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 .
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1—22 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to Applicant’s “Remarks” filed 07/22/2026. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on August 14th, 2026 (2) has been acknowledged by the Office.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection made to Claim 9 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) in the Non-Final has been withdrawn in light of the claims’ amendment/cancelation.
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) 1—9, 12—18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application 2016/0174728 A1 to Karp et. al. (Karp hereafter) in view of US 2017/0340285 A1 to Rubin et al. (Rubin hereafter).
As per claim 1, Karp teaches:
An infant care apparatus (10—Fig.1; para [0085]) comprising: an infant holder (see 12—Fig.1; para [0085]: enclosure); a drive section coupled to the infant holder (58—Fig.6; para [0089]) and having a motor configured to generate one or more of an action and a motion of the infant holder (58—Fig.6; para [0089]: drive section including motor 60); a biometric sensor (1002—Fig.10; para [0104]) configured to observe at least one characteristic of an infant within the infant holder (para [0104];claim 10), where the at least one characteristic of the infant includes at least a physical characteristic of the infant and the physical characteristic is described by physical data observed by the biometric sensor (para [0104]); and
a controller (120—Fig.10; para [0104]) configured to employ a neural network or state machine that is communicably coupled to the biometric sensor and the drive section (para [0104]; 126—Fig.10), where the controller registers sensor data from the biometric sensor and effects, through the neural network or the state machine (para [0104]: controller receives inputs from sensor via state machine output), at least a modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder (para [0104]: state machine output signals control motion generation module) , wherein the controller is configured to, based on biometric sensor input over time, learn infant reactions to the modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder (para [0098]: biometric sensor detects biometric status of an infant for a predetermined period of time) so as to adjust a subsequent application of the modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder (para [0098]: control system analyzes signal generated by biometric sensor and as a result generates an output of the assembly drive motor).
Karp does not teach: to adjust a subsequent application of the modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder based on the learned infant reactions to prior modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder.
Rubin: to adjust a subsequent application of the modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder based on the learned infant reactions to prior modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder (550-Fig.5 para [0044]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Karp (directed to an infant holder provided with a control system configured to adjust a motion of the infant holder based the infants reactions) and Rubin (directed to an infant holder provided with a control system configured to modify and/or adapt the default profile or another profile over time based at least in part on the effectiveness of certain adjustments to the child at the children's apparatus) and arrived at an infant holder provided with a control system configured to adjust a motion of the infant holder based on the subsequent state of the infant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to modify and/or adapt the default profile or another profile over time based at least in part on the effectiveness of certain adjustments to the child at the children's apparatus. as taught in Rubin (para [0042]).
As per claim 2, Karp (as modified) teaches:
The infant care apparatus of claim 1, wherein the biometric sensor is configured to generate a sensor signal (126—Fig.10; para [0104] & [0145]) embodying the at least one characteristic of the infant, where the at least one characteristic is one or more of an action characteristic of the infant and a motion characteristic of the infant (para [0104] & [0145]).
As per claim 3, Karp (as modified) teaches:
The infant care apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to send a command to the motor based on the sensor data of the at least one characteristic sensed by the sensor (128—Fig.10; para [0104] controller receives inputs from sensors and outputs signals to control motion generation module).
As per claim 4, Karp (as modified) teaches:
The infant care apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller generates a responsive change in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder based on a change in one or more of an action characteristic of the infant and a motion characteristic of the infant sensed by the biometric sensor (128—Fig.10; para [0104] controller receives inputs from biometric sensors and outputs signals to control motion generation module).
As per claim 5, Karp (as modified) teaches:
The infant care apparatus of claim 4, wherein the controller is configured to generate indicia (123 & 131—Fig.10; para [0104] & [0145]: controller initiates status light and audio speakers) to identify the responsive change in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder (para [0104] controller outputs audio in response to signals such as motion & biometric).
As per claim 6, Karp (as modified) teaches:
The infant care apparatus of claim 5, wherein the indicia is one or more of aural indicia and visual indicia (para [0145] & [0104]: status light and audio speakers).
As per claim 7, Karp (as modified) teaches:
The infant care apparatus of claim 4, wherein the controller is configured to generate indicia (para [0104]: status light and audio speakers) to identify the change in one or more of the action characteristic of the infant and the motion characteristic of the infant sensed by the biometric sensor (128—Fig.10; para [0104] controller receives inputs from sensors and outputs signals to control motion generation module ).
As per claim 8, Karp (as modified) teaches:
The infant care apparatus of claim 7, wherein the indicia is one or more of aural indicia and visual indicia (123 & 131—Fig.10; para [0145] [0104]: controller initiates status light and audio speakers).
As per claim 9, Karp (as modified) teaches
The infant care apparatus of claim 1, wherein the biometric sensor comprises one or more of a vision sensor, a heat-based sensor, an audio sensor, and a motion sensor (para [0104] biometric sensor).
As per claim 12, Karp (as modified) teaches:
A method for infant care with an infant care apparatus (10—Fig.1; para [0085]), the method comprising: providing an infant holder (see 12—Fig.2; para [0085] ); providing a drive section coupled to the infant holder (see 58—Fig.6; para [0089])
and having a motor configured to generate one or more of an action and a motion of the infant holder (see 58—Fig.6; para [0089]: motor); observing, with a biometric sensor, at least one characteristic of an infant within the infant holder (1002—Fig.10; para [0104]), where the at least one characteristic of the infant includes at least a physical characteristic of the infant (para [0104]) and the physical characteristic is described by physical data observed by the biometric sensor (para [0104]);
and registering, with a controller (120—Fig.10; para [0104]) configured for employing a neural network or state machine, sensor data from the sensor (para [0104]; 126—Fig.10) and effecting, with the neural network or state machine at least a modification (para [0104]: state machine output signals control motion generation module), a change in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder (para [0104]: state machine output signals control motion generation module), wherein the controller is configured to, based on biometric sensor input over time, learn infant reactions to the modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder (para [0098]: biometric sensor detects biometric status of an infant for a predetermined period of time) so as to adjust a subsequent application of the modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder (para [0098]: control system analyzes signal generated by biometric sensor and as a result generates an output of the assembly drive motor).
Karp does not teach: to adjust a subsequent application of the modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder based on the learned infant reactions to prior modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder.
Rubin: to adjust a subsequent application of the modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder based on the learned infant reactions to prior modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder (550-Fig.5 para [0044]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Karp (directed to an infant holder provided with a control system configured to adjust a motion of the infant holder based the infants reactions) and Rubin (directed to an infant holder provided with a control system configured to modify and/or adapt the default profile or another profile over time based at least in part on the effectiveness of certain adjustments to the child at the children's apparatus) and arrived at an infant holder provided with a control system configured to adjust a motion of the infant holder based on the subsequent state of the infant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to modify and/or adapt the default profile or another profile over time based at least in part on the effectiveness of certain adjustments to the child at the children's apparatus as taught in Rubin (para [0042]).
As per claim 13, Karp (as modified) teaches:
The method of claim 12, wherein the biometric sensor generates a sensor signal embodying the at least one characteristic of the infant (126—Fig.10; para [0104]), where the at least one characteristic is one or more of an action characteristic of the infant and a motion characteristic of the infant (para [0104] sensor signal is an action characteristic of the infant).
As per claim 14, Karp (as modified) teaches:
The method of claim 12, wherein the controller sends a command to the motor based on the sensor data of the at least one characteristic sensed by the biometric sensor (128—Fig.10; para [0104] controller receives inputs from biometric sensors and outputs signals to control motion generation module).
As per claim 15, Karp (as modified) teaches:
The method of claim 12, wherein the controller generates a responsive change in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder based on a change in one or more of an action characteristic of the infant and a motion characteristic of the infant sensed by the biometric sensor (128—Fig.10; para [0104] controller receives inputs from biometric sensors and outputs signals to control motion generation module).
As per claim 16, Karp (as modified) teaches:
The method of claim 15, wherein the controller generates indicia (123 & 131—Fig.10; para [0104]: controller initiates status light and audio speakers) to identify the responsive change in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder (128—Fig.10; para [0104] controller receives inputs from biometric sensors and outputs signals to indicate change).
As per claim 17, Karp (as modified) teaches:
The method of claim 15, wherein the controller is configured to generate indicia (123 & 131—Fig.10; para [0104]: controller initiates status light and audio speakers) to identify the change in one or more of the action characteristic of the infant and the motion characteristic of the infant sensed by the biometric sensor (128—Fig.10; para [0104] controller receives inputs from biometric sensors and outputs signals to indicate change).
As per claim 18, Karp (as modified) teaches:
The method of claim 12, wherein the biometric sensor comprises one or more of a vision sensor, a heat-based sensor, an audio sensor, and a motion sensor (para [0104]).
Claim(s) 10, 11, 19—20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application 2016/0174728 A1 to Karp in view of U.S Patent Application 2017/0340285 A1 to Rubin in further view of CN 106724392 A to Wang et al. (Wang hereafter) in view of.
As per claim 10, Karp (As modified)teaches The infant care apparatus of claim 1.
Karp does not explicitly not teach , wherein the biometric sensor comprises a wearable health device .
Wang teaches wherein the biometric sensor comprises a wearable health device (see pg.3 para [0007] “This closed-loop automatic control device can run under the condition of without human care, on the hands of a baby wearing a hand type heart rate sensor can collect and feedback heart condition of the infant (baby will be a difference of 20 times/min heart rate and lower waking state in the sleep state, the heart rate in the sleep state will be lower than the waking state).” ).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Karp (directed to an infant support devices which imparts motion on the device based on a plurality of sensors) and Wang (directed to a cradle provided with closed loop automatic control including a heart rate sensor worn on an infant’s hand) and Rubin (directed to an infant holder provided with a control system configured to modify and/or adapt the default profile or another profile over time based at least in part on the effectiveness of certain adjustments to the child at the children's apparatus)and arrived at an infant support devices which imparts motion on the device based on sensors including a biometric sensor which comprises a wearable health device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to collect and feedback the heart condition of the infant as taught in Wang (see pg.3 para [0007]).
As per claim 11, Karp (As modified) teaches The infant care apparatus of claim 1.
Karp does not explicitly teach, wherein the drive section is configured to provide more than one degree of freedom motion to the infant holder.
Wang teaches wherein the drive section is configured to provide more than one degree of freedom motion to the infant holder (see examiner note; pg.3 para [0003] “motor drive gear shaft, drives the small gear to rotate, and drives the large gear to rotate by a shaft, drives the rack to move, and drives the push rod pushing the baby bed body moving.”).
Note: The examiner notes that drive section may push the infant holder element 15 along track element 12. The examiner further notes that the curved geometry of the track element allows the drive section to effectively impart motion in a horizontal and vertical directions upon the infant holder.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Karp (directed to an infant support devices which imparts motion on the device based a plurality of sensors) and Wang (directed to a cradle provided with closed loop automatic control provided with a drive section to effectively impart motion on the system in a horizontal and vertical directions) and Rubin (directed to an infant holder provided with a control system configured to modify and/or adapt the default profile or another profile over time based at least in part on the effectiveness of certain adjustments to the child at the children's apparatus)and arrived at an infant support devices which imparts motion on the device based on sensors provided with a drive section to effectively impart motion on the system in a horizontal and vertical directions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to impart a rocking motion for the infant as taught in Wang (citation see pg.4 para [0006] “the power system comprises a motor 5, a motor 5 drives the bed 15 to swing through the transmission system;”).
As per claim 19, Karp (As modified) teaches The method of claim 12.
Karp does not teach, wherein the biometric sensor comprises a wearable health device.
Wang teaches wherein the biometric sensor comprises a wearable health device (see pg.3 para [0007] “This closed-loop automatic control device can run under the condition of without human care, on the hands of a baby wearing a hand type heart rate sensor can collect and feedback heart condition of the infant (baby will be a difference of 20 times/min heart rate and lower waking state in the sleep state, the heart rate in the sleep state will be lower than the waking state).” ).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Karp (directed to an infant support devices which imparts motion on the device based on a plurality of sensors) and Wang (directed to a cradle provided with closed loop automatic control including a heart rate sensors worn on an infant’s hand) and Rubin (directed to an infant holder provided with a control system configured to modify and/or adapt the default profile or another profile over time based at least in part on the effectiveness of certain adjustments to the child at the children's apparatus) and arrived at an infant support devices which imparts motion on the device based on sensors including a biometric sensor which comprises a wearable health device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to collect and feedback the heart condition of the infant as taught in Wang (see pg.3 para [0007] “This closed-loop automatic control device can run under the condition of without human care, on the hands of a baby wearing a hand type heart rate sensor can collect and feedback heart condition of the infant (baby will be a difference of 20 times/min heart rate and lower waking state in the sleep state, the heart rate in the sleep state will be lower than the waking state).”).
As per claim 20, Karp (As modified)teaches The method of claim 12.
Karp does not explicitly teach wherein the drive section provides more than one degree of freedom motion to the infant holder.
Wang teaches wherein the drive section provides more than one degree of freedom motion to the infant holder (see examiner note; pg.3 para [0003] “motor drive gear shaft, drives the small gear to rotate, and drives the large gear to rotate by a shaft, drives the rack to move, and drives the push rod pushing the baby bed body moving.”).
Note: The examiner notes that drive section may push the infant holder element 15 along track element 12. The examiner further notes that the curved geometry of the track element allows the drive section to effectively impart motion in a horizontal and vertical directions upon the infant holder.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Karp (directed to an infant support devices which imparts motion on the device based a plurality of sensors) and Wang (directed to a cradle provided with closed loop automatic control provided with a drive section to effectively impart motion on the system in a horizontal and vertical directions) and Rubin (directed to an infant holder provided with a control system configured to modify and/or adapt the default profile or another profile over time based at least in part on the effectiveness of certain adjustments to the child at the children's apparatus) and arrived at an infant support devices which imparts motion on the device based on sensors provided with a drive section to effectively impart motion on the system in a horizontal and vertical directions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to impart a rocking motion for the infant as taught in Wang (citation see pg.4 para [0006] “the power system comprises a motor 5, a motor 5 drives the bed 15 to swing through the transmission system;”).
Claim(s) 21—22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application 2016/0174728 A1 to Karp in view of CN 106724392 A to Wang in view of U.S Patent Application 2017/0340285 A1 to Rubin.
As per claim 21, Karp teaches,
An infant care apparatus (10—Fig.1; para [0085]) comprising: an infant holder (see 12—Fig.2; para [0085]: enclosure); a drive section coupled to the infant holder (58—Fig.6; para [0089]), the drive section includes a motor configured to generate one or more of an action and a motion of the infant holder (58—Fig.6; para [0089]: drive section including motor 60), comprising: at least one biometric sensor (1002—Fig.6; para [0104]) where the active characteristic includes at least a physical characteristic that is described by physical data observed by the at least one biometric sensor (1002—Fig.6; para [0104]),
and a controller (see 120—Fig.10; para [0104]) configured to employ a neural network or state machine that is communicably coupled to the at least one biometric sensor and the drive section (para [0104]; 126—Fig.10), the controller being configured to register a change in the active characteristic of the infant sensed by the at least one biometric sensor (para [0104]: controller receives inputs from sensor via state machine output) and generate, through the neural network or state machine, at least a responsive modification (para [0104]: controller receives inputs from sensor via state machine output) in the one or more of an action and a motion of the infant holder based on the change in the active characteristic of the infant (para [0104]: state machine output signals control motion generation module) wherein the controller is configured to, based on biometric sensor input over time, learn infant reactions to the responsive modification in the one or more of an action and a motion of the infant holder (para [0098]: biometric sensor detects biometric status of an infant for a predetermined period of time) so as to adjust a subsequent application of the responsive modification in the one or more of an action and a motion of the infant holder (para [0098]: control system analyzes signal generated by biometric sensor and as a result generates an output of the assembly drive motor).
Karp does not teach a closed loop control system communicably coupled to the drive section, the closed loop control system comprising: at least one biometric sensor configured to observe an active characteristic of an infant within the infant holder
Wang teaches; a closed loop control system (see abstract) communicably coupled to the drive section, the closed loop control system (pg.2 para [0006] “: a cradle closed loop automatic control, wherein it comprises a power system, a transmission system, a supporting device and baby bed body and accessory, automatic control system, the power system connected with the transmission system, the transmission system is connected set on the supporting device of baby bed and accessory, the automatic control system connected with the power system, controlling the power system drives the transmission system drives the baby bed body and attachment on the support device.”) comprising: at least one biometric sensor configured to observe an active characteristic of an infant within the infant holder (see pg.3 para [0007] “This closed-loop automatic control device can run under the condition of without human care, on the hands of a baby wearing a hand type heart rate sensor can collect and feedback heart condition of the infant (baby will be a difference of 20 times/min heart rate and lower waking state in the sleep state, the heart rate in the sleep state will be lower than the waking state).” ).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Karp (directed to an infant support devices which imparts motion on the device based on metrics sensors by a plurality of sensors) and Wang (directed to a cradle provided with closed loop automatic control connected to the drive section and including a heart rate sensors worn on an infant’s hand) and Rubin (directed to an infant holder provided with a control system configured to modify and/or adapt the default profile or another profile over time based at least in part on the effectiveness of certain adjustments to the child at the children's apparatus)and arrived at an infant support devices which imparts motion on the device based on sensors provided with closed loop automatic control connected to the drive section and including a biometric sensor which comprises a wearable health device . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination provide a low cost system within intelligent control to support and impart motion on an infant while collecting feedback of the infant’s heart condition as taught in Wang (see pg.3 para [0007] “This closed-loop automatic control device can run under the condition of without human care, on the hands of a baby wearing a hand type heart rate sensor can collect and feedback heart condition of the infant (baby will be a difference of 20 times/min heart rate and lower waking state in the sleep state, the heart rate in the sleep state will be lower than the waking state).” & see pg.2 para [0005] “The purpose of the invention is to overcome the defect of the existing technology and claims an intelligent control, the cost is low, the structure is simple, the maintenance is convenient for closed-loop automatic control cradle for infant.”).
Karp does not teach: to adjust a subsequent application of the responsive modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder based on the learned infant reactions to prior modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder.
Rubin: to adjust a subsequent application of the responsive modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder based on the learned infant reactions to prior modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder (550-Fig.5 para [0044]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Karp (directed to an infant holder provided with a control system configured to adjust a motion of the infant holder based the infants reactions) and Wang (directed to a cradle provided with closed loop automatic control connected to the drive section and including a heart rate sensors worn on an infant’s hand) and Rubin (directed to an infant holder provided with a control system configured to modify and/or adapt the default profile or another profile over time based at least in part on the effectiveness of certain adjustments to the child at the children's apparatus) and arrived at an infant holder provided with a control system configured to adjust a motion of the infant holder based on the subsequent state of the infant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to modify and/or adapt the default profile or another profile over time based at least in part on the effectiveness of certain adjustments to the child at the children's apparatus. as taught in Rubin (para [0042]).
As per claim 22, Karp (As modified) teaches,
The infant care apparatus of claim 21, wherein the controller is configured to generate indicia (123 & 131—Fig.10; para [0104]: controller initiates status light and audio speakers) to identify the change in one or more of the action characteristic of the infant and the motion characteristic of the infant sensed by the at least one biometric sensor (para [0104] controller outputs audio in response to signals such as motion & biometric).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim(s) 1—9, 12—18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application 2016/0174728 A1 to Karp in view of U.S Patent Application 2017/0340285 A1 to Rubin. Claim(s) 10, 11, 19—22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application 2016/0174728 A1 to Karp in view of CN 106724392 A to Wang in view of U.S Patent Application 2017/0340285 A1 to Rubin.
Applicant’s Arguments:
Regarding the “Applicants Remarks to Arguments” filed 07/22/2026, the Applicant argues,
1) Regarding independent claims 1 Claim 1 recites "... a biometric sensor configured to observe at least one characteristic of an infant within the infant holder, where the at least one characteristic of the infant includes at least a physical characteristic of the infant and the physical characteristic is described by physical data observed by the biometric sensor; and a controller configured to employ a neural network or state machine that is communicably coupled to the biometric sensor and the drive section, where the controller registers sensor data from the biometric sensor and effects, through the neural network or the state machine, at least a modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder, wherein the controller is configured to, based on biometric sensor input over time, learn infant reactions to the modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder so as to adjust a subsequent application of the modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder based on the learned infant reactions to prior modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder." These features, in combination with the other features of claim 1, are not disclosed or suggested by the combination of Karp and Rubin.
While the office action refers to Para. [0098] of Karp for the notion of detection over a period of time, where detection over time says absolutely nothing with respect to "learning." What is actually disclosed in Para. [0098] of Karp is that in one embodiment, "the biometric sensor monitors the infant and generates a signal indicative of a respiration status or cardiovascular status of the infant, such as to detect when the baby has paused beathing for a predetermined period of time, or has a cardiovascular collapse, such as indicated by a heart rate below a predetermined threshold, or the like." Mere monitoring/detection as disclosed in Para. [0098] of a characteristic is just that, mere monitoring/detecting (not learning) so as to compare the monitored/detected characteristic against some baseline/threshold for that characteristic, where if the threshold is met the control system of Karp generates an output/alarm (see Para. 0098).Para. [0098] of Karp (and Karp as a whole) is simply silent with respect to the above-noted features of claim 1.
Combining Karp with Rubin fails to remedy the above-noted deficiencies of Karp.
While it is asserted that Para. [0044] of Rubin discloses adjusting "a subsequent application of the modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder based on the learned infant reactions to prior modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder," what is actually disclosed in Para. [0044] is (verbatim):
... it may be determined that the child is soothed. For example, inputs received at the microphone on the baby device may be analyzed by the processor(s) to determine that the child has stopped making a crying sound or other indications of discomfort for a predetermined length of time. In one example, the predetermined length of time may be a period of two minutes. Based on that information, the
processor(s) of the baby device may determine that the child has been soothed."
Clearly, what is disclosed in Para. [0044] is not "learning" but a mere comparison of the received input with a predetermined criteria (i.e., crying or not crying) over a predetermined length of time. As noted above with Karp, the mere monitoring of characteristic in Rubin says nothing with respect to learning as claimed in claim 1. There is simply nothing in Rubin that discloses "learning" as recited in claim 1.
The detection/monitoring disclosed in both Karp and Rubin is akin to the monitoring a temperature of a piece of meat with a digital meat thermometer. While the digital meat thermometer may monitor a temperature of the piece meat, as the piece of meat cooks, and sound an alarm when the piece of meat reaches a predetermined temperature, the digital meat thermometer is clearly not "learning" anything. The digital meat thermometer merely compares the temperature of the meat to the predetermined temperature. In a like manner, Karp and Rubin merely monitor, e.g., sounds from the infant and compare the sounds to a threshold. When the threshold is reached action is taken. Absolutely no learning is disclosed or suggested in Karp and Rubin.
There is simply nothing in the combination of Karp and Rubin that discloses or suggests the above- noted features of claim 1. Thus, claim 1 is clearly patentable over Karp and Rubin.
2) Regarding independent claims 12, Claim 12 recites "... observing, with a biometric sensor, at least one characteristic of an infant within the infant holder, where the at least one characteristic of the infant includes at least a physical characteristic of the infant and the physical characteristic is described by physical data observed by the biometric sensor; and registering, with a controller configured for employing a neural network or state machine, sensor data from the sensor and effecting, with the neural network or state machine, at least a modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder, wherein the controller is configured to, based on biometric sensor input over time, learn infant reactions to the modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder so as to adjust a subsequent application of the modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder based on the learned infant reactions to prior modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder." Claim 12 is patentable over Karp for reasons that are substantially similar to those noted above with respect to claim 1. Claims 2-9 and 13-18 depend from claims 1 and 12, and are patentable at least by reason of their respective dependencies.
3) Claims 10, 11, and 19-22 are patentable under 35 USC 103 over Karp and Wang et al. (CN 106724392, hereinafter "Wang").
4) Claims 10 and 11 depend from claim 1. Karp does not disclose or suggest all of the features of claim 1 for the reasons noted herein. It is submitted that combining Karp with Wang also fails to disclose or suggest all of the features of claim 1. Thus, claims 10 and 11 are patentable over the combination of Karp and Wang at least by reason of their respective dependencies.
5) Claims 19 and 20 depend from claim 12. Karp does not disclose or suggest all of the features of claim 12 for the reasons noted herein. It is submitted that combining Karp with Wang also fails to disclose or suggest all of the features of claim 12. Thus, claims 19 and 20 are patentable over the combination of Karp and Wang at least by reason of their respective dependencies.
6) Claim 21 recites "... the closed loop control system comprising: at least one biometric sensor configured to observe an active characteristic of an infant within the infant holder, where the active characteristic includes at least a physical characteristic that is described by physical data observed by the at least one biometric sensor, and a controller configured to employ a neural network or state machine that is communicably coupled to the at least one biometric sensor and the drive section, the controller being configured to register a change in the active characteristic of the infant sensed by the at least one biometric sensor and generate, through the neural network or state machine, at least a responsive modification in the one or more of an action and a motion of the infant holder based on the change in the active characteristic of the infant, wherein the controller is configured to, based on biometric sensor input over time, learn infant reactions to the responsive modification in the one or more of an action and a motion of the infant holder so as to adjust a subsequent application of the responsive modification in the one or more of an action and a motion of the infant holder based on the learned infant reactions to prior modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder." This combination of features is not disclosed or suggested by the combination of Karp and Wang.
Combining Karp with Wang and Rubin fails to remedy the above noted deficiency of Karp.
While the office action again refers to Para. [0098] of Karp for the notion of detection over a period of time, where detection over time says absolutely nothing with respect to "learning." What is actually disclosed in Para. [0098] of Karp is that in one embodiment, "the biometric sensor monitors the infant and generates a signal indicative of a respiration status or cardiovascular status of the infant, such as to detect when the baby has paused beathing for a predetermined period of time, or has a cardiovascular collapse, such as indicated by a heart rate below a predetermined threshold, or the like." Mere monitoring/detection as disclosed in Para. [0098] of a characteristic is just that, mere monitoring/detecting (not learning) so as to compare the monitored/detected characteristic against some baseline/threshold for that characteristic, where if the threshold is met the control system of Karp generates an output/alarm (see Para. 0098).
Para. [0098] of Karp (and Karp as a whole) is simply silent with respect to the above-noted features of claim 21. Claim 22 depends from claim 21, and is patentable at least by reason of its dependency.
Examiner's Response to Arguments:
• The examiner respectfully disagrees to the Applicant’s Arguments for the following reasons:
1) Regarding independent claims 1 & 12.The examiner relies on the teachings of Claim(s) 1 & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application 2016/0174728 A1 to Karp in view of U.S Patent Application 2017/0340285 A1 to Rubin. The examiner highlights that Rubin teaches a control system wherein infant reactions to the modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder so as to adjust a subsequent application of the modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder based on the learned infant reactions to prior modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder" as recited. Rubin discloses a soothing profile for a child. The profile includes one or more adjustments implemented in a particular sequence in order to soothe a child. Rubin further illustrates that machine learning may be used to modify and/or adapt the profile over time based on effectiveness of the adjustments. “For example, if the child is determined to react better or otherwise be soothed by vibration rather than sounds, the default profile may be modified automatically to rank a vibration adjustment ahead of a sound adjustment when the child is to be soothed and/or the baby device is in sleep mode. Response actions that are determined to be more effective than others (e.g., as determined by length of time before the child is soothed, etc.) may be prioritized, as such actions may reduce a total length of time to sooth the child in the baby device.” (Rubin para [0042]) Rubin’s systems maybe considered learning infants reaction to the modification because Rubin’s system determines effectiveness which may be considered learning. Rubin does not merely detect a status of an infant but rather observes and infants response to an action over time and gauges the length of time before the infant is soothed and further prioritizes actions which soothe the infant the fasted.
The examiner therefore maintains that Karp as modified by Rubin reasonably teaches “wherein the controller is configured to, based on biometric sensor input over time, learn infant reactions to the modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder so as to adjust a subsequent application of the modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder based on the learned infant reactions to prior modification in the one or more of the action and the motion of the infant holder."
The examiner further submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to modify and/or adapt the default profile or another profile over time based at least in part on the effectiveness of certain adjustments to the child at the children's apparatus as taught in Rubin (para [0042]).
2) Regarding independent claims 21 the examiner relies on the teachings of U.S Patent Application 2016/0174728 A1 to Karp as modified by CN 106724392 A to Wang in view of U.S Patent Application 2017/0340285 A1 to Rubin to form the basis of the rejections as presented above. The examiner notes that similar to independent claims 1 & 12 Karp discloses the amended combination present in claim 21.
3) Claim(s) 2—9, 11—18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application 2016/0174728 A1 to Karp in view of U.S Patent Application 2017/0340285 A1 to Rubin as presented above.
4) Claim(s) 10, 11, 19—22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application 2016/0174728 A1 to Karp in view of CN 106724392 A to Wang in view of U.S Patent Application 2017/0340285 A1 to Rubin as presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S Patent Application 2014/0339867 directed to an infant support apparatus provided with a PID controller to impart motion on the system
U.S Patent Application 2016/0302586 A1 directed to directed to an infant support apparatus provided with a drives system to impart motion on the device in having multiple degrees of free and including vibration motors.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Deborah T Gedeon whose telephone number is (571)272-8863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30am to 4:30pm 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, Justin Mikowski can be reached on 571-272-8525. 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.
/D.T.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3673 09/21/2026
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights