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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, and 14-18 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 5, 8, and 12 have been amended. Claims 4, 11, and 13 have been cancelled. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 8/19/2025.
Drawings
The drawing objections detailed in the Non-Final Rejection filed on 2/20/2025 have been withdrawn in light of the “Amendment/Remarks” and replacement drawings filed on 8/19/2025.
Claim Objections
The claim objections detailed in the Non-Final Rejection filed on 2/20/2025 have been withdrawn in light of the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 8/19/2025.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (WO 2009144338 A1) in view of Juchniewicz (TW 202119979 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Garcia discloses a self-rocking baby crib, comprising: a plurality of electrical components having a motor (26 motor), a plurality of baby sensors (62 temperature sensor, 68 brightness sensor, 61 microphone), a power source (9 power supply), and a control knob (43 button); a cart (18 base-supporting frame) and a base (19 mattress base), the base sits on a top shelve of the cart (See Fig. 5, base 19 sits on top of base supporting frame 18); and a rocking cradle (See Fig. 1, cradle is shown including side walls and base).
PNG
media_image1.png
378
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
342
396
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Garcia fails to explicitly disclose a baby basket, the rocking cradle is disposed on top of the base and the baby basket disposed inside the rocking cradle and extend above the top of the rocking cradle; wherein the baby sensors detect an infant’s or baby’s movements to adjust the rocking motion; wherein the control knob adjusts rocking motion speed and rocking motion duration; and wherein the control knob rotated to increase or decrease the rocking motion of the rocking cradle and the baby basket.
However, Juchniewicz teaches a baby basket (6 crib), the rocking cradle (2) is disposed on top of the base (See Fig. 1, infant support 2 is disposed on top of base 3) and the baby basket disposed inside the rocking cradle (See Fig. 1, crib 6 disposed inside of infant support 2) and extend above the top of the rocking cradle (See Fig. 1, top edge 22 of crib 6 extends above top of infant support 2); wherein the baby sensors detect an infant’s or baby’s movements (“364 motion sensor is used by controller 51 to measure of detect the motion of the baby in crib 6”; [0101]) to adjust rocking motion (“controller 51 is configured to send one or more commands to the driving part based on the sensor data of at least one characteristic sensed by the peripheral devices 360, 361 to 365 and the sensors 330, 331 to start or drive in a predetermined order Motor 62, 66”; [0104]); wherein the control knob (54) adjusts rocking motion speed and rocking motion duration (“control panel 52 for viewing and controlling the speed and action of the drive mechanism 60, one or more control switches or knobs 54 for causing actuation of the drive mechanism 60”; [0073]); and wherein the control knob (54) rotated to increase or decrease the rocking motion of the rocking cradle and the baby basket (“control panel 52 for viewing and controlling the speed and action of the drive mechanism 60, one or more control switches or knobs 54 for causing actuation of the drive mechanism 60”; [0073]).
PNG
media_image3.png
846
546
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garcia by adding the baby basket disposed inside of the rocking cradle, adding the sensors to adjust the rocking motion according to the infant’s movements, and adding the control knob to adjust the rocking motion speed and duration all as taught by Juchniewicz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “soothe or calm the baby 390 in the crib 6”; (Juchniewicz, [0071]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 2, Garcia, as modified, teaches the self-rocking baby crib, according to Claim 1, wherein the motor (9) is battery-powered (“power system can be located, that is, the batteries will be rechargeable”; [Page 7, Lines 26-27]).
Regarding Claim 6, Garcia, as modified, teaches the self-rocking baby crib, according to Claim 1, wherein the power source is a battery (“power system can be located, that is, the batteries will be rechargeable”; [Page 7, Lines 26-27]).
Regarding Claim 8, Garcia, as modified, teaches the self-rocking baby crib, according to Claim 6, wherein the battery (9) is (“cradle is complemented with a lower part or structure that allows the assembly of individual drawers to store various accessories, in one of which the power system can be located”; [Page 7, Lines 25-27], see Claim objection for interpretation of claim).
Regarding Claim 10, Garcia, as modified, teaches the self-rocking baby crib, according to Claim 1, wherein the power source includes a power knob (“action on the button (91) entails the activation / deactivation of the motor (39) through which the cradle is rocked, while using the button (92) the cradle's electrical system is activated / deactivated”; [Page 17, Lines 18-20], power knob 127 of applicants claimed invention resembles an on/off button) and a voltage digital display to display volage to the self-rocking baby crib (“showing those controls on the console screen, as well as the status of the power batteries”; [Page 6, Lines 20-24])
Claims 3, 7, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (WO 2009144338 A1) in view of Juchniewicz (TW 202119979 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McMahan (US 5806113 A9).
Regarding Claim 3, Garcia, as modified, teaches the self-rocking baby crib, according to Claim 1.
Garcia in view of Juchniewicz fails to explicitly teach wherein the motor is hard-wired.
However, McMahan teaches wherein the motor is hard-wired (“motor be adapted to utilize DC power”; [Col. 4, Line 50], See Fig. 2, wire coming from motor assembly is shown).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garcia in view of Juchniewicz by substituting the battery powered motor for the hard-wired motor taught by McMahan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution as all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 7, Garcia, as modified, teaches the self-rocking baby crib, according to Claim 6.
Garcia in view of Juchniewicz fails to explicitly teach wherein the battery includes a voltage regulator to stabilize or regulate voltage to the self-rocking baby crib.
However, McMahan further teaches the self-rocking baby crib, according to Claim 6, wherein the battery includes a voltage regulator to stabilize or regulate voltage to the self-rocking baby crib (“voltage controlled switches 70 are connected between the tape player and the motor and the respective multivibrators for ensuring that such components receive appropriate amount of power to operate”; [Col. 5, Lines 42-45]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garcia in view of Juchniewicz by adding the voltage regulator taught by McMahan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this addition for “ensuring that such components receive appropriate amount of power to operate”; (McMahan, [Col. 5, Lines 43-45]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 9, Garcia, as modified, teaches the self-rocking baby crib, according to Claim 1.
Garcia in view of Juchniewicz fails to explicitly teach wherein the power source is an electrical outlet.
However, McMahan teaches wherein the power source is an electrical outlet (“motor be adapted to utilize DC power”; [Col. 4, Line 50], See Fig. 2, wire consisting of a plug for an electrical outlet coming from motor assembly is shown).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garcia in view of Juchniewicz by substituting the battery power source for the electrical outlet power source taught by McMahan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution as all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 15, Garcia, as modified, teaches the self-rocking baby crib, according to Claim 1, wherein the cart (18 base-supporting frame) includes a plurality of wheels (1 rotating wheels).
Garcia fails to explicitly teach a middle shelf, a top shelf.
However, Juchniewicz teaches a middle shelf (18 storage basket), a top shelf (See Fig. 5, top of base supporting frame 18 acts as a top shelf supporting base 19 similar to how applicant’s claimed invention has base 150 sitting on top shelf 146).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garcia by adding the shelves as taught by Juchniewicz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “store baby or children’s products”; (Juchniewicz). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Garcia in view of Juchniewicz fails to explicitly teach an electrical power wire and plug.
However, McMahan further teaches an electrical power wire and plug (See Fig. 2, wire consisting of a plug for an electrical outlet coming from motor assembly is shown).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garcia in view of Juchniewicz by substituting the battery power source for the electrical power wire and plug taught by McMahan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution as all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (WO 2009144338 A1) in view of Juchniewicz (TW 202119979 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Karp (WO 2013059625 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Garcia, as modified, teaches the self-rocking baby crib, according to Claim [[4]] 1.
Garcia in view of Juchniewicz fails to explicitly teach wherein the baby sensors detect if the infant or baby is asleep to automatically reduce or stop the rocking motion.
Karp further teaches the self-rocking baby crib, according to Claim 4, wherein the baby sensors (50 motion sensing device) detect if the infant or baby is asleep to automatically reduce or stop the rocking motion (“once the baby was calmed, the device’s motion would slow, in a stepwise fashion”; [0064].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garcia in view of Juchniewicz by adding the sensors that reduce or stop the rocking motion taught by Kelp. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “help keep the calming reflex turned on and sustain the baby in a calm state and/or promote sleep”; (Karp, [Page 18, Lines 5-6]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (WO 2009144338 A1) in view of Juchniewicz (TW 202119979 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dengrove (US 2668302 A).
Regarding Claim 12, Garcia, as modified, teaches the self-rocking baby crib, according to Claim 1.
Garcia in view of Juchniewicz fails to explicitly teach wherein the control knob is disposed on a side of the battery.
However, Dengrove further teaches the self-rocking baby crib, according to Claim 1, wherein the control knob (38 knob) disposed on a side of the battery (27 container, sized to receive a battery, See Fig. 1, knob 38 is disposed on container 27).
PNG
media_image4.png
106
182
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garcia In view of Juchniewicz by placing the control knob on the battery such as taught by Dengrove. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to try this type of modification. All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (WO 2009144338 A1) in view of Juchniewicz (TW 202119979 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Qian (US 20100227511 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Garcia, as modified, teaches the self-rocking baby crib, according to Claim 1.
Garcia in view of Juchniewicz fails to explicitly teach a wire coupling to allow for smooth electrical current flow, insulation and protection of wires, and wire organization.
However, Qian further teaches the self-rocking baby crib, according to Claim 1, further comprising a wire coupling (100 electrical connector) to allow for smooth electrical current flow, insulation and protection of wires, and wire organization (“plurality of conductive wires 50 terminated to the terminals and a cover 40 detachably on the insulative housing for enclosing the terminals 30 and conductive wires 50”; [0018]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garcia and Juchniewicz by adding the wire coupling taught by Qian. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “include an insulative housing having a main bod and a supporting board”; (Qian, [0006]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (WO 2009144338 A1) in view of Juchniewicz (TW 202119979 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gabriel (US 4670923 A).
Regarding Claim 16, Garcia, as modified, teaches the self-rocking baby crib, according to Claim 1.
Garcia in view of Juchniewicz fails to explicitly teach wherein the rocking cradle is made of a material selected from the group consisting of plastic, metal, or ceramic.
However, Gabriel further teaches the rocking cradle is made of a material selected from the group consisting of plastic, metal, or ceramic (“fluid impervious transparent plastic material 22”; [Col. 1, Lines 64-65]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garcia in view of Juchniewicz by adding the plastic material taught by Gabriel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the “baby 30 within the crib can be safely observed at all times through the transparent plastic material”; (Gabriel, [Col. 2, Lines 7-9]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 17, Garcia, as modified, teaches the self-rocking baby crib, according to Claim 1.
Garcia in view of Juchniewicz fails to explicitly teach wherein the baby basket is made of transparent plastic material.
However, Gabriel teaches the self-rocking baby crib, according to Claim 1, wherein the baby basket is made of transparent plastic (“fluid impervious transparent plastic material 22”; [Col. 1, Lines 64-65]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garcia in view of Juchniewicz by adding the transparent plastic material taught by Gabriel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the “baby 30 within the crib can be safely observed at all times through the transparent plastic material”; (Gabriel, [Col. 2, Lines 7-9]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (WO 2009144338 A1) in view of Juchniewicz (TW 202119979 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Frazier (US 5446934 A).
Regarding Claim 18, Garcia, as modified, teaches the self-rocking baby crib, according to Claim 1.
Garcia in view of Juchniewicz fails to explicitly teach wherein the baby basket is made of transparent glass.
However, Frazier further teaches the self-rocking baby crib, according to Claim 1, wherein the baby basket is made of transparent glass (“cover 16 includes a plurality of panels of transparent material, such as glass”; [Col. 4, Lines 19-20]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Garcia in view of Juchniewicz by adding the transparent glass material taught by Frazier. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “provide optimum conditions of heat, air, sound, and light”; (Frazier, [Col. 2, Lines 26-27]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments:
Garcia does not teach the claimed elements of a cart and a base sitting on a top shelf of the cart as recited. Garcia discloses a crib (6) with a mattress frame (19) that moves up/down and rocks side-to-side. More specifically, the structure in Garcia is a single integrated crib. Additionally, the claimed rocking cradle disposed on the base (18) and the baby basket disposed inside and extending above the rocking cradle is not shown in Garcia or Juchniewicz. These limitations define a nested configuration (basket in cradle on base on cart), which is structurally and functionally distinct from the present invention.
Garcia does not teach the claimed elements of wherein the baby sensors detect an infant's or baby's movements to adjust rocking motion. Garcia discloses a microphone (61) to detect crying (Para. [0018]) but does not disclose baby motion detection to adjust rocking. Juchniewicz (Paras. [0023] and [0055]) discusses sensors (362), (363), (364), and (365) in an infant monitoring context but does not provide for dynamic adjustment of rocking motion in response to baby movement, which is a non-obvious improvement directed to a specific technical problem of adaptive soothing.
Juchniewicz does not teach the claimed element of wherein the control knob adjusts rocking motion speed and rocking motion duration and wherein the control knob is rotated to increase or decrease the rocking motion of the rocking cradle and the baby basket. Juchniewicz uses buttons or remote controls (50),(52), not a manual control knob with rotational input to modulate rocking speed and duration. This mechanical interface is not only structurally distinct but also functionally novel, especially considering the benefit to caregivers seeking tactile feedback.
Examiner’s Response:
In response to the applicant’s argument that Garcia or Juchniewicz fail to teach limitations regarding the structure of the baby crib of Claim 1, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion and the claim rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that the primary reference Garcia fails to teach a cart and a base sitting on a top shelf. However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, when looking at Figure 1 and 2 of Garcia, a mattress base is residing on top of a supporting frame of a cart interpreted as the top shelf.
Applicant argues that Garcia in view of Juchniewicz fails to teach the baby basket disposed inside and extending above the rocking cradle. However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, when looking at Figure 1 of Juchniewicz, the crib is disposed within the support 2 and extends a distance above the support.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that Garcia fails to teach baby sensors used to adjust the motion and the sensors of Juchniewicz fail to provide for dynamic adjustment, leading to a non-obvious improvement, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion and the claim rejection is maintained. Juchniewicz does teach a motion sensor (364) which in communication with a controller (51) is able to control the motors of the device and adjust the rocking mechanism of the crib in response to the motion of the baby, See Para. [0101, 0104]. Further, this modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as one would have been motivated to “soothe or calm the baby 390 in the crib 6”, See Para. [0071] of Juchniewicz.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that Juchniewicz fails to teach the element of a control knob for operating the crib motion, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion and the claim rejection is maintained. Juchniewicz does teach a control knob (54) used to control the motion of the crib (“one or more control switches or knobs 54 for causing actuation of the drive mechanism 60”; [0073]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/GEORGE SAMUEL GINES/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673