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 § 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Deaton (US 3818896 A) in view of Goldberg (WO 9711664 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Deaton teaches an incubator (“incubator”, abstract) comprising:
A base (table 14, shown in annotated Fig. 1 below);
A hood secured to the base (top portion 32, side walls 18, shown in annotated Fig. 1 below);
A chamber (air chamber 36, shown in annotated Fig. 1 below) formed between the base and the hood;
A mattress secured within the chamber (“bottom portion 16 acts as an air mattress”, Col. 3, lines 64-65; bottom portion 16 shown in annotated Fig. 1 below);
A water heater secured within the base (“heater element which heats a quantity of water”, Col. 5, lines 5-6); and
A mixing manifold (unit 56, shown in annotated Fig. 1 below) secured within the base and comprising a first and second end, wherein the manifold further comprises at least one inlet fan (“unit 56, for instance, may comprise a fan for sucking air into the unit”, Col. 4, lines 63-64) secured inside the first end of the manifold, at least one air heater (“unit 56…comprise…warming heater structure for warming the filtered air”, Col. 4, lines 63-65), and at least one nebulizer (“unit 56…comprise…conventional nebulizer”, Col. 4, lines 63-67).
PNG
media_image1.png
526
623
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Deaton does not teach the wherein the first end of the manifold is flushed within a wall of the base and the second end is open.
However, Goldberg teaches an infant thermal support device (“patient thermal support device”, page 3, paragraph 2) wherein the mixing manifold is secured within the base and comprising a first and second end, wherein the first end is flushed with a wall of the base, and the second end is open (“air make-up compartment 98 holds the heater 76, fan 78, filter 80”, page 11, paragraph 2; first end of compartment 98 shown flushed with a wall of the base and second end is open in annotated Fig. 8 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
371
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the incubator of Deaton with the system of Goldberg and place the mixing manifold to have the first end flushed with a wall of the base, and a second end open, in order to provide precise location of the air heaters and quick adjustments to the correct temperature within the incubator (“to define an air-mixing space 126”, page 11, paragraph 2).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Deaton in view of Goldberg and further in view of Zhang (CN 107456342 A).
Regarding claim 2, Deaton in view of Goldberg teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach the UV-C LED sterilization lamp.
However, Zhang teaches an incubator (“incubator”, abstract) with a UV-C LED sterilization lamp secured within the manifold (“incubator box body is provided with…an ultraviolet sterilizing lamp”, page 3, paragraph 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the incubator of Deaton in view of Goldberg with the UV-C LED sterilization lamp of Zhang in order to help disinfect bacteria and other viruses within the chamber of the incubator (“ultraviolet sterilizing lamp 4 can prevent the flow of air in with the infecting bacteria”, page 5, paragraph 9).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Deaton in view of Goldberg and further in view of Snyders (US 5125889 A).
Regarding claim 3, Deaton in view of Goldberg teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach a controlled exhaust port and an intake fan within the hood.
However, Snyders teaches an incubator (“infants incubator”, abstract) with a controlled exhaust port and an intake fan secured within the hood (“a series of vents in the transparent canopy allow excess air, oxygen and carbon dioxide to be exhausted from the chamber”, Col. 1, lines 32-34; air vents 15, “air…drawn into the incubator by an electrically-driven motor impeller”, Col. 1, lines 16-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the incubator of Deaton in view of Goldberg with the controlled exhaust port and intake fan of Snyders in order to ensure that the temperature-controlled water vapor and heated air are evenly dispersed from the base.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Deaton in view of Goldberg and further in view of Jones et al. (US 5539854 A) (hereon referred as Jones) and furthest in view of Pearson (US 2280257 A).
Regarding claim 4, Deaton in view of Goldberg teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach a water heater comprising a coiled tubing wrapped around a hollow glass rod, wherein the glass rod contains a resistance heating wire.
However, Jones teaches an incubator (“infant incubator”, abstract) with a water heater comprising a hollow rod, wherein the rod contains a resistance heating wire (“thermal actuator…is a bimetallic spiral strip 58 and which is positioned within a bore 60 in heat exchanger”, Col. 4, lines 36-38; bimetallic spiral strip 58, bore 60, shown in annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
413
791
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Deaton view of Goldberg and further in view of Jones does not teach the water heater having a coiled tubing wrapped around a hollow glass rod.
However, Pearson teaches heater unit that comprises of a coiled tubing wrapped around a hollow glass rod (“a heater coil 13…is placed over the glass body or rod 12”, Col. 2, lines 15-17)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified incubator with the water heater of Jones and the coiled tubing of Pearson in order to ensure the water is instantaneously heated as the water flows through the coiled water heater.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Deaton in view of Goldberg and further in view of Korner (US 4048684 A).
Regarding claim 5, Deaton in view of Goldberg teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach the mattress comprising an open plastic frame filled with a moistened super absorbent polymer material, wherein the polymer material is enclosed in an envelope made from a non-woven, non-perforated permeable polyolefin sheet.
However, Korner teaches an incubator (“incubator”, abstract) with a mattress comprising an open plastic frame filled with a moistened super absorbent polymer material, wherein the polymer material is enclosed in an envelope made from a non-woven, non-perforated permeable polyolefin sheet (“mattress 12 is made from…a sheet of flexible polymer such as…polyolefin”, Col. 2, lines 30-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the incubator of Deaton in view of Goldberg with the mattress of Korner and use a material like polyolefin for the mattress in order to ensure that the mattress within the incubator is impermeable to fluid.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Deaton in view of Goldberg and further in view of Rapoport (US 20150065788 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Deaton in view of Goldberg teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach the air heater comprising a resistance wire coil surrounded by a quartz heater tube.
However, Rapoport teaches an incubator (“infant’s incubator”, paragraph [0001]) with an air heater comprising a resistance wire coil surrounded by a quartz heater tube (“a coiled heater…a quartz tube air heater”, paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the incubator of Deaton in view of Goldberg with the air heater of Rapoport in order to efficiently heat the air to the precise end temperature.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Deaton in view of Goldberg and further in view of Nadau (US 20150196423 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Deaton in view of Goldberg teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach a pump secured within the base, which pumps water from an external source into the incubator.
However, Nadau teaches an incubator (“incubator”, paragraph [0025]) with a pump secured within the base (“base unit 80 has a support structure, a liquid reservoir, a heat exchanger, and a pump”, paragraph [0025]), which pumps water from an external source into the incubator (“when the pump 96 is actuated…water is pushed through a conduit 128 into the heat exchanger 100”, paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the incubator of Deaton in view of Goldberg with the pump system of Nadau and pump water into the incubator in order to bring in water for the water heater.
Regarding claim 8, Deaton in view of Goldberg teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach a temperature sensor secured within the base adjacent to the water heater.
However, Nadau teaches a temperature sensor secured within the base adjacent to the water heater (“the temperature of water inside the reservoir 94 may be monitored by the reservoir thermometer 102”, paragraph [0041], temperature sensor 102 adjacent to the water heater 100 shown in Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the incubator of Deaton in view of Goldberg with the temperature sensor of Nadau in order to monitor and ensure that the water within the base is at the desired temperature.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Deaton in view of Goldberg, and further in view of Snyders and furthest in view of Nadau.
Regarding claim 1, Deaton teaches an incubator (“incubator”, abstract) comprising:
A base (table 14, shown in annotated Fig. 1);
A hood secured to the base (top portion 32, side walls 18, shown in annotated Fig. 1);
A chamber (air chamber 36, shown in annotated Fig. 1) formed between the base and the hood;
A mattress secured within the chamber (“bottom portion 16 acts as an air mattress”, Col. 3, lines 64-65; bottom portion 16 shown in annotated Fig. 1);
A water heater secured within the base (“heater element which heats a quantity of water”, Col. 5, lines 5-6); and
A mixing manifold (unit 56, shown in annotated Fig. 1) secured within the base and comprising a first and second end, wherein the manifold further comprises at least one inlet fan (“unit 56, for instance, may comprise a fan for sucking air into the unit”, Col. 4, lines 63-64) secured inside the first end of the manifold, at least one air heater (“unit 56…comprise…warming heater structure for warming the filtered air”, Col. 4, lines 63-65), and at least one nebulizer (“unit 56…comprise…conventional nebulizer”, Col. 4, lines 63-67).
Deaton does not teach the wherein the first end of the manifold is flushed within a wall of the base, and the second end is open.
However, Goldberg teaches an infant thermal support device (“patient thermal support device”, page 3, paragraph 2) wherein the mixing manifold is secured within the base and comprising a first and second end, wherein the first end is flushed with a wall of the base, and the second end is open (“air make-up compartment 98 holds the heater 76, fan 78, filter 80”, page 11, paragraph 2; first end of compartment 98 shown flushed with a wall of the base and second end is open in annotated Fig. 8 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the incubator of Deaton with the system of Goldberg and place the mixing manifold to have the first end flushed with a wall of the base, and a second end open, in order to provide precise location of the air heaters and quick adjustments to the correct temperature within the incubator (“to define an air-mixing space 126”, page 11, paragraph 2).
Deaton in view of Goldberg does not teach wherein the hood comprises a controlled exhaust port and an intake fan.
However, Snyders teaches an incubator (“infants incubator”, abstract) with a controlled exhaust port and an intake fan secured within the hood (“a series of vents in the transparent canopy allow excess air, oxygen and carbon dioxide to be exhausted from the chamber”, Col. 1, lines 32-34; air vents 15, “air…drawn into the incubator by an electrically-driven motor impeller”, Col. 1, lines 16-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the incubator of Deaton in view of Goldberg with the controlled exhaust port and intake fan of Snyders in order to ensure that the temperature-controlled water vapor and heated air are evenly dispersed from the base.
The modified incubator in view of Snyders does not teach the base containing a water circuit, wherein the circuit includes a water line connected among a pump.
However, Nadau teaches an incubator with a base containing a water circuit, wherein the circuit includes a water line connected among a pump (“conduits 128 may be filled with water…form a closed circuit through which water is pumped”, paragraph [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified incubator with the water circuit of Nadau in order to help create nebulized water particles and pump water into the base of the incubator.
Regarding claim 10, the modified incubator teaches all the limitations of claim 9, as well as at least one nebulizer (“unit 56…comprise…conventional nebulizer”, Col. 4, lines 63-67; Deaton).
Furthermore, Nadau teaches the water circuit further comprising a temperature sensor (thermometer 102) secured next to the water heater (temperature sensor adjacent from water heater 100 shown in Fig. 6).
The modified incubator in view of Nadau does not teach the temperature sensor between the water heater and the nebulizer.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the temperature sensor of Nadau with the positioning of being between the water heater and the nebulizer of the modified incubator in order to be able to recirculate the water to the pump for recirculation through the water heater and to the nebulizer assembly, regulating the environment of the incubator. Additionally, since such modification would simply involve merely moving the temperature sensor to being between the water heater and the nebulizer without changing the operation of the device, a rearrangement of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Deaton in view of Goldberg, further in view of Snyders, further in view of Nadau, and furthest in view of Rogers (US 9757531 B1).
Regarding claim 11, the modified incubator teaches all the limitations of claim 10, but does not teach a T connector secured within the water line wherein the T connector splits the water line into a supply channel leading to the at least one nebulizer and a return channel leading back to the pump.
However, Rogers teaches an incubator (“infant incubator”, Col. 13, lines 30-32) with a T connector secured within the water line (“T-connector”, Col. 7, line 13) wherein the T connector splits the water line (“first branch…second branch…third branch”, Col. 7, lines 13-25) into a supply channel capable of leading to the at least one nebulizer and a return channel leading back to the pump.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified incubator with the T-connector of Rogers in order to help split the water into different channels necessary, such as the nebulizer and return channel leading back to the pump.
Regarding claim 12, the modified incubator teaches all the limitations of claim 11.
Furthermore, Nadau teaches the supply channel including a supply valve and the return channel including a return valve (“closed circuit may be outfitted with a thermal safety valve 98 that closes”, paragraph [0045]), wherein the supply valve and return valve are closed and opened depending on the temperature of the water measured by the temperature sensor (“flow of water…automatically stopped by the thermal safety valve 98, which is preset to close at a non-hazardous temperature”, paragraph [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the modified incubator with Nadau in order to control the water flowing in and out of the incubator depending on the desired temperature of the water.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Deaton in view of Goldberg, further in view of Snyders, further in view of Nadau, and furthest in view of Korner.
Regarding claim 13, the modified incubator teaches all the limitations of claim 9, but does not teach the mattress comprising an open plastic frame filled with a moistened super absorbent polymer material, wherein the polymer material is enclosed in an envelope made from a non-woven, non-perforated permeable polyolefin sheet.
However, Korner teaches an incubator (“incubator”, abstract) with a mattress comprising an open plastic frame filled with a moistened super absorbent polymer material, wherein the polymer material is enclosed in an envelope made from a non-woven, non-perforated permeable polyolefin sheet (“mattress 12 is made from…a sheet of flexible polymer such as…polyolefin”, Col. 2, lines 30-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified incubator with the mattress of Korner and use a material like polyolefin for the mattress in order to ensure that the mattress within the incubator is impermeable to fluid.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Deaton in view of Goldberg, further in view of Snyders, further in view of Nadau, and furthest in view of Zhang.
Regarding claim 14, the modified incubator teaches all the limitations of claim 9, but does not teach a UV-C LED sterilization lamp secured adjacent to the at least one nebulizer within the mixing manifold.
However, Zhang teaches an incubator (“incubator”, abstract) with a UV-C LED sterilization lamp secured within the manifold (“incubator box body is provided with…an ultraviolet sterilizing lamp”, page 3, paragraph 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified incubator with the UV-C LED sterilization lamp of Zhang in order to help disinfect bacteria and other viruses within the chamber of the incubator (“ultraviolet sterilizing lamp 4 can prevent the flow of air in with the infecting bacteria”, page 5, paragraph 9). It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positioning of the UV-C LED sterilization lamp to be adjacent to the at least one nebulizer within the mixing fold to be able to ensure that all bacteria particles do not enter the mixing manifold as the heated air mixes with the nebulized water particles.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Deaton in view of Goldberg, further in view of Snyders, further in view of Nadau, further in view of Jones and furthest in view of Pearson.
Regarding claim 15, the modified incubator teaches all the limitations of claim 9, but does not teach the water heater comprising a coiled tubing wrapped around a hollow glass rod, wherein the glass rod contains a resistance heating wire.
However, Jones teaches an incubator (“infant incubator”, abstract) with a water heater comprising a hollow rod, wherein the rod contains a resistance heating wire (“thermal actuator…is a bimetallic spiral strip 58 and which is positioned within a bore 60 in heat exchanger”, Col. 4, lines 36-38; bimetallic spiral strip 58, bore 60, shown in annotated Fig. 2).
The modified incubator in view of Jones does not teach the water heater having a coiled tubing wrapped around a hollow glass rod.
However, Pearson teaches heater unit that comprises of a coiled tubing wrapped around a hollow glass rod (“a heater coil 13…is placed over the glass body or rod 12”, Col. 2, lines 15-17)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified incubator with the water heater of Jones and the coiled tubing of Pearson in order to ensure the water is instantaneously heated as the water flows through the coiled water heater.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARA LINH TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3598. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5:00pm M-F.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 5712724233. 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.
/L.L.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights