subject’s torso to
track the motion of the two portions of the torso, and logic circuitry that
integrates data from the sensors with pre-programmed rules to distinguish
normal motions from fall-associated motions. Appeal Br. 13–14 (citing
Buckman ¶¶ 155–156). Appellant contends that “the detecting of whether a
person is falling is not accomplished by comparing motion of the subject’s
head relative to motion of the subject’s torso,” but is based entirely on the
motion of the subject’s torso. Id. at 14.
The Examiner responds that Buckman teaches that “the control unit
has [the] capability of . . . calculating relative motion from each of the two
sensors and comparing the relative motions from the sensors, such teaching
meets appellant’s claimed limitations.” Ans. 16 (citing Buckman ¶¶ 166–
167). The Examiner submits that paragraphs 7 and 10 of Buckman teach
that sensors are applicable on helmet and garment applications, and
paragraph 11 specifically discloses helmets in athletic sports. Id. at 16–17.
Appellant’s contentions are persuasive. First, we disagree with the
Examiner that “calculating relative motion from each of the two sensors and
Appeal 2018-003898
Application 13/962,852

7
comparing the relative motions from the sensors” meets the claimed
limitations. Id. at 16. Claim 1 requires “a first motion detection sensor on a
first apparatus” and “a second motion detection sensor on a second
apparatus.” Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). Buckman’s
teaching of two motion detection sensors both located at a subject’s torso
and comparing relative motions obtained from the sensors does not, by itself,
meet these limitations.
Second, Appellant acknowledges that Buckman mentions helmets.
Reply Br. 4; Ans. 16–17. Buckman describes:
The invention is an active protective system or active
protection garment (APG) that includes detection, activation, and
protection mechanisms. The protection mechanism is
automatically deployed via an air bag inflator when sensors
detect the accelerations, directions or rotations associated with
the early phases of an accidental fall. The active protection
system comprises a garment that is worn by a person or animal
requiring protection. The garment may be, depending on the part
of the body to be protected, a vest, coat, hat, helmet, pants, shorts,
underpants, shirt, undershirt, jumpsuit, shoes, socks, scarf, or
other clothing.
Buckman ¶ 10 (emphasis added). Buckman further describes, “[t]he
garment, or added elements, further includes sensors, or a plurality of
sensors, that detect the orientation of the body or torso, the acceleration, the
velocity, the rotation and the position of the garment or person or the forces
acting on the garment itself.” Id. (emphasis added). Appellant contends,
however, that Buckman fails to mention helmets “as a mechanism for
securing a first motion detection sensor to the head of a subject to be used in
combination with a second motion detection sensor secured to the subject’s
torso.” Reply Br. 4–5. Appellant contends, “[a]ll of the sensors taught by
Appeal 2018-003898
Application 13/962,852

8
Buckman are on various locations of the subject’s torso, and all are
described as being used to detect when the subject is falling.” Id. at 5.
Appellant explains that “the relative motion of interest in the present
application is motion of the head relative to the torso that could be injurious
to the subject’s brain, spine or neck.” Id. Appellant states, “Nagely is the
only cited reference that is designed to address and ameliorate anything
similar to ‘relative motion of the head relative to the torso of the subject.’”
Id.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not articulated an
adequate reason with a rational underpinning to modify Nagely in view of
Buckman to incorporate a second motion detection sensor on harness
assembly 200 to detect a second motion of the torso of the subject, and
further to modify Nagely’s actuation system 300 to “calculat[e] a relative
motion of the head relative to the torso of the subject by comparing the
obtained first motion and second motion,” as required by claim 1. As
explained by Appellant, Nagely and Buckman are concerned with different
types of body motion and in preventing different types of injury. Id. at 8.
Particularly, Nagely teaches using a single sensor located on a helmet to
sense a force or acceleration to determine whether the force or acceleration
that the helmet is subjected to exceeds a predetermined force or acceleration.
Id. at 5. Appellant explains that, in contrast, “the relative motion of interest
in Buckman is motion in which the relative motion indicates that the
subject’s entire body is falling, whether forward, backward or sideways.”
Id. Even assuming Buckman teaches or suggests using a sensor on a helmet,
the Examiner still does not identify any teaching or suggestion of using a
first motion detection sensor on a helmet and a second motion detection
Appeal 2018-003898
Application 13/962,852

9
sensor on a harness worn on the subject’s torso, as shown in Figures 11a–
11c. Accordingly, the Examiner does not identify any evidence of also
“calculating a relative motion of the head relative to the torso of the subject
by comparing the obtained first motion and second motion,” as obtained
from such first and second motion detection sensors.
As for the determining limitation in claim 1, we are unable to discern
any teaching or suggestion in paragraph 188 of Buckman meeting this
limitation, as found by the Examiner. See Non-Final Act. 6.
Finally, the Examiner’s reliance on Ryan, as discussed above, fails to
cure the deficiencies in the Examiner’s reliance on Nagely and Buckman.
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or
dependent claims 2, 5–7, 9–12, and 24, as unpatentable over Nagely,
Buckman, and Ryan.
Claims 13–16, 18–23, and 25
Claim 13 recites a method of reducing injury from relative motion of a
subject’s head relative to the subject’s torso, comprising, inter alia, the steps
of “detecting a first motion of the head of the subject using a first motion
detection sensor coupled to a first apparatus that is secured to the head of a
subject,” “detecting a second motion of the torso of the subject using a
second motion detection sensor coupled to a second apparatus that is secured
to the torso of the subject,” and “calculating a relative motion of the head
relative to the torso of the subject by comparing the detected first motion
and second motion.” Appeal Br. 27–28 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 13, or of dependent claims 14–16,
18–23, and 25, as unpatentable over Nagely, Buckman, and Ryan for reasons
similar to those for the rejection of claim 1.
Appeal 2018-003898
Application 13/962,852

10

Obviousness over Nagely, Buckman, Ryan, and Foster
(Claim 8)
The Examiner’s reliance on Foster in rejecting claim 8 fails to cure the
deficiency in the rejection of parent claim 1. Non-Final Act. 17–18. Hence,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 8 as unpatentable over Nagely,
Buckman, Ryan, and Foster for the same reasons as for claim 1.

DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1, 2, 5–16, and 18–25.

REVERSED