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 Objections
Claim(s) 14 and 20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14, Ln. 2 recites “the provision” which should read “a provision” as it is a first introduction
Claim 20, Ln. 10 includes an unnecessary indent which appears to separate the phrasing “such that said sealing skirt” in the text coming from Ln. 9
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 7 is/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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “said at least one port is dimensioned to allow passage of a hand therethrough.” The at least one port of claim 1 corresponds to the one or more ports 114 of the specification, which are configured to allow passage of a medical conduit. The port(s) of the specification which are “dimensioned to allow passage of a hand therethrough” are instead arm ports 110 (e.g. ¶0059). The instant claim thus appears to be improperly conflating the use of the different ports of the disclosure. The application as originally filed fails to describe a port configured to “allow passage of a medical conduit therethrough” (claim 1) which is also dimensioned “to allow passage of a hand therethrough” (claim 4). There is thus lack of sufficient written description support in the application as originally filed for the overall requirements of claim 4.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “said sealing skirt extends at most 95% of a length of said peripheral edge.” The application as originally filed only specifically discusses the sealing skirt length at “at least 85%” (¶0053). There is not found to be any discussion in the application as originally filed of any upper bound length of the sealing skirt. The presently claimed length of “at most 95%” thus amounts to new matter not described in the application as originally filed. There is thus lack of sufficient written description support in the application as originally filed for the overall requirements of claim 7.
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(s) 11 and 19 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “each of said at least two arm ports” in Ln. 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination the claim will be interpreted as depending from claim 3 and further defining the at least one arm port of claim 3 as now at least two arm ports.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “said at least one access opening, said at least two arm ports” in Ln. 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitations requires dependence on both claims 2 and 11, which are not currently in the same claim tree.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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”) (claim 16) 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.
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.
The corresponding structure for the “securing means” are best understood from the specification as at least: adjustable fasteners (¶0058).
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.
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(s) 1-3, 5-6 and 8-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 and 16-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,059,379. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all requirements of instant claim 1 are found within the overall scope of patent claim 1, the instant claim merely being broader in scope. Similarly, all requirements of instant claim 20 are found within the overall scope of patent claim 17, the instant claim merely being broader in scope. A further mapping of dependent claims is as follows:
Instant claim 2 vs. patent claim 1
Instant claim 3 vs. patent claim 1
Instant claim 5 vs. patent claim 2
Instant claim 6 vs. patent claim 3
Instant claims 8-18 vs. patent claims 4-14, respectively
Instant claim 19 vs. patent claim 16
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esch (U.S. Pub. 2013/0025062) in view of Breggi (U.S. Pub. 2019/0380901).
Regarding claim 1, Esch discloses a neonatal care unit (Fig. 8D, set also Fig. 4; ¶¶0094-0095) comprising: a hood (Figs. 8A & 8D #44; ¶¶0094-0095) defining an interior space and having a bottom opening (Figs. 8A-8D #44 is open at its bottom where it meets #1; ¶0094), wherein said hood is dimensioned to accommodate a neonate (Fig. 8D #2; ¶0066); a sealing skirt (Fig. 8D #1; ¶¶0066-0067, 0094-0095) extending along at least a portion of a peripheral edge of said bottom opening (Fig. 8D) and configured to engage at least part of a front torso region of a human in a sealing engagement (Fig. 8D; ¶¶0075-0076).
Esch fails to disclose at least one port configured to allow passage of a medical conduit therethrough.
Breggi teaches a neonatal incubator (Fig. 4A; ¶0033) including access tubes (Fig. 4A #31; ¶0066) for passing of fluids, air, electrical cords or other device connections (¶0066).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated in Esch at least one port configured to allow passage of a medical conduit therethrough in order to provide the benefit of adding to the incubator of Esch the option of passing fluids, air, electrical cords or other device connections to the interior of the incubator in view of Breggi.
Regarding claim 2, Esch teaches the invention as modified above and further teaches at least one access opening (¶0088 – side flap) in said hood, dimensioned to allow passage of said neonate therethrough (¶0088).
Regarding claim 3, Esch teaches the invention as modified above and further suggests as obvious at least one arm port located about a wall of the hood (Figs. 7A-7B obviously suggest the mother placing her hands on the child which obviously suggests arm ports at some location), wherein each arm port is dimensioned to allow passage of a hand therethrough. Note additionally the various recess openings illustrated in Fig. 3F, which one ordinary skill in the art would obviously expect to be capable of passing a mother’s hand through. Further, note the hand ports (Figs. 4A & 5-6 #29; ¶0063) in Breggli.
Regarding claim 4, Esch teaches the invention as modified above and further suggests as obvious said at least one port is dimensioned to allow passage of a hand therethrough (Figs. 7A-7B obviously suggest the mother placing her hands on the child which obviously suggests arm ports at some location). Note additionally the various recess openings illustrated in Fig. 3F, which one ordinary skill in the art would obviously expect to be capable of passing a mother’s hand through and which could also receive a medical conduit.
Regarding claim 5, Esch teaches the invention as modified above and Breggli as incorporated therein further suggests as obvious said hood comprises a double-layer construction (¶0073).
Regarding claim 6, Esch teaches the invention as modified above and further suggests as obvious said sealing skirt extends at least 85% of a length of said peripheral edge (Figs. 8A-8D). One of ordinary skill in the art would obviously expect the mattress 1 to span a full length of the peripheral edge of incubator 44 in Figs. 8A-8D such that the child is secured inside while allowing the incubator 44 to perform its intended functionality.
Regarding claim 8, Esch teaches the invention as modified above and further teaches said sealing skirt is made of an elastic material (¶¶0086, 0089).
Regarding claim 9, Esch teaches the invention as modified above and further suggests as obvious said sealing skirt is an inflatable sealing skirt (¶0017). Esch teaches that a prior art inflatable air cushion is known and useable for infants (¶¶0014-0017). One of ordinary skill in the art would thus have considered it prima facie obvious to have tried use of an inflatable mattress based upon the prior art knowledge of Esch.
Regarding claim 10, Esch teaches the invention as modified above and further teaches said at least one access opening comprises a door which may be opened and closed (¶0088 – side flap).
Esch teaches the invention as modified above and Breggli as incorporated therein further suggests as obvious a periphery of said door comprises a sealing element (¶¶0064, 0105 – ports unsealed for delivery and resealed after delivery) which engages a periphery of said at least one access opening in a sealing engagement.
Regarding claim 11, Esch teaches the invention as modified above and Breggli as incorporated therein further suggests as obvious each of said at least two arm ports comprises a sealing membrane (¶0063 – sealing cuffs, sealing around user’s wrist) configured to at least partially sealingly engage a periphery of an arm entering through said arm port.
Regarding claim 12, Esch teaches the invention as modified above and Breggli as incorporated therein further suggests as obvious said medical conduit is one of: a tube, a cable (¶0066), a connector, a wire (¶0066), a liquid carrier (¶0066), a gas carrier (¶0066), an electrical wire (¶0066), a monitoring cable, a viewing cable, and a data cable, wherein said medical conduit is associated with at least one of: an intravenous pump, an oxygen supplementation system, a continuous positive airway pressure system, a feeding tube, an umbilical artery catheter, a fluid transport device (¶0066), a hemofiltration system, a hemodialysis system, a ventilation system (¶0066), an air conditioning system, an air humidification system, an air heating system, and at least one medical monitoring device, and wherein said medical monitoring device is configured to measure one of: ambient air temperature, body temperature, air humidity, neonate respiration, neonate cardiac function, neonate blood oxygenation, neonate brain activity, neonate blood pressure, and neonate cardio-respiratory activity. Only one form of the initial “one of” clause is required for reading on the full claim. It is noted that the medical monitoring device is not read as positively recited.
Regarding claim 13, Esch teaches the invention as modified above and Breggli as incorporated therein further teaches one or more sensors (¶¶0080-0081) configured to monitor at least one of, ambient air temperature (¶0080), body temperature, air humidity (¶0081), neonate respiration (¶0081), neonate cardiac function (¶0081), neonate blood oxygenation, neonate brain activity, neonate blood pressure, neonate cardio-respiratory activity (¶0081). Breggli teaches that various sensors are known to be commonly used in incubators (¶¶0080-0081)
Regarding claim 14, Esch teaches the invention as modified above and Breggli as incorporated therein further suggests as obvious a controller (¶¶0080-0081 – regulating incubator microenvironment based on sensor feedback) configured to control a provision of at least one of: a medication, heat (¶0080), humidity (¶0081), nutrition and ventilation, based on one or more signals received from the one or more sensors.
Regarding claim 15, Esch teaches the invention as modified above and further teaches a heating element (¶0056). It is noted that the heating element of the claim does not need to be specifically connected to any other previously recited element. Thus, the heating bed discussed in ¶0056 is readable on the claimed heating element even if it is not used during placement on the incubator 44 on the mother. Additionally, Breggli as incorporated in the modified Esch teaches a heater (¶¶0093-0094).
Regarding claim 16, Esch teaches the invention as modified above and further suggests as obvious one or more straps configured to extend around said torso and operably connect using securing means. It is noted that the one or more straps are not recited as being connected to any prior element of the claim. Thus, a brassiere being worn around the mother’s torso in normal wearing fashion will read on the claim.
Regarding claim 17, Esch teaches the invention as modified above and further suggests as obvious the sealing skirt is included in a garment configured to be worn by the human. While the sealing skirt of claim 1 is recited as extending along the bottom opening the claim does not specify any particular form of connection between the sealing skirt and the bottom opening. Thus, in an alternate reading to that discussed above in regard to claim 1 the full structure shown in Fig. 8A can be read as the hood and the garment worn by the mother, such as a hospital gown, may be read on the sealing skirt. When the configuration of Fig. 8D is placed on the mother the mother’s garment will be expected to be forced downward against the mother’s skin to cause at least a measure of sealing between the mother’s torso and the mother’s garment. Thus, the mother’s garment alone is readable from Esch as the sealing skirt.
Regarding claim 20, Esch discloses a method of neonatal caring comprising: providing a neonatal care unit (Fig. 8D, set also Fig. 4; ¶¶0094-0095) comprising: a hood (Figs. 8A & 8D #44; ¶¶0094-0095) defining an interior space and having a bottom opening (Figs. 8A-8D #44 is open at its bottom where it meets #1; ¶0094), wherein said hood is dimensioned to accommodate a neonate (Fig. 8D #2; ¶0066); a sealing skirt (Fig. 8D #1; ¶¶0066-0067, 0094-0095) extending along at least a portion of a peripheral edge of said bottom opening (Fig. 8D) and configured to engage at least part of a front torso region of a human in a sealing engagement (Fig. 8D; ¶¶0075-0076); positioning said neonatal care unit about a front torso region of a human (Fig. 8D), such that said sealing skirt engages at least part of said front torso region in a sealing engagement (Fig. 8D; ¶¶0075-0076); placing a neonate within said interior space (Fig. 8D).
Esch fails to disclose at least one port configured to allow passage of a medical conduit therethrough; and passing at least one medical conduit through said at least one port.
Breggi teaches a neonatal incubator (Fig. 4A; ¶0033) including access tubes (Fig. 4A #31; ¶0066) for passing of fluids, air, electrical cords or other device connections (¶0066).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated in Esch at least one port configured to allow passage of a medical conduit therethrough; and passing at least one medical conduit through said at least one port in order to provide the benefit of adding to the incubator of Esch the option of passing fluids, air, electrical cords or other device connections to the interior of the incubator in view of Breggi.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim(s) 18 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim(s) 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, Esch fails to teach or suggest said sealing skirt extends at most 95% of a length of said peripheral edge. The claim limits the sealing skirt to not extending more than 95% of the peripheral edge of the bottom opening of the hood. One having ordinary skill in the art would not have expected the mattress 1 in Esch to extend any less than a full perimeter of incubator 44.
The other prior art readable on claim 1 is Pronzinski (U.S. Patent 4712263) which teaches a flat perimeter edge 14 on neonatal blanket 10 (Figs. 1 & 3). However, flat perimeter edge 14 would only be expected to extend along the entire bottom perimeter of neonatal blanket 10.
It is thus found that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention would only have arrived at the instantly claimed invention, with its particular limiting on the length of the sealing skirt along the bottom opening, by way of improper hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 18, Esch fails to teach or suggest an infrared reflective coating applied to at least a portion of an interior surface of said hood. Esch has no consideration of an interiorly located infrared reflective coating.
Pronzinski, as mentioned in the discussion of claim 7 above, also fails to teach or suggest the requirements of the instant claim.
One prior art of note is Eustace et al. (U.S. Pub. 2002/0032361) which teaches an infant care unit (Fig. 1) including an infrared-coating (¶0038). However, the infrared-coating of Eustace is intended to block radiant heat from an infrared heater 51, 53 above the cover 50 from being transmitted through canopy 21 and to the infant (e.g. Fig. 4; ¶0038). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art recognizing that the infrared-coating is intended to block radiant heat from an upward direction would have expected the infrared-coating to be placed on an exterior surface and not an interior surface.
It is thus found that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention would only have arrived at the instantly claimed invention by way of improper hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 19, Esch fails to teach or suggest an infrared reflective cover configured to be positioned over said hood and cover an exterior surface of said hood, other than said at least one access opening, said at least two arm ports, and said at least one port. Esch has no consideration of an exteriorly placed infrared reflective cover which would cover the exterior surface of said hood with the exception of all ports and openings of the hood.
Pronzinski, as mentioned in the discussion of claim 7 above, also fails to teach or suggest the requirements of the instant claim.
One prior art of note is Eustace et al. (U.S. Pub. 2002/0032361) which teaches an infant care unit (Fig. 1) including an infrared-coating (¶0038). However, the infrared-coating of Eustace is intended to block radiant heat from an infrared heater 51, 53 above the cover 50 from being transmitted through canopy 21 and to the infant (e.g. Fig. 4; ¶0038). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art recognizing that the infrared-coating is intended to block radiant heat from an upward direction would have expected the infrared-coating to be placed only in line with the infrared heaters and not over the full exterior surface excepting all ports and openings.
It is thus found that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention would only have arrived at the instantly claimed invention by way of improper hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, see PTO-892 for additional attached references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH D BOECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-0376. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
