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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1 before “output action” the word “first” should be inserted for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1 before “output action” the word “first” should be inserted for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipoma (2015/0105608), Hong (2013/0317815) and Goldstein (WO2010/033533A2). Lipoma discloses a baby support apparatus with a sleeping surface in the form of a crib (204) configured as a system (paragraph 52) that includes a computer processor (214) that executes computer-executable instructions (paragraphs 43-44), a microphone (220) and an output device (208) configured to generate an output action in the form of light-emitting diodes with configurable intensities or patterns (paragraphs 5 and 91). The processor is configured to perform a method of receiving by the microphone (220) at least first and second sound data related to an audio signal generated by a baby positioned in the support apparatus and processing the data to determine a first baby status corresponding to a degree of distress or irritation based on the first sound data and output a first output action with a first intensity and pattern for a predetermined time or determine a second baby status such as a non-irritated baby status based on the second sound data and output a second output action with a second intensity and pattern for a predetermined time (paragraphs 9, 12, 19-21, 40, 45, 69, 89-92, 110, 114, 117-118). Lipoma discloses the basic inventive concept, with the exception of processing the sound data by determining power spectral density estimates, comparing the estimates to threshold values in a table that associates the values with respective baby statuses and determine the baby status of the first sound data based on the table. Hong discloses a method of processing sound data corresponding to a baby received at a microphone by determining spectral data determined using Fourier transform analysis comparing the data to threshold values in a table associating the threshold values with a baby status corresponding to a degree of distress and determining a baby status from the table to correlate with an output response (Fig. 1, paragraphs 25-35). Since both Lipoma and Hong disclose processing sound from a microphone to determine a status of a baby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use spectral data and a table as taught by Hong for the predictable result of more accurately determining between different distress statuses of a baby using only sound. Goldstein discloses that spectral data determined using Fourier transform analysis that can be used to analyze baby sounds received from a microphone can include power spectral density estimates (paragraphs 42 and 137). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the spectral data of Lipoma and Hong include power spectral density estimates as taught by Goldstein for the predictable result of using known sound processing techniques for analyzing sounds received from a microphone.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA HYLINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2684. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. 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.
/A.M.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711