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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed 1/14/2026 require additional citations in view of the prior art of record, which may be considered new grounds for rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Piccirillo (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0038887).
The Piccirillo reference teaches a sensor clip (Figs. 11B and 12), including a housing (Fig. 4, elements 104, 132, 120, 118), comprising a microphone for monitoring an infant (¶[0056]), comprising a processor (Fig. 4, microphone element 115, ¶[0047] including a sensor configured to sense movement or sound from the baby) and sensor within the housing (Fig. 3, control panel element 124, ¶[0056] controller and memory may be integrated as part of the controller and memory of the control panel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the sensor of Nakar to include a sensor clip housing, as taught by Piccirillo, because it facilitates placement of the device (Piccirillo, Abstract) and improves portability (¶[0005], ¶[0064]).
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant's arguments filed 1/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pp. 6-7 of the Remarks dated 1/14/2026, Applicant argues that claims 4 and 14 as not being directed to an abstract idea. This is not found persuasive by the Examiner as Applicant has not argued against any of the reasoning in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references or renders them patent eligible.
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant's arguments are solely directed to whether the Nakar reference alone teaches a sensor clip device including a housing, and comprising a processor and sensor within the housing. As noted above, this limitation is taught in combination with Piccirillo.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 of the claim includes a typographical error “senor” instead of “sensor”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 4-8 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
This analysis in view of 35 U.S.C. § 101 is based on MPEP § 2106, please see
this section of the MPEP for additional information.
First, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim as a whole is
established:
Claims 4 and 14 are directed to a systems including a sensor clip, processor, sensor, mobile device, (server in claim 14) where the transmits data to a mobile device, which identifies child suckling and child swallowing sounds in a frequency range.
Claims 5-8 and 15-18 include additional algorithmic steps and signal processing for estimating the volume of milk consumed by the child.
Step 1 of the analysis is the question: “Is the claim to a process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter?” and the answer is determined to be yes, as the
claims as a whole are directed to a manufacture and a method.
For Step 2, the preliminary question is whether the eligibility of the claim is self-
evident. The answer is determined to be no, as the claim is not immediately self-evident
as statutory.
Step 2A Prong One: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea?
A claim is directed to a judicial exception when a law of nature, a natural
phenomenon, or an abstract idea is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim.
While the terms “set forth” and “describe” are thus both equated with “recite”, their
different language is intended to indicate that there are different ways in which an
exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr set forth a
mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, the claims in Mayo set forth
laws of nature in the wherein clause, meaning that the claims in those cases contained
discrete claim language that was identifiable as a judicial exception. The claims in Alice
Corp., however, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words “intermediated” or “settlement.”
Claim 4 (and equivalently in claim 14) recites the following limitations:
“analyzes a pre-determined frequency range of the sensor data and identifies portions of the sensor data as child suckling and child swallowing sounds in the pre-determined frequency range of the received sensor data”.
The above identified elements comprise an explicit claim recitation of an abstract idea. Therefore, rather than merely involve a judicial exception, the claims are directed to the identified judicial exception.
This claim language is identified as an abstract idea, because in MPEP §
2106.04(a)(2) III B. this language is similar to concepts relating to organizing or
analyzing information in a way that can be performed mentally or are analogous to
human mental work. For example, Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d
1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Synopsys, the patentee claimed methods
of logic circuit design, comprising converting a functional description of a level sensitive
latch into a hardware component description of the latch. 839 F.3d at 1140; 120 USPQ2d at 1475. Although the patentee argued that the claims were intended to be
used in conjunction with computer-based design tools, the claims did not include any
limitations requiring computer implementation of the methods and thus do not involve
the use of a computer in any way. 839 F.3d at 1145; 120 USPQ2d at 1478-79. The
court therefore concluded that the claims “read on an individual performing the claimed
steps mentally or with pencil and paper,” and were directed to a mental process of
“translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component
description of the logic circuit.” 839 F.3d at 1149-50; 120 USPQ2d at 1482-83.
In the instant case, the identified abstract idea is similar to Synopsys because the
language reads on an individual performing the identification of suckling and swallowing sounds mentally or with a pencil and paper. They do not require any computer implementation and therefore are directed to a mental process of determining areas of a signal that comprise child suckling and child swallowing sounds through observation of sensor signal and analytical decision-making.
Yes. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
First, the additional elements are identified.
In claims 4-8: sensor clip, processor, microphone, mobile device, wireless transmission
In claims 14-18: sensor clip, processor, microphone, mobile device, wireless transmission, server
The sensor clip, comprising processor and microphone, is only nominally tied to the abstract idea and the data acquisition is all performed as pre-solution activity to the abstract idea claimed. Therefore the claimed sensor amounts to mere data gathering and considered an insignificant extra-solution activity.
The processor, mobile device, wireless transmission and server appear together to comprise an addition of a general purpose computer post-hoc to an abstract idea and is therefore not considered to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. The server is performing only generic computer functions and not, for example, performing any functions particular to serving data.
The remaining features in the claims are directed to further specifying the intended use but do not impose further limits to the recited system because they are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements were identified in the above section under Step 2A Prong Two.
The sensor clip, comprising processor and microphone, is only nominally tied to the abstract idea and the data acquisition is all performed as pre-solution activity to the abstract idea claimed. Therefore the claimed sensor amounts to mere data gathering and considered an insignificant extra-solution activity.
The processor, mobile device, wireless transmission and server appear together to comprise an addition of a general purpose computer post-hoc to an abstract idea and is therefore not considered to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. The server is performing only generic computer functions and not, for example, performing any functions particular to serving data.
The remaining features in the claims are directed to further specifying the intended use but do not impose further limits to the recited system because they are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakar et al. (WO 2015/040610) hereinafter referred to as Nakar; in view of Piccirillo (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0038887) hereinafter referred to as Piccirillo.
Regarding claim 1, Nakar teaches a system, comprising:
a sensor device (Fig. 4, element 400) including a processor and having at least one sensor (Fig. 3, sensor 302 and processor 310); and
a mobile device (Fig. 5, element 500, p. 20, lines 6-8),
wherein the mobile device wirelessly receives sensor data from the at least one sensor (p. 21, lines 25-30, line 32).
Nakar does not teach that the sensor device is a sensor clip with a housing comprising a processor and sensor within the housing.
Attention is brought to the Piccirillo reference, which teaches a sensor clip (Figs. 11B and 12), including a housing (Fig. 4, elements 104, 132, 120, 118), comprising a microphone for monitoring an infant (¶[0056]), comprising a processor (Fig. 4, microphone element 115, ¶[0047] including a sensor configured to sense movement or sound from the baby) and sensor within the housing (Fig. 3, control panel element 124, ¶[0056] controller and memory may be integrated as part of the controller and memory of the control panel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the sensor of Nakar to include a sensor clip housing, as taught by Piccirillo, because it facilitates placement of the device (Piccirillo, Abstract) and improves portability (¶[0005], ¶[0064]).
Regarding claim 2, Nakar as modified teaches the system of claim 1.
Nakar further teaches wherein the at least one sensor is a microphone (Fig. 3, sensor 302 is a microphone, p. 16, lines 25-30).
Regarding claim 3, Nakar as modified teaches the system of claim 2.
Nakar further teaches wherein the processor receives sensor data from the microphone and transmits the received sensor data to the mobile device (Fig. 3, sensor 302 and processor 310; p. 21, lines 25-30, line 32).
Regarding claim 4, Nakar as modified teaches the system of claim 3.
Nakar further teaches wherein the mobile device analyzes a pre-determined frequency range of the sensor data (p. 13, lines 21-27; p. 11, lines 16-19) and identifies portions of the sensor data as child suckling and child swallowing sounds (p. 1, lines 5-7, Fig. 1) in the pre-determined frequency range (p. 13, lines 21-27; p. 11, lines 16-19).
Regarding claim 5, Nakar as modified teaches the system of claim 4.
Nakar further teaches wherein the pre-determined frequency range is between 800hz and 1300hz (p. 13, lines 21-27; p. 11, lines 16-19).
Regarding claim 6, Nakar as modified teaches the system of claim 5.
Nakar further teaches wherein the mobile device identifies a number of child suckling and swallowing sounds over a predetermined amount of time (p. 2, lines 16-20 number of detected infant swallowing events per feeding session; p. 15, lines 24-32 and p. 16, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 7, Nakar as modified teaches the system of claim 6.
Nakar further teaches wherein the mobile device calculates a volume of milk ingested by multiplying a constant per-swallow volume by a number of identified suckling and swallowing sounds during the predetermined time (p. 18, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 8, Nakar as modified teaches the system of claim 7.
Nakar further teaches wherein the mobile device displays one or more of a real time volume of swallowed milk and a volume of swallowed milk per feeding session (p. 20, lines 27-30).
Regarding claim 9, Nakar as modified teaches the system of claim 1.
Nakar further teaches wherein the at least one sensor includes an accelerometer and a microphone (Fig. 3, sensor 302 is a microphone, p. 16, lines 25-30).
Regarding claim 10, Nakar teaches a system, comprising:
a sensor device (Fig. 4, element 400) including a processor and having at least one sensor (Fig. 3, sensor 302 and processor 310); and
a mobile device (Fig. 5, element 500, p. 20, lines 6-8),
a server (p. 22, lines 1),
wherein the mobile device wirelessly receives sensor data from the at least one sensor (p. 21, lines 25-30, line 32), and the server wirelessly receives sensor data from the mobile device (p. 21, lines 31-32 and p. 22, lines 1-3).
Nakar does not teach that the sensor device is a sensor clip with a housing comprising a processor and sensor within the housing.
Attention is brought to the Piccirillo reference, which teaches a sensor clip (Figs. 11B and 12), including a housing (Fig. 4, elements 104, 132, 120, 118), comprising a microphone for monitoring an infant (¶[0056]), comprising a processor (Fig. 4, microphone element 115, ¶[0047] including a sensor configured to sense movement or sound from the baby) and sensor within the housing (Fig. 3, control panel element 124, ¶[0056] controller and memory may be integrated as part of the controller and memory of the control panel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the sensor of Nakar to include a sensor clip housing, as taught by Piccirillo, because it facilitates placement of the device (Piccirillo, Abstract) and improves portability (¶[0005], ¶[0064]).
Regarding claims 12-19, the claims are directed to substantially the same subject matter as claims 2-9 and are rejected under substantially the same sections of Nakar and Piccirillo.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakar and Piccirillo as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Chung et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0106020) hereinafter referred to as Chung.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Nakar as modified teaches the system of claim 2/19.
Nakar further teaches the mobile device processing data from the sensor for detection of a suckle or swallowing sound (Fig. 1, Fig. 6)
Nakar as modified does not teach comparing accelerometer data with microphone data to validate detection of a suckle or swallowing sound.
Attention is brought to the Chung reference, which teaches comparing accelerometer data with microphone data to validate detection of a sound of interest (¶[0107])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the swallow event detection of Nakar as modified to include mutual validation between an accelerometer and microphone, as taught by Chung, for “increased accuracy” (Chung ¶[0107]).
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 AMANDA L STEINBERG whose telephone number is (303)297-4783. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-4.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/AMANDA L STEINBERG/Examiner, Art Unit 3792