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 Status
Applicant’s amendments in the response filed on 4/29/2025 has been considered by the Examiner. Currently, claims 1, 4, and 6-9 are pending, claims 2-3 and 5 are canceled, and claim 1 has been amended. A complete action on the merits of claims 1, 4, and 6-9 follows below.
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, 4, and 6-9 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 “in a range in which the load is equal to or less than 100N, the profile comprises, in the direction of the second axis, a plot point plotted at a plot interval of equal to or more than 1/180 of a height dimension of the projection part and equal to or less than 1/100 of the height dimension of the projection part, the plot interval being an interval between sampling values.” It is the position of the Examiner that the metes and bounds of this limitation is unclear. It is unclear what is the interval between sampling values and the sampling values can be broad.
Claim 1 recites “a plot point plotted at a plot interval of equal to or more than 1/180 of a height dimension of the projection part …of sampling values from a measurement start point to a measurement end point, each of consecutive five sampling values is set to a unit sample group, of the five sampling values of the unit sample group, a sampling value in which the amount of crush is the third is set to a center sampling value, for each unit sample group, a slope of an approximate straight line obtained by a least squares method is obtained, and a graph in which the obtained slope and the amount of crush of each center sample value are plotted in a two-dimensional coordinate system is obtained…and furthermore, when the maximum inclination plot point is used as a starting point, and evaluation is sequentially performed from plot points corresponding to a unit sample group in which the amount of crush is larger to a side in which the amount of crush is small…assuming that the load at the boundary point between the first region and the second region is set to F1, and the load at a point corresponding to the minimum plot point in the profile is set to F2, 0.8 < (F2 /F1) < 3 is satisfied.”
It is the position of the Examiner that the metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear. It is unclear how the sampling values are related to the stress-strain profile and how they further limit the structure of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (2009/0222072) in view of Elfarhani (Fractional derivative and hereditary combined model for memory effects on flexible polyurethane foam, January 2016).
Regarding claim 1, Robinson teaches a heating implement ([Abstract] reusable pain-relieving treatment device, such as a belt and a disposable thermal device) comprising:
a sheet-shaped main body sheet comprising an exothermic element (thermal reservoir 12 [0023] the thermal reservoir comprises thermal fill materials that are a mixture of substances that react exothermically. Fig. 1A and Fig 1B also illustrate the reservoir is sheet-shaped); and
a projection part sheet provided on a surface on one side of the main body sheet (raised portions 16), wherein
the projection part sheet comprises a projection part projecting toward the one side (raised portions 16).
While Robinson is silent about specifically disclosing assuming the magnitude of a load when the projection part is pressed in a direction opposite to a projecting direction of the projection part is plotted along a first axis, and an amount of crush of the projection part is plotted along a second axis, a profile of a relationship between the load and the amount of crush comprises: a first region in which the amount of crush increases as the load increases; and a second region located on a side in which a value of the amount of crush on the second axis is larger than a value of the amount of crush on the second axis in the first region, the second region having a larger increase rate of the amount of crush associated with increase in the load than the first region, a range of the second region along a direction of the second axis being wider than a range of the first region along the direction of the second axis, and a third region located on a side in which a value of the amount of on the second axis is larger than the value of the amount of crush on the second axis in the second region, the third region having a smaller increase rate of the amount of crush associated with increase in the load than the second region, Robinson does teach suitable materials for forming the thermally conductive component include non-metallic thermally conductive materials such as carbon-based materials , including graphite , glassy carbon, thermally conductive plastics, polymers, rubber [0031]… employing the thermally conductive component to deliver a massaging sensation, the massaging elements of the thermally conductive component are preferably rigid enough to maintain their shape when pressed against the skin [0039]. It is the position of the Examiner that the claimed limitations are directed to a compressive force-displacement curve of polymer. Robinson provides its device can be made of a polymer.
However, Elfarhani specifically provides for a force displacement curve of a polyurethane foam and teaches the first , second and third region and the first , second and third, polygonal lines (see page 201 , annotated Fig. 3 below, test with cross-head speed of 1 mm/min).
PNG
media_image1.png
503
1024
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Robinson to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice whereby it would allow for the projected section to maintain its shape when pressed against the skin and has high energy absorption capacity for the purposes of providing for comfort.
With respect to the limitation, in a range in which the load is equal to or less than 100N, the profile comprises, in the direction of the second axis, a plot point plotted at a plot interval of equal to or more than 1/180 of a height dimension of the projection part and equal to or less than 1/100 of the height dimension of the projection part, the plot interval being an interval between sampling values,
of sampling values from a measurement start point to a measurement end point, each of consecutive five sampling values is set to a unit sample group,
of the five sampling values of the unit sample group, a sampling value in which the amount of crush is the third is set to a center sampling value,
for each unit sample group, a slope of an approximate straight line obtained by a least squares method is obtained and a graph in which the obtained slope and the amount of crush of each center sampling value are plotted in a two-dimensional coordinate system is obtained,
in the graph, at a region in which the amount of crush is smaller than the amount of crush at a point corresponding to a boundary point between the third region and the second region, and the amount of crush is larger is larger than the amount of crush a point corresponding toa boundary point between the second region and the first region, a plot point having a maximum value of the slope of the approximate straight line is set to a maximum inclination plot point,
when the maximum inclination plot point is used as a starting point, and evaluation is sequentially performed from plot points corresponding to a unit sample group in which the amount of crush is largest to a side in which the amount of crush is smaller, a plot point having a first minimum value of the slope of the approximate straight line is set to a minimum plot point, and
assuming that the load at the boundary point between the first region and the second region is set to F1, and the load at a point corresponding to the minimum plot point in the profile is set to F2, 0.8 < (F2 /F1) < 3 is satisfied, while Robinson is silent about specifically discussing such limitations, Elfarhani provides it is well known in the art to utilize optimization algorithm and methods such as using calculations e.g. least squares to estimate model parameters and help to extract measurement data of each component force and then to calibrate its parameters (pages 208-216 ).
From Elfarhani’s annotated graph:
max. height of protrusions in Robinson 5mm – 50 mm
1/180 (10mm) <plot point<1/100(10mm)
0.056 <plot point<0.1
F1 = 25 N;
F2 = 23 N;
F2/F1 = 0.92;
0.8 < (F2 /F1) < 3 is satisfied.
Regarding claim 4, Robinson in view of Elfarhani teaches the limitations of claim 1 and wherein the load is 0 at one end of the first region (The point in which the load is 0 is the point of no compression and Robinson clearly provides for this when the projection parts aren’t pressed against the skin. see [0039]).
Regarding claim 6, Robinson in view of Elfarhani teaches the limitations of claim 1. Robinson is silent about specifically teaching wherein the second region comprises a point in which the amount of crush is ¼ of a height of a projection part.
It is the position of the Examiner since the particular parameter of the load affects the amount of crush, and the material affects the stress-strain response, it is a matter of optimization as being result effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the particular parameter and material in order to achieve a desired amount of crush, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
Regarding claim 7, Robinson in view of Elfarhani teaches the limitations of claim 1. Robinson is silent about specifically teaching, wherein the load at a boundary between the first region and the second region is equal to or less than 20N.
It is the position of the Examiner since the particular parameter of the load affects the response for the first region and the second region, it is a matter of optimization as being result effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the particular parameter in order to achieve a desired response, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
Regarding claim 8, Robinson in view of Elfarhani teaches the limitations of claim 1. Robinson is silent about specifically teaching, wherein a minimum value of the load in the second region is equal to or more than 0.2 N.
It is the position of the Examiner since the particular parameter of the load affects the response for the second region, it is a matter of optimization as being result effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the particular parameter in order to achieve a desired response, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
Regarding claim 9, Robinson in view of Elfarhani teaches the limitations of claim 1 and wherein the projection part has air permeability ([0039] the raised portions 16 are provided with apertures to enable the release of one or more agents retained therein).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/29/2025 have been fully considered. The amendments necessitate a new grounds of rejection for claim 1 over in view of Robinson (2009/0222072) in view of Elfarhani (Fractional derivative and hereditary combined model for memory effects on flexible polyurethane foam, January 2016).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YASAMIN EKRAMI whose telephone number is (571)272-9803. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, Joanne M. Hoffman can be reached at (303) 297-4276. 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.
/Y.E/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/KAITLYN E SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794