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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 2 March 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 1, 2, 10, and 11 are amended. Claims 3, 5, 8, 9, 13, 15, and 18-20 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-7, 10-12, 14, 16 and 17 are pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2 March 2026, with respect to the objection to claim 11 and the 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 1 and 2 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claim 11 and the 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 1 and 2 have been withdrawn.
Examiner notes that claims 1 and 11 have been amended to include limitations from claims 8 and 18 respectively, but fail to include the limitation “wherein the lighting system is located along an edge of a porthole door,” which Examiner indicated as the allowable subject matter in the previous office action.
Applicant's arguments, regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 11-12, and 14-17, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The limitations of claim 18 incorporated into claim 11 do not move claim 11 past the judicial exception. See note above. Examiner suggests incorporating the processor of claim 1 into claim 11 to provide structure as to what is performing the method.
Applicant's arguments, regarding the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-7, 10-12, and 14-17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The limitations of claim 8 and 18 amended into claims 1 and 11 do not overcome the prior art. Regarding claim 1, the amended limitations do not move the limitations following “a processor to:” to be positively recited. Regarding claim 11, the 103 rejection teaches lighting multiple LEDS (a red and green LED). Each LED could be interpreted as a portion of the lighting system and therefore the prior art reads on the amended limitations.
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.
Claims 11-12, 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “detecting that at least one access point is open”, “providing, using a lighting system, a first color light”, “providing the first color light with a modified brightness”, “illuminating a first portion of the lighting system” and “illuminating a second portion of the lighting system”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the method could be performed by a clinician with minimally more than a mental process. A clinician can identify an access point is open. A clinician can turn on the room or incubator light and the clinician can turn off the room or incubator light when they decide to. Further a clinician can flip a switch to light different lights to illuminate a first or second portion of the lighting system. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 as written does not claim any additional components or steps that would be outside a clinician performing their job around an infant care station. Regarding claim 12, a clinician can view a monitor that is providing data regarding the care station or infant and detect a change in the environment. Regarding claim 14, the same applies as a clinician can change the lighting conditions of the care stations at their own determined time. Regarding claim 16, proximity is a broad term, so even a room light can be considered proximate. Regarding claim 17, a clinician can turn the heater on in an infant care station automatically.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu (CN111857210A).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 6-7, and 10, Hu discloses an infant care station (Abstract) comprising a lighting system (Figure 1, Indicator lamp “18”); at least one access point (Figure 1, Operation window “201”); and a processor (Page 3 “According to one embodiment of the present invention, further comprising a processor”). The limitations regarding the processor that follow “ processor is to” or “processor to” are not positively and are interpreted as intended use. As Hu discloses the components of claim 1, to include the processor, Hu can be interpreted as anticipating the intended use of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-7, and 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 11, 12, 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolarovic (US20020147381A1) in view of Glycon (BR102019023077A2), and further in view of Hu (CN103197532A).
Regarding claim 11, Kolarovic discloses a method of maintaining a stable temperature of an infant in an incubator (Paragraph [0008]) comprising detecting that at least one access point is open using a sensor in the infant care station (Paragraph [0045]). Kolarovic further discloses the method comprises providing additional indications of system status through LED interface, LEDs, audible alarm and speaker (Paragraph [0031]). Kolarovic does not disclose providing, using a lighting system, a first color light in response to the detecting that the at least one access point is open; providing a second color light with the lighting system, illuminating a first portion of the lighting system in response to the detecting that the at least one access point is open and illuminating a second portion of the lighting system. Glycon discloses visually or audibly informing a user that the incubator door is not properly closed (Page 1). Glycon uses red and green lights to indicate if the door is open by detecting sensors on the door (Figure 1, green signal lamp “7”, red signal lamp “6”, and sensors “2” and “3”). The red and green lights can be interpreted as the first and second portions of the lighting system as the claims do not require the portions to be different from the colors. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by Kolarovic, with using two different colored LEDs of Kolarovic to indicate if an access point is open or closed as taught by Glycon, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of ensuring the safety of the infant in the incubator (Paragraphs [003]-[005]).
Modified Kolarovic fails to disclose providing the first color light with a modified brightness or provide a second color light with the lighting system , or illuminating a second portion, after a predetermined period of time elapses with the at least one access point being open. Hu (CN103197532A) discloses an alarm light (Abstract) that increases the brightness of a light until the alarm is acknowledged (Abstract). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by modified Kolarovic, with increasing the brightness of the alarm light or initiating a second light as taught by Hu, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of ensuring the user notices the light as it’s brightness increases (Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Kolarovic, as modified in claim 11, further discloses detecting a change in an environmental characteristic from a microenvironment of the infant care station, wherein the environmental characteristic comprises a temperature of the microenvironment, a humidity level of the microenvironment, or an oxygen level of the microenvironment (Paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 14, Kolarovic, as modified by Hu in claim 11, discloses that the open-door alarm light would continue to increase in brightness until the user acknowledges the alarm.
Regarding claim 16, Kolarovic, as modified in claim 11, further discloses the lighting system is proximate to the at least one access point that is open (Kolarovic discloses the LEDs are located on panel of the incubator, Figure 1).
Regarding claim 17, Kolarovic, as modified in claim 11, further discloses automatically initiating an air boost component in the infant care station in response to the detecting that the at least one access point is open (Paragraph [0045]).
Conclusion
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 Marc D Honrath whose telephone number is (571)272-6219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Charles A Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHARLES A MARMOR II/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/M.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3791