DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 7 is 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.
Regarding claim 7, the phrases “downward/upward facing position” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what would indicate that the reflective dish is in a downward or upward facing position. For examination purposes, this is being interpreted as a change in position.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 13: “a sensing mechanism detects a location of an infant on the support platform”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure:
Claim 13: “a sensing mechanism detects a location of an infant on the support platform”; As identified by the specification in paragraph [0096] “the processor 1002 may also be linked through the system interconnect 1006 to a storage device 1016 that can include a hard drive, an optical drive, a USB flash drive, an array of drives, or any combinations thereof. In some embodiments, the storage device 1016 can include any suitable applications. In some embodiments, the storage device 1016 can include a heater manager 1018. In some embodiments, the heater manager 1018 can detect a warmer setting for an infant care station and determine a location of a configurable heater relative to an overhead reflective dish. The heater manager 1018 can also adjust a power level of a heater element of the configurable heater based on the location of the configurable heater and provide radiant heat to a support platform or mattress of the infant care station.”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 –
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, 5, 8-10, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Mackin (US 2004/0082829).
Regarding claim 1, Mackin discloses an infant care station comprising:
A heater element to generate radiant heat (paragraph [0038] “there is a heater element 48“ and paragraph [0038] “radiant heaters 38”)
A first reflective dish (paragraph [0038] “a reflector 50” The examiner notes that in figure 3, reflector 50 is in the shape of a dish.)
A second reflective dish positioned higher than a support platform of the infant care station (paragraph [0036] “a mattress 40 that is positioned on top of the infant platform 14” The examiner notes that in figure 3, there are two reflective dishes – a first and second one – both positioned higher than the support platform.)
Wherein the first reflective dish and the second reflective dish transfer the radiant heat to the support platform (paragraph [0039] “FIG. 3 position of the canopy 12, that is, in its upper position, the infant warming apparatus 10 is acting as an infant warmer and the radiant heaters 38 are both directing the infrared energy along the first paths toward the infant platform 14 when that energy provides heat to an infant resting on the infant platform 14.”),
The first reflective dish to focus and project the radiant heat onto the second reflective dish (paragraph [0041] “the path of the infrared energy emitted by each of the heater elements 48 and reflected by the reflectors 50 has been redirected from the first path shown in FIG. 3 toward the infant platform 14 and is now directed in a second path, indicated by the dotted lines of FIG. 4, in a direction that is away from the infant platform 14 “)
Regarding claim 5, Mackin discloses a housing that provides an enclosure in the infant care station for transferring the radiant heat from the heater element and the first reflective dish to the second reflective dish (paragraph [0029] “the canopy 12….houses a radiant heater 38“ paragraph [0040] – [0041] “canopy sections 44 have both been rotated about the pivot mounting….the path of the infrared energy emitted by each of the heater elements 48 and reflected by the reflectors 50 has been redirected from the first path shown in FIG. 3 toward the infant platform 14 and is now directed in a second path, indicated by the dotted lines of FIG. 4”)
Regarding claim 8, Mackin discloses the infant care station of claim 1, wherein the first reflective dish is to focus and project the radiant heat on the second reflective dish using two or more focal points based on an elliptical configuration (Figure 4, element 50. The examiner notes that the dishes are in an elliptical configuration) in which an intersection of the radiant heat is located between the first reflective dish and the second reflective dish (Figure 4, the dotted lines show where the two or more focal points of the heat paths intersect.) in a housing of the infant care station (figure 4, element 12).
Regarding claim 9, Mackin discloses the infant care station of claim 1, and wherein the second reflective dish provides a heat distribution of radiant heat to the support platform. (Figure 3, shows the second reflecting dish providing radiant heat to the support platform.)
Regarding claim 10, Mackin discloses the infant care station of claim 1, and wherein the heater element and/or the first reflective dish are configured to rotate along a horizontal axis. (Figures 3-4 show how the reflective dishes rotate around the pivot point 56. The examiner notes that if a line was drawn into the page, through pivot point 56 that it would be a horizontal axis.)
Regarding claim 15, Mackin discloses a method for operating an infant care station comprising:
detecting a warmer setting for the infant care station (paragraph [0031] “When the caregiver decides to change the function of the infant warming apparatus from an infant warmer function to an incubator function, the radiant heater 38 is de-energized by terminating the power to that radiant heater 38 so that the radiant heater 38 is assured of being off when the canopy 12 is moved downwardly”);
determining a location of a configurable heater relative to an overhead reflective dish (paragraph [0031] “Thus, in the operation of the infant warming apparatus, when the canopy 12 and, of course, the heater 38 are in the upper position as shown in FIG. 1,
adjusting a power level of a heater element of the configurable heater based on the location of the configurable heater (paragraph [0031] “the radiant heater 38 can be energized and the infrared energy is directed along a first path from the radiant heater 38”), the power level to control an amount of radiant heat projected from the configurable heater to the overhead reflective dish (The examiner notes that the on/off setting of the heater controls the power to the dish and therefore the amount of heat projected to the dish.);
and providing radiant heat to a support platform of the infant care station (the examiner notes that this is a radiant heater when the canopy is in the upper position, thus providing radiant heat to a support platform as shown in figure 3).
Regarding claim 16, Mackin discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the power level is increased as a distance between the overhead reflective dish and the location of the support platform increases. (The examiner notes as taught in claim 15, when the canopy and reflective dish are in the upward position the radiant heater is energized compared to turned off in the downward position, therefore as the distance increases between the reflective dish and support platform so does the power level. Paragraph [0031] “the radiant heater 38 is de-energized by terminating the power to that radiant heater 38 so that the radiant heater 38 is assured of being off when the canopy 12 is moved downwardly in the direction toward an infant situated on the infant platform 14.”)
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackin in view of Falk (US 2005/0070756).
Mackin teaches the infant care station of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the heater element is located at a static position proximate to the support platform.
Falk teaches an infant care station with a heater in a fixed position. (Paragraph [0013] “A radiant heater is located in a fixed position above the infant platform”)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the care station taught by Mackin in view of Falk. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that for safety of the infant it would benefit the system to have a heater that is unable to be moved too close to the infant.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackin in view of Mackin (US 2016/0081868), herein referred to as Mackin 2.
Regarding claim 3, Mackin teaches the infant care station of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the heater element and the first reflective dish of the modulating heater is configured to dynamically reposition to provide radiant heat to a heat sink proximate to the support platform.
However, Mackin 2 teaches an incubator with configurable heater and heat sink to provide convective heating. (Figure 7 shows that the heater element and reflective dish can dynamically reposition. paragraph [0031] “There might be vents that allow heat to escape from the back of the reflector, possibly even a small blower….a fan or natural convective venting (not shown) could be used to remove the residual heat from the radiant heater, but vent it into the infant compartment (see flow 230 in FIG. 2) to minimize the thermal ramp up time to a stable incubator environment” The examiner notes that the vents or fan act as a heat sink to dissipate the heat coming from the heater and thus provide convective heating. )
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system taught by Mackin to have the heater repositioned and use a heat sink as taught by Mackin 2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize heating of the infant needs to be done safely, and there needs to be a mean to cool the system to prevent overheating of the infant.
Regarding claim 4, Mackin in view of Mackin 2 teach the station of claim 3, and Mackin 2 further teaches herein one or more fans circulate thermally conditioned air to provide convective heating within a microenvironment. (paragraph [0031] “There might be vents that allow heat to escape from the back of the reflector, possibly even a small blower….a fan or natural convective venting (not shown) could be used to remove the residual heat from the radiant heater, but vent it into the infant compartment (see flow 230 in FIG. 2) to minimize the thermal ramp up time to a stable incubator environment”)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system taught by Mackin to use fans as taught by Mackin 2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize there needs to be a mean to cool the system to prevent overheating of the infant and that one or more fans would ensure this process occurs efficiently.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackin in view of Donnelly (US 5453077).
Regarding claim 6, Mackin teaches the infant care station of claim 5, but fails to teach wherein the housing comprises a non-reflective material or reflective material.
Donnelly teaches an incubator with a housing made of a non-reflective material. (Column 5, line 45 “Canopy halves 11a and 11b are preferably fabricated of transparent material, e.g., plexiglass.“)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system taught by Mackin to have a non-reflective material as taught by Donnelly. One of ordinary skill would have been able to recognize that this would be a simple substitution one known material commonly used in incubators and would yield the predictable results of providing a housing for the incubator elements.
Claim(s) 7, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackin in view of Matsubara (US 2010/0286471)
Regarding claim 7, Mackin teaches the station of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the heater element and the first reflective dish are configured to rotate a predetermined number of degrees from a downward facing position providing the radiant heat to a heatsink to an upward facing position providing the radiant heat to the second reflective dish that distributes the radiant heat to the support platform.
Matsubara teaches an infant care station with a rotatable heater that sits at a tilt angle. (Figs 7 and 13. paragraph [0040] “In this case, as shown in FIGS. 5 and 13, the tilt angle .theta. indicates the angle by which the heat radiation opening 34 tilts upward from its rear end side to the upper side toward a front end 34a with respect to the horizontal direction.” The examiner is modifying the first and second reflective dishes to rotate and stop at a tilt angle in between the open and closed position. Thus, the first reflective dish rotates a number of degrees from the downward position to an upward position providing heat to the second dish to distribute to the support platform.)
It would be prima facie obvious to modify the system taught by Mackin to have the heaters adjustable at an angle to reflect the heat off of the secondary dish to distribute to the support platform as taught by Matsubara. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been able to recognize that an incubator system would benefit from adjustable temperatures not just an on/off configuration as initially taught by the system in Mackin.
Regarding claim 11, Mackin teaches the infant care station of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the surface shape of the first and/or second dish is adjustable, wherein an adjustment to the surface shape modifies a distribution to the support platform.
Matsubara teaches an infant care station with a heater has an adjustable surface shape. (paragraph [0049] “the heat radiation opening 34 of the reflector 24 of the heater 16 pivots backward from the state of the tilt angle e (i.e., about 26.degree. shown in FIG. 13 (i.e., an upward angle relative to the horizontal direction) to the state of a tilt angle of about 90.degree. shown in FIG. 10” The examiner notes in paragraph [0085] of the applicant’s disclosed specification “the reflective dish 806 can be modified to have a different surface shape by changing individually, a direction of any number of mirrors 818 or reflective surfaces of the reflective dish 806” and that by changing the angle of the heater the direction of the reflective surface is changed and so is the surface shape.)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system taught by Mackin to have the adjustable surface shape as taught by Matsubara. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that an incubator system would benefit from adjustable temperatures not just an on/off configuration as initially taught by the system in Mackin.
Regarding claim 14, Mackin and Matsubara teach the infant care station of claim 11, and Matsubara further teaches wherein the second reflective dish comprises a plurality of small reflectors, wherein a direction of the plurality of the small reflectors is modified to modify a distribution of the radiant heat to the support platform. (paragraph [0037] “The reflecting surfaces of the reflecting plate portions 26a, 27a and 27b may have heat ray reflectances of, e.g., about 95% or more.” The examiner notes that the portions 26a, 27, and 27b are smaller reflectors which make up the reflective dish 16 that when rotated according to the change in degrees as taught in claim 11 would change the direction of the reflectors and the radiant heat to the support platform. The examiner is modifying one of the two reflective dishes taught in Mackin to have the small reflective surfaces taught by Matsubara.)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reflective dish taught in Mackin to be made of small reflectors as taught by Matsubara. One of ordinary skill would have been able to recognize that having smaller reflecting portions of the reflective dish would increase the amount of heat that is able to be delivered to the surface due to the increase in surface area of the dish.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackin in view of Matsubara in view of Mackin 2.
Regarding claim 12, Mackin and Matsubara teach the infant care station of claim 11, Mackin further teaches wherein a power level of the heater element is adjustable, the power level to be adjusted as the heater element and the first reflective dish move from a first position to a second position, (paragraph [0031] “the radiant heater 38 is de-energized by terminating the power to that radiant heater 38 so that the radiant heater 38 is assured of being off when the canopy 12 is moved downwardly in the direction toward an infant” The examiner notes that figure 3 is a first position and figure 4 is a second position.) but fails to teach the second position comprising providing the radiant heat to a heat sink.
However, Mackin 2 teaches an incubator with configurable heater and heat sink to provide convective heating. (Figure 7 shows that the heater element and reflective dish can dynamically reposition. paragraph [0031] “There might be vents that allow heat to escape from the back of the reflector, possibly even a small blower….a fan or natural convective venting (not shown) could be used to remove the residual heat from the radiant heater, but vent it into the infant compartment (see flow 230 in FIG. 2) to minimize the thermal ramp up time to a stable incubator environment” The examiner notes that the vents or fan act as a heat sink to dissipate the heat coming from the heater and thus provide convective heating. )
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system taught by Mackin to have the heater repositioned and use a heat sink as taught by Mackin 2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize heating of the infant needs to be done safely, and there needs to be a mean to cool the system to prevent overheating of the infant.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackin in view of Matsubara in view of Mackin 2 in view of Feng (CN 105159361) further in view of Falk (US 2022/0331182), herein referred to as Falk 2.
Regarding claim 13, Mackin, Matsubara, and Mackin 2 teach the station of claim 11 but fail to teach wherein a sensing mechanism detects a location of an infant on the support platform, and the surface shape of the first and/or second reflective dish is modified based on the location of the infant to provide the radiant heat to the location of the infant, wherein power consumption for the heater element is reduced.
Feng teaches an infant position detector for a baby bed that adjusts the treatment based on the infant’s location. (page 5, paragraph 3 “the infant nursing device according to the position and size of the baby to adjust the irradiation light spot size, to enable the infant to be located at the irradiation spot, and the size of the irradiation spot is matched with the size of the baby” and page 7, paragraph 6 “a circuit control component 120 comprises a processor and the processor circuit module, the processor is connected to the information storage and processing circuit module is used for controlling the circuit, so as to control the whole circuit of the infant care apparatus 100” The examiner is modifying the system taught by Mackin, Matsubara, and Mackin 2 to detect the location of infant on the platform as taught by Feng.)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the system taught by Mackin, Matsubara, and Mackin 2 to detect a location of an infant based on Feng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that infants move around and may not be in the field where the heat is strongest thus risking the infants being too cold while in the incubator.
However, Mackin, Matsubara, Mackin 2, and Feng fail to teach the surface shape of the first and/or second reflective dish is modified based on the location of the infant to provide the radiant heat to the location of the infant, wherein power consumption for the heater element is reduced.
Falk 2 teaches an system to adjust heating in an infant care station. (paragraph [0054] “At block 408, the method 400 can include generating and providing a response that results in a correction of the temperature maintained by the heating component.” And paragraph [0055] “For example, the response can include instructions that increase or decrease a temperature maintained by a heating component by increasing or decreasing power provided to the heating component or heating element coupled to a reflective dish.” The examiner is modifying the system taught by Mackin, Matsubara, Mackin 2, and Feng to read the location of the infant and thus respond by adjusting the temperature, which taught by claims 11 and 12 are changing the surface shape and reducing the power consumption.)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system to having a response to adjust the heating of an infant care station as taught by Falk 2. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize that adjustment to the infant’s temperature in the environment may be necessary while someone is not manually monitoring them at the moment, therefore an automated system would help maintain the environmental conditions of the incubator.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackin in view of Feng in view of Falk 2.
Regarding claim 17, Mackin teaches the method of claim 15, but fails to teach as wherein the power level is adjusted based on an area of the support platform to receive the radiant heat.
Feng teaches an infant position detector for a baby bed that adjusts the treatment based on the area the infant is located in. (page 5, paragraph 3 “the infant nursing device according to the position and size of the baby to adjust the irradiation light spot size, to enable the infant to be located at the irradiation spot, and the size of the irradiation spot is matched with the size of the baby” and page 7, paragraph 6 “a circuit control component 120 comprises a processor and the processor circuit module, the processor is connected to the information storage and processing circuit module is used for controlling the circuit, so as to control the whole circuit of the infant care apparatus 100” The examiner is modifying the system taught by Mackin to detect the location and area of infant on the platform as taught by Feng.)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the system taught by Mackin to detect a location of an infant based on Feng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that infants move around and may not be in the field where the heat is strongest thus risking the infants being too cold while in the incubator.
However, Mackin and Feng fail to teach adjusting a power level in response to the area of the infant.
Falk 2 teaches a system to adjust heating in an infant care station. (paragraph [0054] “At block 408, the method 400 can include generating and providing a response that results in a correction of the temperature maintained by the heating component.” And paragraph [0055] “For example, the response can include instructions that increase or decrease a temperature maintained by a heating component by increasing or decreasing power provided to the heating component or heating element coupled to a reflective dish.” The examiner is modifying the system taught by Mackin, and Feng to read the location of the infant and thus respond by adjusting the power level and thus the temperature.)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system to having a response to adjust the heating of an infant care station as taught by Falk. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize that adjustment to the infant’s temperature in the environment may be necessary while someone is not manually monitoring them at the moment, therefore an automated system would help maintain the environmental conditions of the incubator.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackin in view of Falk 2.
Regarding claim 18, Mackin teaches:
detect a reconfiguration of the infant care station (paragraph [0031] “When the caregiver decides to change the function of the infant warming apparatus from an infant warmer function to an incubator function.””);
modify an overhead reflective dish in response to the reconfiguration of the infant care station (paragraph [0031] “the radiant heater 38 is de-energized by terminating the power to that radiant heater 38 so that the radiant heater 38 is assured of being off when the canopy 12 is moved downwardly in the direction toward an infant situated on the infant platform 14.”
and provide radiant heat to a support platform using a configurable heater and a modified overhead reflective dish (paragraph [0041] “therefore, the infrared energy that continues to be emitted from the radiant heater 38 does not create a hazard to the infant even where the canopy 12 is moved to such a close position with respect to the infant platform 14.”).
However, Mackin fails to teach a non-transitory computer-readable medium for operating an infant care station comprising a plurality of instructions that, in response to execution by a processor, cause the processor to execute the limitations described above.
Falk 2 teaches a system to adjust temperature heat of an incubator using a medium and processor. (paragraph [0015] “a non-transitory machine-readable medium for operating an infant care station can include a plurality of instructions that, in response to execution by a processor… Furthermore, the instructions can cause the processor to generate a response that results in a correction of the operating temperature maintained by the heating component”
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the system taught by Mackin to use a processor as taught by Falk. One of ordinary skill would be able to recognize that the adjustment of incubator may be more efficient and accurate when using a processor compared to manually adjusting.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackin in view of Falk 2 in view of Matsubara in view of Feng.
Regarding claim 19, Mackin and Falk 2 teaches the method of claim 18, but fails to teach as wherein the modifying the overhead reflective dish comprises modifying a surface shape of the overhead reflective dish to provide the radiant heat to a portion of the support platform based on a size of an infant (of claim 19) and the location of an infant (of claim 20).
Matsubara teaches an infant care station with a heater has an adjustable surface shape. (paragraph [0049] “the heat radiation opening 34 of the reflector 24 of the heater 16 pivots backward from the state of the tilt angle e (i.e., about 26.degree. shown in FIG. 13 (i.e., an upward angle relative to the horizontal direction) to the state of a tilt angle of about 90.degree. shown in FIG. 10” The examiner notes in paragraph [0085] of the applicant’s disclosed specification “the reflective dish 806 can be modified to have a different surface shape by changing individually, a direction of any number of mirrors 818 or reflective surfaces of the reflective dish 806” and that by changing the angle of the heater the direction of the reflective surface is changed and so is the surface shape.)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system taught by Mackin and Falk 2 to have the adjustable surface shape as taught by Matsubara. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that an incubator system would benefit from adjustable temperatures not just an on/off configuration as initially taught by the system in Mackin.
However, Mackin, Falk 2 and Feng fail to teach adjusting the treatment based on a size of an infant.
Feng teaches an infant position detector for a baby bed that adjusts the treatment based on the the location and size of the infant. (page 5, paragraph 3 “the infant nursing device according to the position and size of the baby to adjust the irradiation light spot size, to enable the infant to be located at the irradiation spot, and the size of the irradiation spot is matched with the size of the baby” and page 7, paragraph 6 “a circuit control component 120 comprises a processor and the processor circuit module, the processor is connected to the information storage and processing circuit module is used for controlling the circuit, so as to control the whole circuit of the infant care apparatus 100” The examiner is modifying the system taught by Mackin to detect the location and area of infant on the platform as taught by Feng.)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the system taught by Mackin to detect a location of an infant based on Feng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that infants vary in size and may move around so they may not be in the field where the heat is strongest thus risking the infants being too cold while in the incubator.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of copending Application No. 18401079. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons described below
Regarding claim 1, this claim is not patentably distinct from the limitations encompassed in application claim 5. Both claim an infant care station comprising a support platform, a heater element generating radiant heat with two reflective dishes.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Eustace (US 6506147) teaches an incubator with a rotational canopy with heating panels. Jones (US 6506147) teaches a radiant heater with a reflective dish for incubators.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIANA JOY LACAY DECASTRO whose telephone number is (571)272-8316. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:30.
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at 571-272-5596. 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.
/A.L.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights