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 .
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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive because it is too generic. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. See MPEP § 606.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10-13, 16, 17, 19, 21-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klewer et al (WO 2010/116297 A1). The Klewer reference discloses a system (Fig. 1) for monitoring temperature of a subject, the system comprising:
a heat conducting layer (101);
a heat flux sensor (108) positioned to be between the heat conducting layer and the subject when the subject is placed directly or indirectly in contact with the heat flux sensor, the heat flux sensor configured to provide signals representative of a temperature difference between the heat conducting layer and the subject (p. 4, line 28, to p. 5, line 3);
a temperature controller (107) to affect the temperature of the heat conducting layer (p. 5, ll. 3-5);
a temperature sensor (109) to sense temperature of the heat conducting layer (p. 4, line 28, to p. 5, line 2; and
a process controller (201) coupled to the temperature controller (107), the temperature sensor (109), and the heat flux sensor (p. 7, ll. 24-33), wherein the process controller (201) is configured to control the temperature controller (107) based on the signals to affect the temperature of the heat conducting layer (101) until the signals indicate that the temperature of the heat conducting layer (101) is substantially equal to the temperature of the subject and then to determine the temperature of the heat conducting layer using the temperature sensor (p. 5, ll. 3-7; the heater 107 is operated until the temperature difference (i.e.: heat flux) between sensors 109 and 108 is “zero”).
With respect to claims 3 and 4, the temperature controller is a thermistor (p. 6, ll. 6-18).
With respect to claim 7, the conducting layer (101) contains a metal (p. 5, ll. 10-16).
With respect to claim 8, side heaters (113) are arranged to prevent heat from flowing laterally (p. 7, ll. 5-22).
With respect to claim 10, any layer is inherently going to be a “thermal mass” that absorbs and dissipates heat.
With respect to claims 11-13, since the temperature sensors are thermistors, the “signals” are both varying voltage and/or varying current, and since the controller is a microprocessor, then these signals need to be converted into a digital form for the microprocessor to use.
With respect to claim 16, the sensor is made to be attached directly to a person (p. 8, ll. 9-23) With respect to claim 17, there is an optional insulating layer (p. 5, ll. 20-22; p. 6, ll. 9-12).
With respect to claim 19, there is a heat spreading layer (p. 5, line 32, to p. 6, line 2).
With respect to claims 21-23 and 25, the device is incorporated into a baby bed (p. 8).
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.
Claims 2, 5, 6, 9, 14, 15, 18, 20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klewer et al (WO 2010/116297 A1) in view of Ishida (US PG Pub # 2020/0037884 A1).
With respect to claim 2, the Klewer reference discloses that his temperature controller (107) is some type of thermistor, but Ishida discloses that Peltier heat-pump devices were art recognized functional equivalents (para. # 0099), and it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to substitute a Peltier device for the thermistor of Klewer, motivated by their known functional equivalence in this context. With respect to claims 5 & 6, it was known that Peltier devices can alternatively heat or cool based on the direction of electrical current flow1.
With respect to claim 9, the specific shape of the sensor would have been optimized depending on its intended use.
With respect to claim 14, the examiner notes that PID feedback controllers were well known for many decades, and it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to program the microprocessor of the Klewer device to simulate a PID control algorithm motivated by its art recognized suitability for its intended use2.
With respect to claim 15, preheating the sensor prior to use would have decreased the sensor response time and would have been obvious to try motivated by the same reasoning.
With respect to claims 18 & 20, air was a known insulator, and air bladders were known cushioning devices (since the device was to be incorporated into a baby’s bed, adding cushioning for the infant’s comfort would have been desirable), and it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to try substituting an air cushion for one of the insulators motivated by its known suitability for its intended use.
With respect to claim 24, a device designed for sensing a human infant’s core body temperature should also work with sensing an animal’s body temperature, and it would have been obvious for the user to try to use the temperature sensor on a pet.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The other references cited but not applied show devices similar to applicant’s claimed device.
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
1 See “Peltier Module” from the KYOCERA webpage < https://global.kyocera.com/prdct/ecd/peltier/index.html >.
2 See “PID Control Theory Explained” from the NI Labview webpage < https://www.ni.com/en/shop/labview/pid-theory-explained.html?srsltid=AfmBOooFDdCbCCKOTLZ-COkYs5gEvWEQO0Pse0TLwBSTqSluPcFSki6v >.