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 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.
Claims 1-20 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. Each of claims 1-3 have each been amended to include the limitation “at least one of a heating power corresponding to the set temperature and a temperature range corresponding to the set temperature”. However, this amendment includes the scenario where the control is based on both the set temperature and the corresponding range, which is not supported by the original disclosure. Note that the original recitation only used “or”. While the specification discusses that the limitation “and/or” may correspond to “at least one of” (see e.g., para. 0088), it does not accord such interpretation to simply “or”. Accordingly, the limitation “at least one of a heating power corresponding to the set temperature and a temperature range corresponding to the set temperature” is not supported by the original disclosure. The remaining claims are also rejected since they depend from one or more of rejected claims 1-3 and 9.
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.
Claim 3-4, 7-8, and 12-19 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 3 recites “a preset second correspondence” in line 4 of the claim. However, the claim does not recite a “first” correspondence, rendering the metes and bound unclear. (Note that while claim 2 does recite a “preset first correspondence”, claim 3 does not depend from claim 2 and so does not incorporate that limitation.) Claims 4 and 14-19 are also rejected since they depend from claim 3.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the secondary heating power" in lines 3 and 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 is also rejected since it depends from claim 7.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the secondary heating power" in lines 3 and 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 is also rejected since it depends from claim 12.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the secondary heating power" in lines 3 and 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16 is also rejected since it depends from claim 15.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the secondary heating power" in lines 3 and 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 19 is also rejected since it depends from claim 18.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 11, 14, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsabara et al. (US 2013/0310635 A1)in view of Stohrer et al. (US 2021/0024871 A1) and Wilker (US 5162038).
As per claim 1, Matsabara et al. disclose an incubator 1, an inner surface of the incubator being arranged with heating wires (Abstract; paras. 0011, 0014; etc.), but do not teach
in case where a door body of the incubator is opened and then reclosed, obtaining a set temperature of the incubator;
according to at least one of a heating power corresponding to the set temperature and a temperature range corresponding to the set temperature, determining a target heating power; and controlling the heating wires to operate at the target heating power to adjust an internal temperature of the incubator to the set temperature.
Stohrer et al. teach in case where a door body of the incubator is opened and then reclosed, obtaining a set temperature of the incubator (Fig. 4; para. 0067; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly obtain a set temperature when the incubator of Matsabara et al. is opened and closed since, as shown in Fig. 4 of Stohrer et al., opening the incubator affects the temperature inside the incubator and thus requires a temperature control response.
Wilker teaches according to at least one of a heating power corresponding to the set temperature and a temperature range corresponding to the set temperature, determining a target heating power; and to operate at the target heating power to adjust an internal temperature of the incubator to the set temperature (Abstract; col. 1, lines 26-30; col. 3, lines 4-25; col. 5, lines 11-51; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly apply these teachings to the heating wires of Matsabara et al. for the purpose of effectively maintaining the temperature in the incubator at a desired level.
As per claim 2, Matsabara et al. do not teach wherein the according to at least one of a heating power corresponding to the set temperature and a temperature range corresponding to the set temperature, determining the target heating power comprises: according to a preset first correspondence, defining the heating power corresponding to the set temperature as the target heating power. Wilker teaches wherein the according to at least one of a heating power corresponding to the set temperature and a temperature range corresponding to the set temperature, determining the target heating power comprises: according to a preset first correspondence, defining the heating power corresponding to the set temperature as the target heating power (Abstract; col. 1, lines 26-30; col. 3, lines 4-25; col. 5, lines 11-51; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly apply these teachings to Matsabara et al. for the purpose of effectively maintaining the temperature in the incubator at a desired level.
As per claim 3, Matsabara et al. do not teach wherein the according to at least one of a heating power corresponding to the set temperature and a temperature range corresponding to the set temperature, determining the target heating power comprises: according to a preset second correspondence, determining a target scale factor corresponding to the temperature range; and according to the target scale factor, calculating the target heating power. Wilker teaches wherein the according to at least one of a heating power corresponding to the set temperature and a temperature range corresponding to the set temperature, determining the target heating power comprises: according to a preset second correspondence, determining a target scale factor corresponding to the temperature range; and according to the target scale factor, calculating the target heating power (col. 9, lines 24-60; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly apply these teachings to Matsabara et al. for the purpose of effecting controlling temperature control equilibrium (Wilker, col. 9, lines 51-60; etc.)
As per claim 5, Matsabara et al. do not teach wherein the in case where the door body of the incubator is opened and then reclosed, obtaining a set temperature of the incubator comprises: in case where the door body of the incubator is opened and then reclosed, obtaining a temperature change rate inside the incubator; and in case where the temperature change rate inside the incubator is greater than or equal to a preset change rate, obtaining the set temperature of the incubator. Stohrer et al. teach wherein the in case where the door body of the incubator is opened and then reclosed, obtaining a set temperature of the incubator comprises: in case where the door body of the incubator is opened and then reclosed, obtaining a temperature change rate inside the incubator (Fig. 4 shows rate of change); and in case where the temperature change rate inside the incubator is greater than or equal to a preset change rate, obtaining the set temperature of the incubator (since Stohrer et al. generally obtains a set temperature (para. 0067, etc.) under any operating condition it is considered implicitly to do so in case where the temperature change rate inside the incubator is greater than or equal to a preset change rate). Again, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly obtain a set temperature when the incubator of Matsabara et al. is opened and closed since, as shown in Fig. 4 of Stohrer et al., opening the incubator affects the temperature inside the incubator and thus requires a temperature control response.
As per claim 6, Matsabara et al. do not teach after adjusting the internal temperature of the incubator to the set temperature, further comprising: in case where the internal temperature of the incubator decreases and a decreasing magnitude exceeds a preset threshold, re-regulating the internal temperature of the incubator to the set temperature of the incubator. Wilker teaches after adjusting the temperature to the set temperature, further comprising: in case where the temperature decreases and a decreasing magnitude exceeds a preset threshold, re-regulating the temperature of the incubator to the set temperature (see col. 3, lines 8-13, etc., regarding controlling the temperature within a range of upper and lower bounds). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly apply these teachings to the heating wires of Matsabara et al. for the purpose of effectively maintaining the temperature in the incubator at a desired level.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilker (US 5162038) in view of Stohrer et al. (US 2021/0024871 A1).
As per claim 9, Wilker discloses a device for regulating a temperature of an incubator, comprising a processor and a memory storing program instructions, wherein the processor is configured to execute the steps of:
according to at least one of a heating power corresponding to the set temperature and a temperature range corresponding to the set temperature, determining a target heating power; and controlling the heating wires to operate at the target heating power to adjust the internal temperature of the incubator to the set temperature (Abstract; col. 1, lines 26-30; col. 3, lines 4-25; col. 5, lines 11-51; etc.). Wilker does not teach performing the controls in case where a door body of the incubator is opened and then reclosed, obtaining a set temperature of the incubator. Stohrer et al. teach in case where a door body of the incubator is opened and then reclosed, obtaining a set temperature of the incubator (Fig. 4; para. 0067; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to perform the controls of Wilker in this instance since, as shown in Fig. 4 of Stohrer et al., opening the incubator affects the temperature inside the incubator and thus such requires a temperature control response in order to maintain the desired temperature.
As pe claim 10, Wilker teaches further mounted on the incubator 10, although does not teach an inner surface of the incubator being arranged with heating wires. However, as recited such is a feature of the incubator separate from the device itself. As such, it is not deemed to further limit the device, and is not accorded patentable weight. (Note for the record that even if this limitation were given patentable weight it would be taught by Matsabara et al. as described above regarding claim 1.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7-8, 12,13, 15-16, and 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and/or 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As per claim 4 (and claims 17-19 which depend therefrom), there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to further modify the system of Matsabara et al. wherein the according to the target scale factor, calculating the target heating power comprises:
Ptarget =Pₘₐₓ x(Qₙ-[[a*t]]
wherein Ptarget is the target heating power, Pₘₐₓ is a maximum heating power of the incubator, Qn is the target scale factor, a is an amplitude factor, and t is a heating cycle.
As per claims 7, 12, 15, and 18 (and claims 8, 13, 16, and 19, which depend therefrom, respectively), there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to further modify the system of Matsabara et al. wherein after adjusting the internal temperature of the incubator to the set temperature of the incubator, the method further comprising: determining the secondary heating power of the heating wires; and controlling the heating wires to operate at the secondary heating power.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights