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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 10, 11, 14-19, 21, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bottomly (US # 10.527,484) in view of Yano et al (US # 4,347,903). The Bottomly reference discloses an infant smart scale system, the system comprising: a smart scale (100) comprising a platform (105) integrated with a changing table (Col 2, line 64 to col. 3, line 11); a weight sensor (125) configured to detect weight applied to the platform (105); and a controller (122) configured to control operations of the smart scale (Col. 4, II. 21-28), the controller (122) including a communication port (124) configured to wirelessly connect with a user device (Col. 6, II. 22-54), wherein the smart scale (100) is configured to autonomously collect weight measurement data of babies during a changing event and transmit the weight measurement data to the user device (Col. 11, II. 21-58), and accounts for weight on the platform attributable to one or more non- baby objects (i.e.: the scale is tarred; see Col. 11, ll. 7-17).
However, the Bottomly reference does not disclose that the scale was programmed to autonomously process the weight measurement data collected over time during the changing event, including identification and removal of aberrant weight measurements from within the weight measurement data, and determine an actual weight of the baby from the weight measurement data as adjusted by the removal of the aberrant weight measurements. However, it was a known technique that when weighing a live subject that was prone to be in constant, erratic motion, such as an animal, as shown by the Yano reference (Col. 4, ll. 3-67), and since infants tend to move around erratically during weighing just like a pet would, it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to program the controller of Bottomly to ignore erratic weight readings to insure accuracy of the weight readings.
With respect to claims 2 & 3, the Bottomly scale auto-tares (Col. 11, II. 7-17).
With respect to claim 4, the Bottomly reference discloses a smart phone app to track a baby's weight (Col. 10, II. 6-27; Col. 11, line 56 to col. 12, line 67).
With respect to claim 5, see column 13, lines 2-11.
With respect to claim 6, the phone app identifies the specific baby (Col. 10, II. 28-46).
With respect to claim 10, Bottomly detects the removal of a diaper and records the resulting weight difference (Col. 11. II. 17-44).
With respect to claim 11, the scale wakes up and auto-tares when it detects motion or any other input (Col. 11, II. 7-17).
With respect to claims 14-18, see column 11, lines 45-55.
With respect to claim 19, the method of use is inherent to the scale disclosed.
With respect to claims 21, 22 & 24, the Bottomly scale auto-tares (Col. 11, II. 7-17).
Claims 7-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bottomly (US # 10.527,484) in view of Yano et al (US # 4,347,903) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kovace et al (US PG Pub # 2015/0362360). The Kovace reference teaches that it was known to compare a baby's current weight to a storied file of weight values to identify a baby by matching its current weight to a stored weight history (para. # 0033), and it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to program the scale of Bottomly to use the same algorithm motivated by its art recognized suitability for its intended use.
With respect to claims 8 & 9, Bottomly detects patterns in a baby's weight history (Col. 15, II. 28- 58).
With respect to claim 11, the Kovace reference teaches that it was old and well-known to transition a scale to a power saving mode, and to wake it up upon detecting motion (para. # 0069), and it would have been an obvious modification to make to the scale of Bottomly to conserve battery life.
With respect to claim 12, the Bottomly reference scale auto-tares when detecting the presence of a user (Col. 11, II. 7-17).
With respect to claim 13, since Bottomly teaches transmitting data from the scale to a smartphone (Col. 10. II. 6-27), it would have been obvious to the ordinary user to automatically scan for, and try to connect to, the smartphone automatically upon powerup to make the process of connecting to a smartphone more convenient to the user.
Conclusion
Claims 20 and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
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 RANDY W GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2103. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
RANDY W. GIBSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2856
/RANDY W GIBSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights