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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 15 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 15 December has been entered. Claim(s) 1- remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 previously set forth in the Office Action mailed 18 March 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US
Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan
2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 U.S.C. 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong One), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then in the second part of Step 2A (Prong Two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination provide "inventive concept" that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-8, 10-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, in this case an abstract idea, without significantly more. The claim recite(s) "identify, from signals of the sensor arrangement, the infant orientation information in respect of an infant during the bottle feeding, wherein the infant orientation information comprises: an angle of tilt of a body axis of the infant about a vertical axis, or an angle of tilt of the body axis of the infant about a horizontal axis, or an angle of tilt of the body axis of the infant about a vertical axis and an angle of tilt of the body axis of the infant about a horizontal axis". This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1 satisfies Step 1, namely the claim is directed to one of the four statutory classes, machine. Following Step 2A Prong one, any judicial exceptions are identified in the claims. In claim 1, the limitations "identify, from signals of the sensor arrangement, the infant orientation information in respect of an infant during the bottle feeding, wherein the infant orientation information comprises: an angle of tilt of a body axis of the infant about a vertical axis, or an angle of tilt of the body axis of the infant about a horizontal axis, or an angle of tilt of the body axis of the infant about a vertical axis and an angle of tilt of the body axis of the infant about a horizontal axis" are abstract ideas as they are directed to a mental process or mathematical process as identification may be performed mentally or using basic mathematical transformations or knowledge while visually observing data which is output from a sensor. With the identification of an abstract idea, the next phase is to proceed Step 2A, Prong Two, wherewith additional elements and taken as a whole, evaluation occurs of whether the identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim does not recite any additional elements or evidence that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Besides the abstract idea, the claim recites the additional elements “a sensor arrangement for obtaining bottle orientation information and movement information in respect of a feeding bottle during the bottle feeding; and a processor” and “an output interface for providing output information indicating an orientation of the infant and/or guidance for positioning the infant dependent on the infant orientation information”.
However, these components may be seen as the use of well-understood, routine, or conventional elements to perform a non-mental process in order to gather data for the mental process step, much like the example given in MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)(c), such that these limitations are extra-solution activity and thus do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The “obtaining” information step performed by the sensor arrangement is merely utilized to provide data to be used in the mental process step of “identifying”, which may be considered mere data gathering in line with the examples given in MPEP 2106.05(g) such as “performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation” of In re Grams which was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. The “identifying” step of the mental process leads to the limitation of “providing output” such that the end result of use of the system may be any generic output that can be construed as indicating an angle of tilt of a body axis. As this output is not defined as requiring any further action, such as a form of prophylaxis or treatment or an improvement to a computer or other technology, the claim limitations constitute mere gathering of data, in this case the obtaining of sensor arrangement data, and mere data output, in this case some generic output such that the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding “a processor”, the limitation amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer, which does not render an abstract idea eligible. The steps performed by the processor are, as claimed, capable of being performed in the human mind similar to the examples given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)-(C), wherein it is described that “a claim to ‘collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis’ where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind” recites a mental process and that claims which merely use a computer as a tool to perform a mental process are not eligible when “there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper” such as “mental processes of parsing and comparing data” when the steps are recited at a high level of generality and a computer is used merely as a tool to perform the processes.
Furthermore, while the abstract idea itself may be an improvement over the existing technology, per Genetic Technologies Limited v. Merial LLC (Fed Cir., 2016) the inventive concept of step 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis cannot be supplied by the abstract idea. The inventive concept necessary at step two of the Mayo/Alice analysis cannot be furnished by the unpatentable abstract idea itself. That is, under the Mayo/Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered abstract idea cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility; instead, the application must provide something inventive, beyond mere “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; see also Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2117; Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1379. For this reason, the abstract limitations of “identify, from signals of the sensor arrangement, the infant orientation information in respect of an infant during the bottle feeding” may not be seen as an improvement which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, the next step is Step 2B, evaluating whether the additional elements provide "inventive concept" that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim elements are recited with a high level of generality (as written, each claimed step of the process may be performed by a person in an undefined manner) that there are no meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, the next step is Step 2B, evaluating whether the additional elements provide "inventive concept" that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation of “a sensor arrangement”, “a processor”, and “an output interface” constitutes extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which does not amount to an inventive concept when the activity is well-understood, routine, or conventional, and are thus not indicative of integration into a practical application. The claim limitation constitutes adding a generic sensor, processor, and display interface, which Shoham (US 20190096224 A1) describes as both well-understood, routine, or conventional in its description of a “tilting sensor means as known in the art such as but not limited to accelerometers, gravitational sensors and gyroscopes” (Paragraph 0034) as well as embodiments of a printed circuit board (Paragraph 0033-0034). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the present elements amount to no more than mere indications to apply the exception.
In Summary, Claim 1 recites abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and does not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more. As such, taken as a whole, the claim and is ineligible under the 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claims 2-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, in this case an abstract idea, without significantly more. As each of these claims depends from claim 1, which was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 in paragraph 5 of this action, these claims must be evaluated on whether they sufficiently add to the practical application of claim 1, or comprise significantly more than the limitations of claim 1.
Besides the abstract idea of claim 1, claims 2-4 recite further limitations of the sensor arrangement and output interface which are additionally well-understood, routine, or conventional and thus not indicative of integration into a practical application; claims 5-8 and 10-11 recite further mental process steps performed by the processor which are abstract ideas and similarly cannot provide the inventive concept as described above; claim 12 recites an additional element of a sleeve for mounting around a feeding bottle, which may be seen as well-understood, routine, or conventional according to Shoham (see paragraph 0032-- suitable fasteners known in the prior art) and thus not indicative of integration into a practical application.
The claim element of claim 1 of a monitoring system is recited with a high level of generality (as written, the actions of the processor may be carried out by a person alone or with a generic computer in any undefined manner). This limitation provides no practical application, nor does it provide meaningful limitations to the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 December 2025 with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In particular, the applicant argues that the claim limitations of the independent claims cannot be practically performed in the human mind, specifically that the human mind is not equipped to “identify, from signals of the sensor arrangement, the infant orientation information in respect of the infant during a bottle feeding”.
While applicant is correct that the claims incorporate a three-axis accelerometer and/or gyroscope, there is no reason that the human mind would not be equipped to identify the infant orientation information based on the data generated by such a sensor arrangement, which is itself well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art and serves merely to generate data for the abstract idea.
Furthermore, the example provided by the applicant of SRI Int’l, Inc. v Cisco Systems, Inc. is not analogous to the instant claims and the applicant has provided no other reason why the limitation of claim 1 identified as abstract may not be performed in the human mind. In the described example, a human mind is seen to not be equipped to “detect suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets” as such tasks are necessarily rooted in computer technology and are more complex than merely reciting performance of a known mental process in a generic computer environment. The instant claims, on the other hand, are instead analogous to the example of Electric Power Group v Alstom, S.A. as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) which claimed "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind.
In the case of the instant claims, the limitation of “identify, from signals of the sensor arrangement, the infant orientation information in respect of an infant during the bottle feeding” is recited with a high level of generality that they can be practically performed in the human mind. The claim requires no particular steps of analysis or other constraints which would preclude it from being performed in the human mind. For instance, the claim limitation may be performed in the human mind by collecting information via generic sensors and analyzing components of this sensor data to determine whether an orientation is more upright or horizontal based on a largest axis component of the sensor data which may clearly be performed in the human mind.
The applicant additionally argues that the claim language integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, citing the amended limitation of “providing output information indicating an orientation of the infant and/or guidance for positioning the infant dependent on the infant orientation information as feedback to a user” as a practical application and further arguing that the claim reflects an improvement to the technical field of automated monitoring of infants.
However, as noted above, the output of information as feedback is similar to the examples of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)-(C), wherein it is described that “a claim to ‘collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis’ where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind” recites a mental process and that claims which merely use a computer as a tool to perform a mental process are not eligible. As the output/feedback is not defined as requiring any further action, such as a form of prophylaxis or treatment or an improvement to a computer or other technology, this claim limitation constitutes mere data output, in this case some generic output such that the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into any practical application.
Furthermore, while applicant argues that the abstract idea identified above is itself an improvement over the existing technology or technical field and that the claim as a whole is directed to a practical application and significantly more than the abstract idea, per Genetic Technologies Limited v. Merial LLC (Fed Cir., 2016) the inventive concept of step 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis cannot be supplied by the abstract idea. The inventive concept necessary at step two of the Mayo/Alice analysis cannot be furnished by the unpatentable abstract idea itself. That is, under the Mayo/Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered abstract idea cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility; instead, the application must provide something inventive, beyond mere “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; see also Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2117; Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1379. For this reason, the abstract limitations of “identify, from signals of the sensor arrangement, the infant orientation information in respect of an infant during the bottle feeding…” may not be seen as an improvement which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant's arguments filed 15 December 2025 with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is withdrawn.
The applicant argues that each of Shahom, Chen, and Lu fails to disclose or suggest “determining infant orientation information” and that each of these cited references is concerned only with a position of a bottle rather than a position of the infant. In particular, the applicant argues that Shahom does not show or suggest determining the position of the infant during feeding. In addition, the applicant argues that the “posture” of Chen (see “the inclination state of the bottle and movement characteristic analysis feeding posture is correct”) is different from “the infant orientation information in respect of an infant during the bottle feeding” of the claim. The applicant further argues that Lu is concerned with the position of the bottle rather than the position of the infant.
While Shoham (US 20190096224 A1—previously cited) teaches a monitoring system including a sensor arrangement for obtaining bottle orientation information which can be used to determine if a feeding posture is correct, Shoham fails to disclose or fairly suggest “wherein the infant orientation information comprises: an angle of tilt of a body axis of the infant about a vertical axis, or an angle of tilt of the body axis of the infant about a horizontal axis, or an angle of tilt of the body axis of the infant about a vertical axis and an angle of tilt of the body axis of the infant about a horizontal axis”. While Shoham discloses determining the axes of the bottle itself, the applicant’s arguments in page 11 of the remarks dated 15 December 2025 are persuasive in demonstrating that this information is not the same as the body axis of the infant and is not sufficient to disclose the particular angles of tilt of a body axis of the infant.
Chen (CN110339067A—previously cited) and Lu (CN 106205070 A—previously cited) are additionally silent as to an angle of tilt of a body axis of the infant about a vertical axis, or an angle of tilt of the body axis of the infant about a horizontal axis, or an angle of tilt of the body axis of the infant about a vertical axis and an angle of tilt of the body axis of the infant about a horizontal axis.
Claims 7-8 and 11 are additionally not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as the prior art of the record (Shoham (US 20190096224 A1), Chen (CN110339067A), Lu (CN 106205070 A)), fail to disclose or fairly suggest “wherein the processor is adapted to identify components of movement corresponding to longitudinal movement parallel to the body axis of the infant caused by jaw movement and thereby to determine an orientation of the body axis of the infant” or “wherein the processor is adapted to identify the offset by using a regression model which models the way that bottle movements vary during the bottlefeeding in dependence on the offset angle”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-7912. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/ANNA ROBERTS/Examiner, Art Unit 3791