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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the operation controls must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/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.
Independent claims 1 and 13 recites the limitation "operational controls," however, said limitation fails to comply with written description requirement. The instant specification, as originally filed, discloses operational controls for operation of the incubator system (see, e.g., paragraph 10 of the application publication). However, Applicant’s disclosure does not disclose as to what constitutes the claimed “operational controls.” In that, the structure that comprise the claimed operational controls is not described in the applicant’s disclosure. As such, said limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim(s) 2-12 and 14-20 is/are rejected by virtue of their dependency upon a rejected base claim.
Claim(s) 4 and 8 is/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 4 recites the limitation "the chamber wall" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend the claim to recite --- the chamber walls --- for consistency.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the portion" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend the claim to recite --- the at least one portion --- for consistency.
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.
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.
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) 1-6 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutton et al. (US 4,701,415; hereinafter “Dutton”) in view of Rickloff (US 4,935,371) and Hunnell (US 5,360,741).
Regarding claims 1 and 4-5, Dutton discloses an incubator system, comprising:
an incubator unit comprising incubator chamber defined by chamber walls (FIG. 2: incubator chamber 13; col. 4, ll. 26-34);
a control unit comprising operational controls for operation of the incubator system (FIG. 2: control chamber 21 outside the incubator chamber 13; col. 4, ll. 48-57); and
at least one duct coupling the incubator unit to the control unit (FIG. 2: 62 and 68; col. 7, ll. 12-29). Regarding the limitation “wherein the incubator system is configured so that the incubator chamber experiences a magnetic field variation of no more than 100 nT arising from the incubator system during incubation operation of the incubation system,” Dutton discloses all of the structural features of the claimed the incubator system and thus considered to meet said limitation. Dutton does not explicitly disclose wherein the chamber walls are formed of a non- magnetic material. Rickloff discloses that it is well known in the art to construct the walls of an incubator from copper (col. 1, ll. 36-37). In view of Rickloff, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the material of the chamber walls of Dutton with the material of Rickloff to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the would have made said modification since Dutton discloses that the use of copper for chamber walls of an incubator is well known in the art for providing germicidal and fungicidal properties (col. 1, ll. 36-39). Further, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Dutton disclose the claimed control unit but does not explicitly disclose wherein the control unit is physically separated from the incubator unit. Hunnell discloses an incubator system comprising an incubator unit comprising an incubator chamber (FIG. 1: chamber 128; col. 5, ll. 13-20) and a control unit (FIG. 1: module 104; col. 5, ll. 13-17)). Hunnell further discloses wherein incubator unit (102) and a control unit (104) can be constructed as separable unit or as integral unit (col. 7, ll. 40-46). In view of Hunnell, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the incubator system of Dutton such that the control unit is physically separated from the incubator unit as disclosed by Hunnell (col. 7, ll. 40-46). One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification since Hunnell discloses that the control unit can be constructed as separable unit or as integral unit (col. 7, ll. 40-46). Further, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the control unit to be physically separated from the incubator unit of Dutton, since it has been held that constructing formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routing skill in art. One would have been motivated to make the elements separable for the purpose of facilitating ease of transport of the incubator system.
Furthermore, it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform.
Regarding claim 2, modified Dutton further discloses wherein the incubator unit further comprises a housing disposed around the incubator chamber, wherein the incubator housing defines an open space between the chamber walls of the incubator chamber and the incubator housing (FIG. 2: plenum 24,26; col. 4, line 58 to col. 5, line 23), wherein the at least one duct is coupled to the incubator unit to supply or receive gas to or from the open space (FIG. 2; col. 7, ll. 12-29).
Regarding claim 3, modified Dutton further discloses wherein the control unit further comprises a heater (FIG. 3: heater 97; col. 8, ll. 52-58) and fan (FIGS. 2 and 3: blower 39; col. 7, ll. 12-29) for generating heated air to pass into the at least one duct for heating the incubator chamber or maintaining a temperature of the incubator chamber. Modified Dutton discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication of the fan of modified Dutton. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated the fan of modified Dutton since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see also MPEP § 2144.04 VI. B.). One would have been motivated to duplicate the fan of modified Dutton for the purpose of achieving desired air flow profile within the incubation chamber. Furthermore, it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform.
Regarding claim 6, modified Dutton further discloses wherein incubator unit comprises a door to the incubator chamber (FIG. 1: door 16; col. 4, ll. 31-36) and the chamber walls of the incubator chamber comprises a door panel that is separate from the door of the incubator unit (FIG. 1: door 14; col. 4, ll. 31-36).
Regarding claim 11, modified Dutton further discloses at least one sensor for monitoring at least one of the following in the incubator chamber: temperature, humidity, gas composition, or gas pressure (col. 7, ll. 30-37; col. 9, ll. 4-17).
Regarding claim 12, modified Dutton discloses all of the structural features of the claimed the incubator system and thus considered to meet the limitation “wherein the incubator system is configured so that the incubator chamber experiences a magnetic field variation of no more than 10 nT arising from the incubator system during incubation operation of the incubation system.”
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutton in view of Rickloff and Hunnell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weeber et al. (US 2012/0300405; hereinafter “Weeber”) and Muraki (US 2006/0023299).
Regarding claim 7, modified Dutton discloses the incubator system according to claim 1. Modified Dutton discloses wherein the control unit comprises electronic components (col. 9, line 1 to col. 10, line 40), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the control unit comprises magnetic field shielding around at least a portion of the electronic components. Weeber discloses an electronic control device having electronic components which are shielded from electrical and/or magnetic interference fields (Abstract). Muraki discloses that magnetic field shield is employed with an incubator of an incubator system to prevent biological samples within the incubator from the effect of the magnetic field generated by the electronic components of the incubator system (see [0025]-[0027], [0105]). In view of Weeber, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the magnetic field shielding of Weeber with the electronic components of the control unit of modified Dutton for the purpose of preventing electrical and/or magnetic interference into and/or out of the control unit as suggested by Weeber ([0001]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for the purpose of preventing biological samples within the incubator from the effect of the magnetic field generated by the electronic components of the incubator system as disclosed by Muraki (see [0025]-[0027], [0105]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Dutton further discloses wherein the magnetic field shielding comprises passive magnetic field shielding made of a non-magnetic material that is disposed between the portion of the electronic components and the incubator unit (see [0019] of Weeber).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutton in view of Rickloff, Hunnell, Weeber and Muraki as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lucia et al. (WO 2018/029569; hereinafter “Lucia”).
Regarding claim 9, modified Dutton discloses the incubator system according to claim 7.
Modified Dutton does not explicitly disclose wherein the magnetic field shielding comprises active magnetic field shielding for generating a magnetic field that counteracts a magnetic field generated by operation of the portion of the electronic components. Lucia discloses that passive or active magnetic field shielding can be used with cell culture systems (page 10). In view of Lucia, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the active magnetic field shielding as disclosed by Lucia with the magnetic field shielding of modified Dutton to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because said modification would have been the substitution of one known magnetic field shielding with another for the predictable result of shielding the electronic components, as disclosed by Lucia (page 10).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutton in view of Rickloff and Hunnell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lucia et al. (WO 2018/029569; hereinafter “Lucia”).
Regarding claim 10, modified Dutton discloses the incubator system according to claim 1.
Modified Dutton does not explicitly disclose a plurality of magnetic field sensors disposed in the incubator chamber and coupled, or coupleable, to the control unit to monitor variation of a magnetic field within the incubator chamber. Lucia discloses the use of a sensor to monitor magnetic field in an accommodating space adapted to contain biological materials for the purpose of maintaining the magnetic field within the accommodating space in the desired condition (paragraph bridging pages 10-11). In view of Lucia, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the sensor of Lucia into the incubation chamber accommodating biological materials of modified Dutton to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for the purpose of maintaining the magnetic field within the accommodating space in the desired conditions (paragraph bridging pages 10-11).
Claim(s) 13-15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutton et al. (US 4,701,415; hereinafter “Dutton”) in view of Rickloff (US 4,935,371), Hunnell (US 5,360,741), Weeber et al. (US 2012/0300405; hereinafter “Weeber”) and Muraki (US 2006/0023299).
Regarding claim 13, Dutton discloses an incubator system, comprising:
an incubator unit comprising incubator chamber defined by chamber walls (FIG. 2: incubator chamber 13; col. 4, ll. 26-34);
comprising operational controls for operation of the incubator system, electronic components for the operational controls (FIG. 2: control chamber 21 including a microprocessor and humidifier, the control chamber is arranged outside the incubator chamber 13; col. 4, ll. 48-57); and
at least one duct coupling the incubator unit to the control unit (FIG. 2: 62 and 68; col. 7, ll. 12-29). Dutton does not explicitly disclose wherein the chamber walls are formed of a non- magnetic material that provides passive magnetic field shielding for the incubator chamber. Rickloff discloses that it is well known in the art to construct the walls of an incubator from copper (col. 1, ll. 36-37). In view of Rickloff, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the material of the chamber walls of Dutton with the material of Rickloff to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the would have made said modification since Dutton discloses that the use of copper for chamber walls of an incubator is well known in the art for providing germicidal and fungicidal properties (col. 1, ll. 36-39). Further, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Dutton disclose the claimed control unit but does not explicitly disclose wherein the control unit is physically separated from the incubator unit. Hunnell discloses an incubator system comprising an incubator unit comprising an incubator chamber (FIG. 1: chamber 128; col. 5, ll. 13-20) and a control unit (FIG. 1: module 104; col. 5, ll. 13-17)). Hunnell further discloses wherein incubator unit (102) and a control unit (104) can be constructed as separable unit or as integral unit (col. 7, ll. 40-46). In view of Hunnell, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the incubator system of Dutton such that the control unit is physically separated from the incubator unit as disclosed by Hunnell (col. 7, ll. 40-46). One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification since Hunnell discloses that the control unit can be constructed as separable unit or as integral unit (col. 7, ll. 40-46). Further, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the control unit to be physically separated from the incubator unit of Dutton, since it has been held that constructing formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routing skill in art. One would have been motivated to make the elements separable for the purpose of facilitating ease of transport of the incubator system. Modified Dutton discloses wherein the control unit comprises electronic components (col. 9, line 1 to col. 10, line 40), but does not explicitly disclose magnetic field shielding around at least a portion of the electronic components. Weeber discloses an electronic control device having electronic components which are shielded from electrical and/or magnetic interference fields (Abstract). Muraki discloses that magnetic field shield is employed with an incubator of an incubator system to prevent biological samples within the incubator from the effect of the magnetic field generated by the electronic components of the incubator system (see [0025]-[0027], [0105]). In view of Weeber, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the magnetic field shielding of Weeber with the electronic components of the control unit of modified Dutton for the purpose of preventing electrical and/or magnetic interference into and/or out of the control unit as suggested by Weeber ([0001]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for the purpose of preventing biological samples within the incubator from the effect of the magnetic field generated by the electronic components of the incubator system as disclosed by Muraki (see [0025]-[0027], [0105]).
Furthermore, it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform.
Regarding claim 14, modified Dutton discloses all of the structural features of the claimed the incubator system and thus considered to meet the limitation “wherein the incubator system 1s configured so that the incubator chamber experiences a magnetic field variation of no more than 100 nT arising from the incubator system during incubation operation of the incubation system.”
Regarding claim 15, modified Dutton further discloses wherein the magnetic field shielding of the control unit comprises passive magnetic field shielding made of a non-magnetic material that is disposed between the portion of the electronic components and the incubator unit (see [0019] of Weeber).
Regarding claim 18, modified Dutton further discloses wherein the incubator unit further comprises a housing disposed around the incubator chamber, wherein the incubator housing defines an open space between the chamber walls of the incubator chamber and the incubator housing (FIG. 2: plenum 24,26; col. 4, line 58 to col. 5, line 23), wherein the at least one duct is coupled to the incubator unit to supply or receive gas to or from the open space (FIG. 2; col. 7, ll. 12-29).
Regarding claim 19, modified Dutton further discloses wherein the control unit further comprises a heater (FIG. 3: heater 97; col. 8, ll. 52-58) and fan (FIGS. 2 and 3: blower 39; col. 7, ll. 12-29) for generating heated air to pass into the at least one duct for heating the incubator chamber or maintaining a temperature of the incubator chamber. Modified Dutton discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication of the fan of modified Dutton. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated the fan of modified Dutton since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see also MPEP § 2144.04 VI. B.). One would have been motivated to duplicate the fan of modified Dutton for the purpose of achieving desired air flow profile within the incubation chamber. Furthermore, it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform.
Regarding claim 20, modified Dutton further discloses at least one sensor for monitoring at least one of the following in the incubator chamber: temperature, humidity, gas composition, or gas pressure (col. 7, ll. 30-37; col. 9, ll. 4-17).
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutton in view of Rickloff, Hunnell, Weeber and Muraki as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Lucia et al. (WO 2018/029569; hereinafter “Lucia”).
Regarding claim 16, modified Dutton discloses the incubator system according to claim 13. Modified Dutton does not explicitly disclose wherein the magnetic field shielding comprises active magnetic field shielding for generating a magnetic field that counteracts a magnetic field generated by operation of the portion of the electronic components. Lucia discloses that passive or active magnetic field shielding can be used with cell culture systems (page 10). In view of Lucia, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the active magnetic field shielding as disclosed by Lucia with the magnetic field shielding of modified Dutton to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because said modification would have been the substitution of one known magnetic field shielding with another for the predictable result of shielding the electronic components, as disclosed by Lucia (page 10).
Regarding claim 17, modified Dutton does not explicitly disclose a plurality of magnetic field sensors disposed in the incubator chamber and coupled, or coupleable, to the control unit to monitor variation of a magnetic field within the incubator chamber. Lucia discloses the use of a sensor to monitor magnetic field in an accommodating space adapted to contain biological materials for the purpose of maintaining the magnetic field within the accommodating space in the desired condition (paragraph bridging pages 10-11). In view of Lucia, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the sensor of Lucia into the incubation chamber accommodating biological materials of modified Dutton to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for the purpose of maintaining the magnetic field within the accommodating space in the desired conditions (paragraph bridging pages 10-11).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIBAN M HASSAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7636. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached on 5712721374. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LIBAN M HASSAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799