AN INFANT INCUBATOR

§102 §103 §112

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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections Claims 1, 3 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 18, "and external environment" should read --and an external environment--. Claim 3, line 8, "and outer space" should read --and said outer space--. Claim 5, line 3, "with metallized or electroconductive layer" should read --with a metallized or electroconductive layer--. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1 – 6 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 1 recites the limitation " the inner space of the triple walled access door" in lines 19 - 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation " the outer space of the triple walled access door" in lines 20 - 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, line 4, it is unclear if "an infant" is the same or different from line 2 of claim 1. Claim 1, line 17, it is unclear what "the spaces" and "said spaces" refer to, whether it is the inner space AND outer space or other spaces. Examiner suggest to amend to --encloses the inner space and the outer space so that the inner space and the outer space--. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the triple walled base floor" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding claim 6, it is unclear in which parts does “separately” refer to, whether it is just the triple walled access door and triple walled base floor OR the triple walled access door and triple walled base floor AND he triple walled hood. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 3 - 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koch (US 5100375 A). Regarding claim 1, Koch teaches an infant incubator (“an improved incubator for premature infants” column 1, lines 53 – 54; Figures 1 - 9) comprising: - a base (“base 21” Figure 8), - a mattress (“supporting member 2” column 6 line 5, Figure 8) arranged on the base (21) and adapted to support an infant (“an incubator for infants” column 1 line 5, Figure 8), - a triple walled hood (“incubator hood 22” column 3 line 64; see Koch’s annotated Figure below) surrounding said base (21) to enclose an infant compartment (Figure 8) therebetween for containing an infant (“an incubator for infants” column 1 line 5, Figure 8), - a triple walled access door (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) pivotally mounted to the base (33), - the triple walled hood (22; see Koch’s annotated Figure below) and the triple walled access door (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) comprises an inner wall (see Koch’s annotated Figure below), an intermediate wall (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) and an external wall (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) spaced apart from each other so that an inner space (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) is formed between the inner wall (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) and the intermediate wall (see Koch’s annotated Figure below), and an outer space (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) is formed between the intermediate wall (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) and the external wall (see Koch’s annotated Figure below), wherein the inner space (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) and the outer space (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) are fluidly connected to each other by means of openings (“perforations 68” column 6 lines 1 - 2) in the intermediate wall (see Koch’s annotated Figure below), wherein the inner space (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) of the triple walled hood and the triple walled access door (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) is positioned closer to the infant compartment (“an incubator for infants” column 1 line 5, Figure 8) to be warmed than the outer space of the triple walled hood (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) and the triple walled access door (see Koch’s annotated Figure below), and wherein the inner wall (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) and the external wall (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) encloses the spaces so that said spaces are completely sealed from the infant compartment (Figure 8) and external environment (see Koch’s annotated Figure below), - a gas flow preparation unit (“heater 9” column 4 line 22 Figure 8) configured to heat (column 4 line 22) and provide a warm gas flow (column 4 lines 22 - 28) via inlets (“air return channel 8” column 6 line 10, Figure 8) to the inner space of the triple walled hood (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) and to the inner space of the triple walled access door (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) and further through the openings (68) into the outer space of the triple walled hood (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) and the outer space of the triple walled access door (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) respectively and further out from said outer spaces (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) via outlets (“the air supply opening 4”) and back to the gas flow preparation unit (9) forming a closed loop of the warm gas flow (column 2 lines 14 - 21), in result of which effective heating of the infant compartment is provided (“The heat loss produced by heat radiating from the infant is avoided because the walls of the incubator are heated on all sides around the supporting surface. The air return channel disposed inside the incubator hood has the same temperature as the air to be returned so that water condensate cannot form.” column 2 lines 14 - 21). PNG media_image1.png 502 689 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 3, Koch teaches all limitations of claim 1. Koch teaches the infant incubator characterized in that the base (“base 21” Figure 8) comprises a triple walled base floor (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) arranged below the mattress (“supporting member 2” column 6 line 5, Figure 8), wherein the triple walled base floor (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) comprises an inner wall (see Koch’s annotated Figure below), an intermediate wall (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) and an external wall (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) spaced apart from each other (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) so that an inner space (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) is formed between the inner wall and the intermediate wall, and an outer space (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) is formed between the intermediate wall (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) and the external wall (see Koch’s annotated Figure below), wherein the inner space (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) and the outer space (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) are fluidly connected to each other by means of openings and said inner space (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) and outer space (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) of the triple walled base floor (see Koch’s annotated Figure below) are fluidly connected to the gas flow preparation unit (“heater 9” column 4 line 22 Figure 8). PNG media_image2.png 437 671 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 4, Koch teaches all limitations of claim 1. Koch teaches the infant incubator characterized in that the triple walled hood and the triple walled access door are made of transparent material (“The incubator hood 22 and the air return channel 8 are preferably made of transparent material such as plexiglass.” column 4 lines 32 - 34). 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. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch in view of Koch et al (US 4936824 A, hereinafter “Koch 825’”). Regarding claim 2, Koch teaches all limitations of claim 1.1 Koch does not teach the infant incubator characterized in that the triple walled access door is pivotally mounted to the base by means of a tube hinge which is a part of a tube for providing the warm gas flow from the gas flow preparation unit to the inlets and from the outlets back to the gas flow preparation unit. However, Koch 824’ discloses an “infant incubator is disclosed having a hood that encloses the infant compartment” (abstract) and teaches an infant incubator characterized in that the access door (Figures 3 - 4) is pivotally mounted to the base by means of a tube hinge (Figures 3 – 4, column 3 lines 65 – 68 – column 4 lines 1 - 8) which is a part of a tube for providing the warm gas flow (column 3 lines 65 – 68 – column 4 lines 1 - 8) from a gas flow preparation unit (“heater compartment 58” column 3, line 47) to the inlets (Figures 3 – 4, column 3 lines 65 – 68 – column 4 lines 1 - 8) and from outlets (Figures 3 – 4, column 3 lines 65 – 68 – column 4 lines 1 - 8) back to the gas flow preparation unit (58) (Figures 3 - 4). 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 device of Koch such that the infant incubator is characterized in that the triple walled access door is pivotally mounted to the base by means of a tube hinge which is a part of a tube for providing the warm gas flow from the gas flow preparation unit to the inlets and from the outlets back to the gas flow preparation unit, as taught by Koch 824’, for the benefit of minimizing disruption to the heated environment in which the infant is located (Koch 824’: column 1 lines 8 - 10). Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch in view of Hansmann et al (US 20140135569 A1, hereinafter “Hansmann”). Regarding claim 5, Koch teaches all limitations of claim 1. Koch does not teach the infant incubator characterized in that the triple walled hood, the triple walled access door and the triple walled base floor is covered with metallized or electroconductive layer. However, Hansmann discloses and teaches an infant incubator characterized in that the hood, the door and the floor is covered with metallized or electroconductive layer (“One or more of the inner and/or outer surfaces of one or plurality of the walls of the incubator hood is/are provided with a coating. The coating is electrically conductive and essentially optically transparent.” [0008]). 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 incubator of Koch such that the infant incubator characterized in that the triple walled hood, the triple walled access door and the triple walled base floor is covered with metallized or electroconductive layer, as taught by Hansmann, for the benefit of applying warmness to “the coated walls, similarly to a resistance heater, to a desired temperature by applying an electric voltage in order to prevent thereby water of condensation from forming” (Hansmann: abstract). Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch in view of Smith (US 1262860 A). Regarding claim 6, Koch teaches all limitations of claim 1. Koch teaches the infant incubator (“an improved incubator for premature infants” column 1, lines 53 – 54; Figures 1 - 9) is characterized in that the gas flow preparation unit (“heater 9” column 4 line 22 Figure 8) provides the warm gas flow to the triple walled hood and to the triple walled access door and triple walled base floor. PNG media_image3.png 430 671 media_image3.png Greyscale Koch does not teach provide warm gas flow to areas separately so that the infant incubator comprises three separate closed loop warm gas circuits. However, Smith discloses “the method of heating is such that the heated air is adapted to the eggs in various stages of incubation” (column 1 lines 12 – 16) and teaches provide warm gas flow to areas separately so that an incubator comprises three separate closed loop warm gas circuits (“a closed chamber with 4-F a vertically disposed partition to provide a corridor having upper and lower passage ways to said chamber, egg trays arranged at different levels in said chamber” column 6 lines 45 -48). 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 incubator of Koch such that provide warm gas flow to areas separately so that the infant incubator comprises three separate closed loop warm gas circuits, as taught by Hansmann, for the benefit of applying warmness for incubation (Smith: column 1 lines 12 – 16). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dukhan et al (US 4750474 A) teaches an infant incubator (“an improved incubator for premature infants” column 1, lines 53 – 54; Figures 1 - 9) comprising: - a base (“bottom portion 33” column 4 line 60, Figures 2 – 3, 5), - a mattress (“mattress 45” column 4 line 62, Figure 3) arranged on the base (33) and adapted to support an infant (column 4 lines 29 - 31), - a triple walled hood (“the upper roof section 25” column 4 lines 17 - 18) surrounding said base (33) to enclose an infant compartment (“a versatile static incubator for premature infants” column 1 lines 5 – 6, Figures 2 – 3, 5) therebetween for containing an infant (“a versatile static incubator for premature infants” column 1 lines 5 – 6, Figures 2 – 3, 5), - a triple walled access door (“windows 26 and 27” column 4 line 4, Figures 2 – 3, 5 – 7, 9) pivotally mounted to the base (33), - the triple walled hood and the triple walled access door (26, 27) comprises an inner wall (see Dukhan’s annotated Figure 5 below), an intermediate wall (see Dukhan’s annotated Figure 5 below) and an external wall (see Dukhan’s annotated Figure 5 below) spaced apart from each other so that an inner space (see Dukhan’s annotated Figure 5 below) is formed between the inner wall (see Dukhan’s annotated Figure 5 below) and the intermediate wall (see Dukhan’s annotated Figure 5 below), and an outer space (see Dukhan’s annotated Figure 5 below) is formed between the intermediate wall and the external wall (see Dukhan’s annotated Figure 5 below). PNG media_image4.png 450 636 media_image4.png Greyscale Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIE T TRAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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. /JULIE THI TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791