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 65-85 are pending in this application. Claims 65, 66, 75, 77, and 78 have been amended. Claims 86 and 87 have been added. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 12/22/2025.
Claim Objections
The Claim Objections detailed in the Non-Final Rejection filed on 8/22/2025 have been withdrawn in light of the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 12/22/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 USC 112 Claim Rejections detailed in the Non-Final Rejection filed on 8/22/2025 have been withdrawn in light of the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 12/22/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 65-66, 69-71, 74-78, and 86-87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Speedie (US 20120119549 A1).
Regarding Claim 65, Speedie discloses a device for rocking a baby in a spring-engaged sling (system 10A, 10B, or 10C), the device comprising: a housing body (housing 26) accommodating[[;]]: a motor (motor 44) comprising an output shaft (See Fig. 2A-2B, motor 44 comprising an output shaft coupled to gear 30); and a reciprocating assembly (gears 28-30) engaged with the output shaft (See Fig. 2A-2B, motor 44 comprising an output shaft coupled to gear 30); an attachment assembly (suspension point 14) for attaching the device between a support and the spring-engaged sling (See Fig. 1A-1B, suspension point 14 attaching system between upper surface 12 and elastic supporter 16); [[and]] a pulling cable (elastic supporter 16) engaged with the reciprocating assembly (“force generator 18 may comprise any structure suitable for providing oscillating force along the one or more elastic supporters 16”; [0050]) and configured to be secured to the spring-engaged sling (See Fig. 1A, elastic support 16 secured to container 20); and a weight sensor, load cell, or pressure sensor configured to measure a weight of the baby (“sensors 53 may also be used to measure and send indicia of a baby’s weight”; [0069]); wherein the device is configured to generate a reciprocating motion of the spring- engaged sling via the pulling cable (“ the oscillating force may provide force in an alternating pattern up and down along the one or more elastic supporters 16, thereby causing container 20 to move in an up-and-down motion”; [0050]); and wherein the device is configured to automatically control at least one parameter of the reciprocating motion in accordance with the weight of the baby (“data provided from the sensors 53 may be provided to the controller 50, such that the controller 50 may adjust operational parameters of the force generator 18 in response to the provided data and in a manner preset into the controller 50. Accordingly, the controller 50, when suitably programmed, may increase the range of motion of the container 20 and/or the force experienced by the elastic supporter 16, in response to an indication from the controller 50”; [0073]).
PNG
media_image1.png
490
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
468
452
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 66, Speedie discloses the device (system 10A, 10B, or 10C) according to claim 65, configured such that the attachment assembly carries [[the]] a total weight of the device, the baby and the sling (See Fig. 1A-1C, suspension point 14 carrying total weight of system 10A-10C, container 20, and baby 22), whereas the housing body only generates the reciprocating motion of the sling via the pulling cable (See Fig. 1A-1C, housing body 26 of force generator 18 connected to elastic supporter 16 and generates the oscillating motion of the container 20).
Regarding Claim 69, Speedie discloses the device (system 10A, 10B, or 10C) according to claim 65, wherein the reciprocating assembly further comprises a power-transmission module (gears 28-30) engaged with the output shaft (See Fig. 2B, arrows, “coupled to gear 30”; [0057]), such that the power of the motor is transmitted to an output drive of the power-transmission module (“motors 44 may comprise one or more of any motor suitable to rotate the plurality of gears 28-30”; [0056]), wherein the pulling cable engages with the output drive of the power-transmission module (“force generator 18 may comprise any structure suitable for providing oscillating force along the one or more elastic supporters 16”; [0050]).
Regarding Claim 70, Speedie discloses the device (system 10A, 10B, or 10C) according to claim 65, wherein the motor is configured to drive at least an upward motion of the sling (“ the oscillating force may provide force in an alternating pattern up and down along the one or more elastic supporters 16, thereby causing container 20 to move in an up-and-down motion”; [0050]), and wherein the pulling cable pulls the spring- engaged sling upwards with a predefined amplitude (“user may adjust one or more inputs to force generator 18 to control the distance traversed in a full cycle of the up-and-down motion of container”; [0052]).
Regarding Claim 71, Speedie discloses the device (system 10A, 10B, or 10C) according to claim 65, wherein the device is configured to monitor winding and unwinding length of the pulling cable during the reciprocating motion (“sensors 53 may also comprise a movement or oscillation detection device to detect the distance traveled by the container 20 such as a linear variable differential transformer, (LVDT), potentiometer, tilt switch, pressure switch, strain gauge, material motion detector, gyroscope, and/or the like”; [0069]).
Regarding Claim 74, Speedie discloses the device (system 10A, 10B, or 10C) according to claim 65, further comprising at least one sensor selected from the group of: a temperature sensor; a pressure sensor for measuring pressure applied on the lower attachment unit; a gas sensor for measuring the gas levels in ambient air; an acoustic measurement unit for detecting noise or sound (“cry sensor”; [0070]); a smoke sensor; a light sensor; a humidity sensor; a sensor for measuring the wind speed; an image sensor for monitoring the baby; a motion sensor for detecting motion of the baby (“strain gauge, gyroscope, or accelerometer detecting motion induced by a baby in the baby container”; [0074]).
Regarding Claim 75, Speedie discloses the device (system 10A, 10B, or 10C) according to claim 65, configured such that the reciprocating motion is activated based on motion sensor data representing motion of the baby (“sensors or audio inputs may detect movement of the baby…force generator 18 to begin applying an oscillatory force to rock the baby”; [0074]).
Regarding Claim 76, Speedie discloses the device (system 10A, 10B, or 10C) according to claim 65, comprising a transceiver (“transceiver microchips”; [0067]) configured to acquire device data and communicate with a remote device (“controller 50 may receive signals remotely such as using a remote control”; [0067]), and a software application executable on the remote device (“execute a set of instructions in accordance with a firmware or software program”; [0066]) and configured for executing the steps of: receiving device data from the device (“data provided from the sensors 53 may be provided to the controller 50”; [0073]), the device data selected from the group of: Encoder data from the motor (“accelerometer or gyroscope”; [0069]), Temperature, C02 level, Noise level (audio input 59), Visual recording, Images, Pressure (“pressure switch”; [0069]), Amplitude (“potentiometer”; [0069]), Power-mode (external power input 56), Smoke level, Humidity level, Wind level, Motion (“accelerometer or gyroscope”; [0069]), Air quality, Dust level, and Light level; visualizing device data on a display of the remote device (“display 35 may be any suitable display for conveying information”; [0068]); and transmitting control data to the device (See Fig. 4, data interface 60 transmitting data to processor 52), wherein control data is selected from the group of: "power on" or "power off' the device (power source 63), "sound on" or "sound off' the device (audio control 55), "visual recording on" or "visual recording off', "timer on" or "timer off' the device (timer control 65), Amplitude of the vertical movement (intensity control 54), Frequency of the vertical movement (mode control 64), Acoustic signal, and Lighting signal (light output 58).
Regarding Claim 77, Speedie discloses the device (system 10A, 10B, or 10C) according to claim 76, wherein the software application is further configured for calculating at least one of the following parameters: the weight of the baby (“measure and send indicia of a baby’s weight”; [0069]), sleep pattern of the baby, noise level of the environment (audio input 59), temperature of the environment, and CO2 level of the environment.
Regarding Claim 78, Speedie discloses the device (system 10A, 10B, or 10C) according to claim 76, wherein the software application is further configured for calculating a weight of the baby (“sensors 53 may also be used to measure and send indicia of a baby’s weight”; [0069]) based on[[;]]: 1) an amplitude of the reciprocating movement and encoder data or power consumption from the motor (“sensor may measure the amplitude, frequency, and/or phase of the motion”; [0069]); and/or 2) an angular frequency of the reciprocating movement and a stiffness constant of the spring-engaged sling.
Regarding Claim 86, Speedie discloses a device for rocking a baby in a spring-engaged sling (system 10A, 10B, or 10C), comprising: a housing body (housing 26) accommodating: a motor (motor 44) comprising an output shaft (See Fig. 2A-2B, motor 44 comprising an output shaft coupled to gear 30); and a reciprocating assembly (gears 28-30) engaged with the output shaft (See Fig. 2A-2B, motor 44 comprising an output shaft couple to gear 30); an attachment assembly (suspension point 14) for attaching the device between a support and the spring-engaged sling (See Fig. 1A-1B, suspension point 14 attaching system between upper surface 12 and elastic supporter 16); and a pulling cable (elastic supporter 16) engaged with the reciprocating assembly (“force generator 18 may comprise any structure suitable for providing oscillating force along the one of more elastic supporters 16”; [0050]) and configured to be secured to the spring-engaged sling (See Fig. 1A, elastic support 16 secured to container 20); wherein the device is configured to generate a reciprocating motion of the spring- engaged sling via the pulling cable (“ the oscillating force may provide force in an alternating pattern up and down along the one or more elastic supporters 16, thereby causing container 20 to move in an up-and-down motion”; [0050]); and wherein the device is configured to calculate a weight of the baby based on at least one of: (i) an amplitude of the reciprocating motion and encoder data representing a rotational speed or a number of rotations of the motor, or power consumption from the motor (“sensor may measure the amplitude, frequency, and/or phase of the motion”; [0069]); or (ii) an angular frequency of the reciprocating motion and a stiffness constant of the spring-engaged sling.
Regarding Claim 87, The device according to claim 86, wherein the device is further configured to automatically control at least one parameter of the reciprocating motion based on the calculated weight of the baby (“data provided from the sensors 53 may be provided to the controller 50, such that the controller 50 may adjust operational parameters of the force generator 18 in response to the provided data and in a manner preset into the controller 50. Accordingly, the controller 50, when suitably programmed, may increase the range of motion of the container 20 and/or the force experienced by the elastic supporter 16, in response to an indication from the controller 50”; [0073]).
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.
Claims 67-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speedie (US 20120119549 A1) in view of Luginin (US 20170208964 A1).
Regarding Claim 67, Speedie discloses the device (system 10A, 10B, or 10C) according to claim 65.
Speedie fails to explicitly disclose wherein the housing body comprises a hollow passage for accommodating at least a part of the attachment assembly, and wherein the attachment assembly comprises an elongated carrier engaging with the hollow passage and extending vertically in the hollow passage for connecting between a support and the spring-engaged sling.
However, Luginin teaches the housing body comprises a hollow passage (See Fig. 1, “base is preferably configured as a hollow body, which receives the drive element”; [0013]) for accommodating at least a part of the attachment assembly (See Fig. 1, traction mechanism 13 extending into base 10), and wherein the attachment assembly comprises an elongated carrier engaging with the hollow passage and extending vertically in the hollow passage for connecting between a support and the spring-engaged sling (See Fig. 1, traction mechanism 13 extending vertically into the hollow opening of base 10, up frame 11, through support arm 12 and connected to suspension element 18).
PNG
media_image3.png
670
382
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 Speedie by adding the hollow passage taught by Luginin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “receive the drive element”; (Luginin, [0013]). 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 68, Speedie, as modified, teaches the device (system 10A, 10B, or 10C) according to claim 67.
Speedie fails to explicitly teach wherein the elongated carrier comprises a rope or a rope with a metal core.
However, Luginin teaches the elongated carrier comprises a rope (“traction mechanism is usually designed as a rope”; [0009]) or a rope with a metal core.
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 Speedie by using rope for the elongated carrier as taught by Luginin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “form the pulling device”; (Luginin, [0010]). 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.
Claim 72 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speedie (US 20120119549 A1) in view of Quah (WO 2019205310 A1)
Regarding Claim 72, Speedie discloses the device (system 10A, 10B, or 10C) according to claim 65.
Speedie fails to explicitly disclose wherein the reciprocating assembly comprises a tension element engaging with the pulling cable, the tension element configured for maintaining tension of the pulling cable during winding of the pulling cable in the reciprocating assembly.
However, Quah teaches the reciprocating assembly comprises a tension element (elastic tensioning member 132) engaging with the pulling cable (“elastic tensioning member 132 is connected to the traction rope 140”), the tension element configured for maintaining tension of the pulling cable during winding of the pulling cable in the reciprocating assembly (See Fig. 4-5, coil spring 132a or tensioning member 132 is wrapped around support shaft 133 of rope drum 130 for maintaining tension of traction rope 140).
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 Speedie by adding the tension element taught by Qua. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “elastic tensioning”; (Quah) of the rope. 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.
Claim 73 and 80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speedie (US 20120119549 A1) in view of Sohn (KR 20210047023 A).
Regarding Claim 73, Speedie discloses the device (system 10A, 10B, or 10C) according to claim 65, comprising at least one illumination unit (light output 58) for illuminating the sling below the device and/or the surroundings of the device (“adjustable light output to one or more of: assist with baby care, entertain baby, nightlight, and/or the like”; [0071]).
Speedie fails to explicitly disclose wherein the illumination unit comprises a variable light spectrum and wherein the device is configured to red-shift the emitted light spectrum during nighttime.
However, Sohn teaches the illumination unit comprises a variable light spectrum (“baby crib 1 may control the illuminance or color temperature (light color) of the light module 50”) and wherein the device is configured to red-shift the emitted light spectrum during nighttime (“provide an optimal sleep environment by providing illumination with the lowest color temperature…red light source may have a lower color temperature”).
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 Speedie by adding a variable light spectrum as taught by Sohn to the illumination unit. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “the baby can fall asleep again”; (Sohn). 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 80, Speedie discloses the device (system 10A, 10B, or 10C) according to claim 76, comprising at least one imaging unit for acquiring images of the baby in the sling (“controller may include a video camera and may be capable of storing and transmitting still photos or real-time audio/video of the baby”; [0069]), and wherein the software application is configured for receiving (“transmitting still photos or real-time audio/video of the baby”; [0069]).
Speedie fails to explicitly disclose analysing said images of the baby, and analysing eye status and/or eye movement in the images acquired of the baby.
However, Sohn teaches analysing said images of the baby, and analysing eye status and/or eye movement in the images acquired of the baby (“determine whether the baby is crying by comparing an image of the baby’s eyes or mouth in the captures image with a pre-stored image”).
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 Speedie by adding eye images as taught by Sohn to the illumination unit. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “determine whether the baby is crying”; (Sohn). 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.
Claim 79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speedie (US 20120119549 A1) in view of Jutras (US 20140033435 A1), and further in view of Kiani (US 20140333440 A1).
Regarding Claim 79, Speedie discloses the device (system 10A, 10B, or 10C) according to claim 78.
Speedie fails to explicitly disclose wherein the software application is further configured for calculating a weight curve of the baby over a predefined time interval, comparing the calculated weight curve with a predefined value range and providing a notice when the calculated weight curve is outside of the predefined value range.
However, Jutras teaches the software application is further configured for calculating a weight curve of the baby over a predefined time interval (“patient’s measured weight to be continuously saved and recorded over a given period of time”; [0070]), comparing the calculated weight curve with a predefined value range (“healthcare professional wishes to monitors a patient’s weight in order to detect any significant changes”; [0070]).
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 Speedie by calculating a weight curve as taught by Jutras. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “monitor a patient’s weight in order to detect any significant changes”; (Jutras, [0070]). 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.
Speedie in view of Jutras fails to explicitly teach providing a notice when the calculated weight curve is outside of the predefined value range.
However, Kiani teaches providing a notice when the calculated weight curve is outside of the predefined value range (“patient’s weight can trigger bed sensors 32…if patient’s weight is removed from the mattress 12, the bed sensors 32 inform the computer 34…can send an alert signal”; [0043]).
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 Speedie in view of Jutras by adding a notification as taught by Kiani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “supervise the patient”; (Kiani, [0043]). 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 81-85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speedie (US 20120119549 A1) in view of Correnti (US 10921763 B1).
Regarding Claim 81, Speedie discloses the device (system 10A, 10B, or 10C) according to claim 76.
Speedie fails to explicitly disclose wherein the software application is further configured for determining sleep phases of the baby, wherein sleep phases of the baby are determined by detecting eye status and/or eye movement of the baby, sound from the baby, movement of the baby, and/or timing since activation of the reciprocating motion.
However, Correnti teaches the software application (monitoring server 160) is further configured for determining sleep phases of the baby (“determine the status and quality of the baby’s sleep state”; [Col. 6, Lines 50-51]), wherein sleep phases of the baby are determined by detecting eye status and/or eye movement of the baby, sound from the baby, movement of the baby (“analyze the movement and sound of the baby 106”; [Col. 6, Lines 52-53]), and/or timing since activation of the reciprocating motion.
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 Speedie by adding a sleep phase option to the software application as taught by Correnti. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “the parent may provide care to the baby”; (Correnti, [Col. 1, Lines 28-29]). 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 82, Speedie, as modified, teaches the device (system 10A, 10B, or 10C) according to claim 81.
Speedie fails to explicitly teach wherein the sleep phases are detected by characterizing each sleep phase with at least one of the following sleep phase parameters: upper limit of sounds from the baby, upper limit of movement of the baby, eye status, upper and/or lower limit of eye movement, and timing since activation of reciprocating motion.
However, Correnti teaches the sleep phases are detected by characterizing each sleep phase with at least one of the following sleep phase parameters: upper limit of sounds from the baby, upper limit of movement of the baby (“analyze the movement and sound of the baby 106”; [Col. 6, Lines 52-53], “associate the quality of the baby’s sleep with a ranking or numeric value”; [Col. 6, Lines 58-59]), eye status, upper and/or lower limit of eye movement, and timing since activation of reciprocating motion.
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 Speedie by adding a sleep phase option determined by a sleep parameter as taught by Correnti. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “the parent may provide care to the baby”; (Correnti, [Col. 1, Lines 28-29]). 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 83, Speedie, as modified, teaches the device (system 10A, 10B, or 10C) according to claim 81.
Speedie fails to explicitly teach wherein the software application is further configured for calculating a sleep pattern of the baby based on the sleep phase determination.
However, Correnti teaches the software application (monitoring server 160) is further configured for calculating a sleep pattern of the baby based on the sleep phase determination (“monitoring server 160 may analyze the historical sleep data to determine a baseline sleep pattern for the baby 106. The baseline sleep pattern may, for example, indicate the times during the day or night the baby 106 is typically awake and content, awake and crying, restlessly sleeping, or restfully sleeping”; [Col. 7, Lines 28-33]).
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 Speedie by adding a calculated sleep pattern option as taught by Correnti. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “the parent may provide care to the baby”; (Correnti, [Col. 1, Lines 28-29]). 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 84, Speedie, as modified, teaches the device (system 10A, 10B, or 10C) according to claim 83.
Speedie fails to explicitly teach wherein the software application is further configured for 1) comparing the calculated sleep pattern to a typical sleep pattern of a typical baby of comparable age, or 2) for comparing the calculated sleep pattern to historic sleep patterns of the same baby.
However, Correnti teaches the software application (monitoring server 160) is further configured for 1) comparing the calculated sleep pattern to a typical sleep pattern of a typical baby of comparable age, or 2) for comparing the calculated sleep pattern to historic sleep patterns of the same baby (“monitoring server 160 may analyze the historical sleep data to determine a baseline sleep pattern for the baby 106”; [Col. 7, Lines 28-30], “perform various analytics on the sleep data to provide the parent 108 information on the sleep patterns of the baby 106”; [Col. 7, Lines 53-55]).
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 Speedie by adding a typical sleep pattern calculation as taught by Correnti. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “the parent may provide care to the baby”; (Correnti, [Col. 1, Lines 28-29]). 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 85, Speedie, as modified, teaches the device (system 10A, 10B, or 10C) according to claim 81.
Speedie fails to explicitly teach wherein the software application is further configured for detecting abnormalities in the calculated sleep pattern by identifying and correlating with abnormalities in sensor data.
However, Correnti teaches the software application (monitoring server 160) is further configured for detecting abnormalities in the calculated sleep pattern by identifying and correlating with abnormalities in sensor data (“monitoring system may be able to determine and track the baby’s breathing rate non-invasively, alerting parents to any detected abnormalities”; [Col. 2, Lines 24-27]).
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 Speedie to detect abnormalities as taught by Correnti. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “providing the parents increased peace-of-mind”; (Correnti, [Col. 2, Lines 28-29]). 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 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments:
Rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1)
Independent Claim 65
“Applicant respectfully submits that Speedie fails to expressly disclose or make obvious the features of amended independent claim 65. Specifically, Speedie fails to expressly disclose or make obvious the features of amended independent claim 65 regarding a weight sensor, load cell, or pressure sensor configured to measure a weight of the baby and automatically controlling at least one parameter of the reciprocating motion in accordance with the weight of the baby. Speedie merely discloses sensors 53 that are used to display, and/or store in memory, the baby's weight. Specifically, paragraph [0069] of Speedie discloses: In one embodiment, a potentiometer may accept mechanical control from a user to adjust any aspect of operation of embodiments of the present invention such as amplitude of oscillation. Alternatively, an accelerometer or a gyroscope may be implemented to measure and adjust the motion of the force generator 18 and/or the container 20 to achieve a desired result such as a desired deflection or amplitude of oscillation of the baby container 20 when the force generator is in operation. The sensors 53 may also be used to measure and send indicia of a baby's weight to the display 35 and/or memory. In an embodiment, the sensors may measure the amplitude, frequency and/or phase of the motion of the baby container 20 so that the oscillating force applied by the force generator may be appropriately adjusted to obtain a desirable result such as a particular amplitude of oscillation. Further, measuring the amplitude, frequency and/or phase of the motion of the baby container 20 and adjusting an applied oscillating force to obtain a desirable result such as a particular amplitude of oscillation as disclosed by Speedie does not reasonably equate to automatically controlling at least one parameter of the reciprocating motion in accordance with the weight of the baby, e.g., because measuring the amplitude, frequency and/or phase of the motion of the baby container does not reasonably equate to measuring a weight of a baby. The rejection of claim 65 should be withdrawn for at least this reason. Based on the foregoing, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 65, and all claims that depend thereon, can no longer be rejected as anticipated by Speedie. Withdrawal of the rejections and a timely notice of allowance are respectfully requested.
Dependent Claim 78
“Speedie does not disclose calculating a weight of the baby based on: 1) an amplitude of the reciprocating movement and encoder data or power consumption from the motor; and/or 2) an angular frequency of the reciprocating movement and a stiffness constant of the spring-engaged sling as recited by claim 78 at least because Speedie merely discloses sensors that can measure the amplitude, frequency and/or phase of the motion of the baby container 20. See Speedie [0069]. Measuring an amplitude, frequency and/or phase of motion does not reasonably equate to calculating a weight at least because amplitude, frequency and/or phase of motion are different quantitative properties than weight. The rejection of claim 78 should be withdrawn for at least this reason.”
Rejections under 35 USC 103
“For the reasons stated above, in relation to independent claim 65, from which dependent claims 67-68, 72, 73, and 79-85 depend, Applicant respectfully submits that dependent claims 67- 68, 72, 73, and 79-85 are in condition for allowance. Withdrawal of the rejections and a timely notice of allowance are respectfully requested.”
New Claims
Claim 86
“New independent claim 86 includes the subject matter of prior independent claim 65 and additionally recites that the device is configured to calculate a weight of the baby based on at least one of: (i) an amplitude of the reciprocating motion and encoder data representing a rotational speed or a number of rotations of the motor, or power consumption from the motor; or (ii) an angular frequency of the reciprocating motion and a stiffness constant of the spring-engaged sling. Speedie fails to disclose the subject matter of new independent claim 86 at least because measuring an amplitude, frequency and/or phase of motion (e.g., as disclosed in paragraph [0069] of Speedie) does not reasonably equate to calculating a weight, e.g., as discussed above. Applicant respectfully submits that new independent claim 86 is in condition for allowance. Consideration of new independent claim 86, in view of the above, is respectfully requested.”
Claim 87
“New dependent claim 87 has been added to recite additional structural features and combinations of structures of the claimed device. New dependent claim 87 has been added to recite that the device is further configured to automatically control at least one parameter of the reciprocating motion based on the calculated weight of the baby. For the reasons stated above in relation to independent claim 86, from which dependent claim 87 depends, and for the reasons stated above in relation to independent claim 65, which includes a similar recitation, Applicant respectfully submits that new dependent claim 87 is in condition for allowance. Consideration of new dependent claim 87 is respectfully requested.”
Examiner’s Response:
In response to the applicant’s argument that the prior art of Speedie fails to expressly disclose or make obvious the amended features of claim 65, the examiner respectfully disagrees and the claim rejection is maintained. Looking at paragraphs [0069] and [0073] of Speedie, a weight sensor is disclosed wherein the weight sensor measures a weight of the baby and the “data provided from the sensors 53 may be provided to the controller 50, such that the controller 50 may adjust operational parameters of the force generator 18 in response to the provided data and in a manner preset into the controller 50. Accordingly, the controller 50, when suitably programmed, may increase the range of motion of the container 20 and/or the force experienced by the elastic supporter 16, in response to an indication from the controller 50”; [0073]). Therefore, the measured weight of the baby by the sensors leads to an automatic change of the parameters of reciprocal motion. Thus, the arguments are found unpersuasive and the rejection of claim 65 is maintained.
In response to the applicant’s argument that the prior art of Speedie fails to disclose the features of claim 78, the examiner respectfully disagrees and the claim rejection is maintained. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, Speedie does disclose the ability to calculate weight, utilizing the sensors 53. The examiner acknowledges that applicant’s claim of weight being a different quantitative property than amplitude, frequency and/or phase of motion. However, with a known spring constant there are equations giving the properties a mathematical relationship, wherein an unknown weight can be calculated. Thus, the arguments are found unpersuasive and the rejection of claim 78 is maintained.
The claim rejection of independent claim 65 has been maintained by the examiner, thus further maintaining the rejections of all dependent claims.
In response to the applicant’s argument that the prior art of Speedie fails to disclose the features of claim 86, the examiner respectfully disagrees and the claim rejection is maintained. As discussed above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, Speedie does disclose the ability to calculate weight, utilizing the sensors 53. The examiner acknowledges that applicant’s claim of weight being a different quantitative property than amplitude, frequency and/or phase of motion. However, with a known spring constant there are equations giving the properties a mathematical relationship, wherein an unknown weight can be calculated. Thus, the arguments are found unpersuasive and the rejection of claim 86 is maintained.
In response to the applicant’s argument that the prior art of Speedie fails to disclose the features of claim 87, the examiner respectfully disagrees and the claim rejection is maintained. See arguments above relating to the claimed subject matter of claims 65 and 87 for further detail.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
WO 2021119527 A1: Duncan discloses a dynamic furniture system with gesture recognition that includes a head tracker, eye tracker for motion detection.
US 20170245555 A1: Karp discloses an infant calming/sleep-aid device that is configured to perform reciprocating movement and vibration movement to calm a baby.
US 9510693 B2: Cordier discloses an infant device that establishes a wireless connection with an existing portable device such as a smartphone for monitoring an infant in the device.
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 at (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