Jamshid GhajarDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 1, 201913962852 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2019) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation