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 arguments, see pages 10 and 11, filed 03/12/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101 and 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 12/12/2025 have been withdrawn. However, the arguments are not persuasive with the rejection under 35 USC 101 of claims 22-27 and 29-31; the claimed vehicle-to-vehicle signal of claim 22 is recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than the insignificant post-solution activity of signal transmission; similarly, the claimed generation of a notification is recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than the insignificant post-solution activity of signal transmission.
Furthermore, in light of the amendments to the claims new rejections have been made under 35 USC 112(a) and (b), as discussed in further detail below.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 03/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-14, 16-18, and 20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Anonymous (“A Method and System for Signaling Mild Cognitive Impairment”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 12, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amended claim recites controlling movement of the stroller, the broadest reasonable interpretation of which would be inclusive of actions such as steering, an action which is not supported by the specification as originally filed. By limiting the control to that of the brake system, the scope of claim 8 has been narrowed to the extent that it does not recite new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites classifying a driver as in a cognitively impaired state based on stroller movement data, whereas claims 3-5, respectively, recite classifying the driver as in the cognitively impaired state based on biometric data, calendar data, and a behavior pattern. It is unclear if these additionally recited data sources are meant to be used in addition to or in place of the stroller movement data in making a determination. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the additionally recited data sources are substituted for the stroller movement data.
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.
Claim 22-27 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite two systems. (Step 1: Yes.) System claim 22 has been selected for further analysis.
The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations (bolded text corresponds to the abstract idea):
A system, comprising:
a processor; and
a memory storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
monitor a driver of a stroller based on sensor data collected from a sensor disposed on the stroller;
classify the driver as in a cognitively impaired state based on the sensor data deviating from baseline data;
detect when a vehicle is in a vicinity of the stroller;
transmit, via a vehicle-to-vehicle signal, a notification of the cognitively impaired state to the vehicle in the vicinity of the stroller; and
generate, based on the cognitively impaired state for the driver, a notification to the driver through an output system of the stroller.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this system determines a mental state of a stroller driver based on received data from the driver and further determines whether a vehicle is nearby. This is an action that can be performed in the human mind; therefore, it is part of the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claim is abstract.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; limitations that are not indicative of integration include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h). The claim recites a generic processor and a generic memory; these amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The claim further recites steps of monitoring a driver using sensors, transmitting “a notification of the cognitively impaired state” to a detected nearby vehicle, and generating a “notification to the driver” of the stroller in response to determining cognitive impairment. These, respectively, are recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than the insignificant pre-solution activity of data collection and the insignificant post-solution activity of signal transmission. (Step 2A-Prong 2: No. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application.)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as previously mentioned, the additional elements amount to no more than either instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the recited elements are recited at so high a level of generality as to be well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. (Step 2B: No. The claim does not provide significantly more.) Therefore, claim 22 (and the similarly abstract claim 30, which recites the abstract idea of comparison to a baseline), is not patent eligible.
Claims 23 and 25 further define the abstract idea, and are thus abstract for the same reasons. The claims do not recite any additional elements; therefore, claims 23 and 25 are not patent eligible.
In addition to further defining the abstract idea, claim 24 recites a step of acquiring calendar data. However, this is recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering; therefore, claim 24 is not patent eligible.
Claims 26 and 31 further define the output notification. However, the recitation of “a visible, a haptic or auditory notification” is recited at so high a level of generality as to be insignificant post-solution activity of signal transmission which is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art and thus fails to provide significantly more. Therefore, claims 26 and 31 are not patent eligible.
Claim 27 further defines the post-solution activity of producing the driver assistance countermeasure as generating navigational instructions. However, this is recited at so high a level of generality that the broadest reasonable interpretation continues to be the transmission of a notification signal pertaining to navigation. Therefore, claim 27 is not patent eligible.
Claims 29 further recites a step of acquiring environmental data as part of producing a countermeasure. However, this is recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering; therefore, claim 29 is not patent eligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, 10, 30, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 9211903, previously cited, hereafter referred to as "Lee 903") in view of Fields et al. (US 20150254955, previously cited) in view of Anonymous (“A Method and System for Signaling Mild Cognitive Impairment”).
Claim 1.
Lee 903 teaches:
a processor
(Lee 903 – Abstract) “A smart stroller includes at least one armrest, a processor, a flexible touch sensor”
a memory storing machine-readable instructions
(Lee 903 – Col. 1, lines 55-57) “One or more software instruction in the modules may be embedded in firmware, such as in an erasable programmable read only memory (EPROM).”
monitor a driver of a stroller based on stroller
(Lee 903 – Abstract) “The flexible touch sensor detects whether the at least one armrest is grasping by a person”
control movement of the stroller, based on the
(Lee 903 – Col. 2, lines 27-33) “If the processor 13 detects the alert signal generated by the flexible touch sensor 14, the processor 13 controls the alert unit 17 to output an alert to prompt the persons around the smart stroller 100 that there is no person controls the smart stroller 100, and the smart stroller 00 is dangerous. In at least one embodiment, the alert unit 17 can be a loud speaker and/or a light-emitting device”
Lee 903 does not explicitly teach classifying the driver as being cognitively impaired based on sensor data; however, Fields et al. teaches:
classify the driver as in a cognitively impaired state based on the
(Lee – [0035]) “A GSR sensor may be used to detect whether the vehicle operator 106 is stressed (i.e., that the conductance of the vehicle operator’s skin has varied from its normal level).”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the smart stroller of Lee 903 with the emotion management system of Fields et al. As the stroller of Lee 903 teaches a touch sensor contact and a generic acceleration sensor, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the specific sensors of Fields et al. (such as a GSR sensor making a detection based on skin contact, or a swerve sensor) could be substituted with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this because an emotional response of an operator may lead to an unsafe situation (Fields – [0002]).
While Fields et al. teaches determining a cognitively impaired state based on movement data and determining a cognitively impaired state based on baseline biometric data, Fields et al. does not explicitly teach comparing movement data to baseline movement data. However, Anonymous teaches:
classify the driver as in a cognitively impaired state based on the
(Anonymous – Page 2) “the cognitive impairment module computes the variance in the reaction time in the first 3 months as a baseline. Thereafter, the cognitive impairment module subtracts the baseline from the variance in the reaction time in the last month.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the system of Fields et al. to additionally compare reaction time to a baseline as in Anonymous. Both Fields et al. and Anonymous are directed towards using collected data to determine an incapacity of a user; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the known technique of determining incapacity based on reaction time could be substituted into the determinations of Fields et al. with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this in order to ensure that the operator of the stroller is able to react to potential threats to the child being carried in an acceptable amount of time.
Claim 3.
The combination of Lee 903, Fields et al., and Anonymous teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Fields et al. further teaches:
classify the driver as in the cognitively impaired state based on biometric data that indicates a biometric characteristic of the driver
(Lee – [0035]) “A GSR sensor may be used to detect whether the vehicle operator 106 is stressed (i.e., that the conductance of the vehicle operator’s skin has varied from its normal level).”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim 4.
The combination of Lee 903, Fields et al., and Anonymous teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Fields et al. further teaches:
acquire calendar data for the driver
(Fields – [0072]) “The sensor data may include physiological sensor data regarding the emotional state of the vehicle operator 106, as well as other sensor data regarding vehicle operation patterns and behavior (e.g., accelerometer data, proximity sensor data, GPS data, etc.)”
classify the driver as in the cognitively impaired state based on the calendar data for the driver
(Fields – [0072]) “The server 140 may then determine one or more impairment scores based on the data received”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim 5.
The combination of Lee 903, Fields et al., and Anonymous teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Fields et al. further teaches:
compare the sensor data to the baseline data
(Fields – [0042]) “Changes in the sensor measurements from the baseline established during calibration may indicate the vehicle operator 106 is entering or has entered an impaired emotional state.”
the baseline data comprises at least one of: a behavior pattern of the driver when impaired or unimpaired; or a behavior pattern of an additional user when impaired or unimpaired
(Fields – [0046]) “a baseline score of the vehicle operator 106 in a normal emotional state corresponds to a score of 50 points.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim 6.
The combination of Lee 903, Fields et al., and Anonymous teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Lee 903 further teaches:
generate at least one of a haptic or auditory notification to the driver through an output system of the stroller
(Lee 903 – Col. 2, lines 27-33) “If the processor 13 detects the alert signal generated by the flexible touch sensor 14, the processor 13 controls the alert unit 17 to output an alert to prompt the persons around the smart stroller 100 that there is no person controls the smart stroller 100, and the smart stroller 00 is dangerous. In at least one embodiment, the alert unit 17 can be a loud speaker and/or a light-emitting device”
Claim 8.
The combination of Lee 903, Fields et al., and Anonymous teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Lee 903 further teaches:
activate a brake system of the stroller
(Lee 903 – Abstract) “If the processor determines that the armrest is not grasped by the person and the smart stroller is moving, the processor control the at least one automatic brake unit to block the smart strolling to stop the smart stroller from moving.”
Claim 10.
The combination of Lee 903, Fields et al., and Anonymous teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Lee 903 further teaches:
produce a notification to at least one of: a human vehicle operator; an autonomous vehicle system; or an infrastructure element
(Lee 903 – Col. 2, lines 27-33) “If the processor 13 detects the alert signal generated by the flexible touch sensor 14, the processor 13 controls the alert unit 17 to output an alert to prompt the persons around the smart stroller 100 that there is no person controls the smart stroller 100, and the smart stroller 00 is dangerous. In at least one embodiment, the alert unit 17 can be a loud speaker and/or a light-emitting device”
[Examiner’s Note: A light-emitting device would be noticeable by the drivers of nearby vehicles.]
Claim 30.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 6.
[Examiner’s Note: Claim 30 differs from claim 1 only in the teaching of generating a notification to the driver rather than controlling movement of the stroller. This generation is further recited in claim 6, which is dependent on claim 1.]
Claim 31.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 6.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lee 903, Fields et al., and Anonymous as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xie (CN 216927396, previously cited).
Claim 7.
The combination of Lee 903, Fields et al., and Anonymous teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. None of the aforementioned references explicitly teaches navigational instructions; however, Xie teaches:
generate navigational instructions through the output system of the stroller
(Xie – [n0020]) “the GPS module can obtain the location information of the stroller… the long-distance wireless communication is to send the location information, stroller information, and alarm information to the guardian”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the smart stroller of Lee 903 with the GPS module of Xie. As both Lee 903 and Xie pertain to functions of smart strollers, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that they could be used together in this fashion with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this to implement an obstacle avoidance function (Xie – [n0006]).
Claim(s) 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lee 903, Fields et al., and Anonymous as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20210309275, previously cited, hereafter referred to as "Lee 275").
Claim 9.
The combination of Lee 903, Fields et al., and Anonymous teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Neither Lee 903 nor Fields et al. explicitly teaches detecting environmental conditions; however, Lee 275 teaches:
detect an environmental condition of the stroller via a stroller-mounted environment sensor
(Lee 275 – Abstract) “The smart stroller includes a sensor part for sensing… information regarding the surrounding environment in which the smart stroller is traveling. The sensed information is transmitted to a controller so as to be calculated as information for controlling operation of the smart stroller or information for informing to a user.”
produce the driver assistance countermeasure based on the environmental condition
(Lee 275 – Abstract) “The smart stroller includes a sensor part for sensing… information regarding the surrounding environment in which the smart stroller is traveling. The sensed information is transmitted to a controller so as to be calculated as information for controlling operation of the smart stroller or information for informing to a user.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the smart stroller of Lee 903 with the additional smart stroller sensors of Lee 275. As both Lee 903 and Lee 275 pertain to functions of smart strollers, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that they could be used together in this fashion with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this in order to ensure that a baby in the stroller would have the cleanest possible air (Lee 275 – [0024]).
Claim 12.
The combination of Lee 903 and Fields et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Neither Lee 903 nor Fields et al. explicitly teaches monitoring the condition of a child; however, Lee 275 teaches:
monitor a condition of a child in a child compartment of the stroller
(Lee 275 – [0333]) “The seat sensor 360 senses information regarding a state (or condition) the seat space portion 12 of the baby seat unit 10 in which a baby is seated”
produce a notification indicating the condition of the child
(Lee 275 – [0334]) “the information sensed by the seat sensor 360 is informed or notified to the user”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-27 and 29 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 22: The art of record fails to teach producing a notification of a cognitively impaired state via a vehicle-to-vehicle signal. The closest available art, Anonymous, teaches a system which “alerts… other drivers… regarding the level of risk in the vicinity of the vehicle due to poor driving” (Anonymous – Page 3). However, Anonymous fails to explicitly teach a vehicle-to-vehicle signal and, even if such a signal were taught, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to modify Lee 903, which lacks an explicit teaching of a communication system, with such a feature.
Furthermore, Lee 903 teaches visual and auditory notifications of an operator state, as discussed above; however, Lee 903 does not teach transmitting a notification of the cognitively impaired state via a vehicle-to-vehicle signal.
Regarding claims 23-27 and 29: The claims are dependent on potentially allowable claim 22, and are thus potentially allowable for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claim 28: The claim is dependent on potentially allowable claim 22, and is thus potentially allowable for at least the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights