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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment entered on 08/06/2026 has been entered .
The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
The objection to claim 11 has been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 8-11, 17, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 2-7, 12-16, 18, and 20 are as previously presented.
Claims 1-20 are still pending in this application with claims 1 and 17 being independent.
Specification
The new specification was received on 08/06/2026. The new specification is acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The heating element in claims 1 and 17, with the purpose being to selectively generate heat when active to increase the temperature of the heating pad. In the specification, it is said that it could be resistive wire heating ([0009]), it could include sensing wire or it could include a positive temperature coefficient heater ([0013]).
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.
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.
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 8-10 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.
The term “a user” in claims 8-10 is undefined and it is not defined where the muscle layers are as different users and different locations on the user would result in different depths from the skin of the muscle layers, as such it is unclear what specific skin depth is required to meet the requirements set forth in the claims. In the interest of compact prosecution, examiner will treat “in a muscle layer of the user after a time period (…) minutes.” As “in the heating pad.”
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.
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.
Claims 1, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beuckelaere et al. (US Publication 2020/0281046), hereafter referred to as Beuckelaere, in view of Horey et al. (US Patent 6664512) hereafter referred to as Horey.
Regarding claim 1, Beuckelaere teaches a heating pad consisting of multiple layers (Figure 6), a second layer (20) having an embedded heating element (12) that generates heat when active, a first top (18) and fourth bottom (24) layer where there is a temperature retaining component (14) in the top layer (18), a third layer (22) between the second layer (20) and the fourth layer (24) directly coupled to the second layer.
Beuckelaere does not teach that the third layer comprises a reflective material positioned to reflect at least a portion of the heat generated from the third layer towards the first layer and away from the anterior side.
Horey teaches a warming blanket with heat reflective layer or strips (18) that are applied to the heating element (16) via an adhesive underside (Column 3, Lines 20-25) in order to increase the heat transferred to the user (Column 2, lines 16-20).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of Beuckelaere to include the heat reflective strips of Horey in order to increase the efficiency of the heating pad.
Regarding claim 13, Beuckelaere teaches a controller (32) that is configured to adjust the temperature output of the heating element (12) and supply power to the heating element from the power cord (42) or detachable battery pack ([0045]).
Regarding claim 16, Beuckelaere teaches an electric heating element (12) that includes a heating wire made of a positive temperature coefficient material ([0037]).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beuckelaere as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Benyaminpour et al. (US Publication 2017/0246031) hereafter referred to as Benyaminpour.
Regarding claims 2-4, Beuckelaere teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach that the temperature retaining component of the bottom layer includes graphene fabric (Claim 2), that the graphene fabric includes a fabric impregnated with graphene powder (Claim 3) or that the graphene fabric includes a fabric material interwoven with graphene (Claim 4).
Benyaminpour teaches a heating pad temperature retaining material (103) that can be a conductive fabric comprising highly conductive fiber alloys such as graphene ([0088]) or the heating pad temperature retaining material can be a fabric containing graphene in the form of powders ([0028]).
Because both Beuckelaere and Benyaminpour teach a temperature retaining component for a heating pad, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one temperature retaining layer for the other to achieve the goal of retaining temperature in the heating pad.
Claims 5 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beuckelaere as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pop et al. (US Publication 2020/0404749) hereafter referred to as Pop as evidenced by The Engineering ToolBox (Emissivity Coefficients of Common Materials: Data & Reference Guide).
Beuckelaere teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach a first layer of polyester material having a plurality of cavities arranged in a grid pattern that contain at least one glass bead (Claim 5) or that the material of the first layer has an emissivity value above 0.9 (Claim 14).
Pop teaches a heating pad that contains a layer (10) of polyester material ([0017]) that has a plurality of dimples or cavities (12) in a grid pattern ([0017]) that are configured to hold glass ([0017]) beads (14) which retain heat because they are glass and therefore retain temperature in the heating pad. Glass also has an emissivity value of 0.92-0.94 (Engineering ToolBox) which is above 0.9.
Because both Beuckelaere and Pop teach a temperature retaining component for a heating pad, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one temperature retaining layer for the other to achieve the goal of retaining temperature in the heating pad.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beuckelaere as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Duren (US Patent 2627018)
Beuckelaere teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 and a layer of polyester batting fiber for insulation, cushioning, and comfort for the user, but does not teach two layers of batting fiber.
Duren teaches a heating pad that contains an upper layer (12) and a bottom layer (14) of batting (16) or other padding.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to modify the device of Beuckelaere with the two layers of batting of Duren for the predictable result of increasing the cushioning and comfort for the user as a result of the increased padding.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beuckelaere as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Porter (US Patent 2425686)
Beuckelaere teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1, but does not teach that the heating pad produces any specific temperature and therefore does not teach the heating pad producing a temperature of at least 104 degrees Fahrenheit.
Porter teaches an electric heating pad which is capable of reaching three temperature settings of 180 degrees Fahrenheit, 160 degrees Fahrenheit, and 140 degrees Fahrenheit, which are greater than or equal to 104 degrees Fahrenheit.
As it is known in the art of heating pads as evidenced by Porter for the heating pads to be capable of reaching a temperature over 104 degrees Fahrenheit, and as Beuckelaere teaches a heating pad, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the heating pad of Beuckelaere produce a temperature greater than or equal to 104 degrees Fahrenheit.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beuckelaere as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Woodall et al. (US Patent 8534305) hereafter referred to as Woodall.
Beuckelaere teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 and teaches a layer of scrim (Beuckelaere 20) which supports the electric heating element (12) which is a thermally conductive wire ([0037]), and a heat reflecting strip (Horey 18), it does not teach that the reflective material includes metalized polyester.
Woodall teaches a heating and cooling pop-up shelter that contains a reflective film with a metalized polyester surface (Column 4, Lines 30-36) for the purpose of reflecting light and heat.
Because both the modified device of Beuckelaere and Woodall teach a heat reflecting surface it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one material for the other to achieve the predictable result of reflecting heat.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beuckelaere as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Demers et al. (US Application 2019/0208836) hereafter referred to as Demers.
Beuckelaere teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 and teaches the use of polyester or any suitable material ([0041]) for the top most layer, but does not teach the use of microfleece material.
Demers teaches clothing with a heating element attached, where the garment body (125) is made from microfleece for warm performance ([0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to modify the device of Beuckelaere with the microfleece from Demers for the predictable result of increasing the perceived warmth of the heating pad.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beuckelaere as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Child et al. (US Publication 2006/0261055) hereafter referred to as Child.
Beuckelaere teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach that the heating element includes sensing wire.
Child teaches a heated mattress with a pattern of heating wire elements (Figure 2, 20) and sensor wire elements (22) running in a switchback pattern ([0028]) for the purpose of warming the mattress.
Because both Beuckelaere and Child teach an element to heat the fabric, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one element for the other to achieve the predictable result of warming the heating pad.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beuckelaere in view of Horey and Duren.
Regarding claim 17, Beuckelaere teaches a heating pad consisting of multiple layers (Figure 6), a heat element layer (20) having an embedded heating element (12) that generates heat when active, a black body layer (18) where there is a temperature retaining component (14) in the black body layer (18), a batting layer (22) between the heat element layer (20) and the bottom layer (24).
Beuckelaere does not teach that a foil layer comprising a reflective material positioned to reflect at least a portion of the heat generated from the third layer towards the first layer and away from the anterior side or two batting layers.
Horey teaches a warming blanket with heat reflective layer or strips (18) that are applied to the heating element (16) via an adhesive underside (Column 3, Lines 20-25) in order to increase the heat transferred to the user (Column 2, lines 16-20).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of Beuckelaere to include the heat reflective strips of Horey in order to increase the efficiency of the heating pad.
Duren teaches a heating pad that contains an upper layer (12) and a bottom layer (14) of batting (16) or other padding.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to modify the device of Beuckelaere with the two layers of batting of Duren for the predictable result of increasing the cushioning and comfort for the user as a result of the increased padding.
Regarding claim 20, Beuckelaere teaches a controller (32) that is configured to adjust the temperature output of the heating element (12) and supply power to the heating element from the power cord (42) or detachable battery pack ([0045]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beuckelaere as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Benyaminpour.
Beuckelaere teaches all of the limitations of claim 17, but does not teach that the material of the black body layer includes graphene fabric.
Benyaminpour teaches a heating pad temperature retaining material (103) that can be a conductive fabric comprising highly conductive fiber alloys such as graphene ([0088]).
Because both Beuckelaere and Benyaminpour teach a temperature retaining component for a heating pad, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one temperature retaining layer for the other to achieve the goal of retaining temperature in the heating pad.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beuckelaere as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Pop.
Beuckelaere teaches all of the limitations of claim 17, but does not teach a layer of polyester material having a plurality of cavities arranged in a grid pattern that contain at least one glass bead.
Pop teaches a heating pad that contains a layer (10) of polyester material ([0017]) that has a plurality of dimples or cavities (12) in a grid pattern ([0017]) that are configured to hold glass ([0017]) beads (14) which retain heat because they are glass and therefore retain temperature in the heating pad.
Because both Beuckelaere and Pop teach a temperature retaining component for a heating pad, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one temperature retaining layer for the other to achieve the goal of retaining temperature in the heating pad.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections to claims 1-20 have been fully considered. The amendments provided strictly overcome the prior presented rejections and a new grounds of rejection taking into account Applicant’s amendments is provided herein.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 8-10 under 35 USC §112b have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(b) rejection of claims 8-10, the reason the claim is rejected for being indefinite is because different users and location will have different depths of the muscle layers and therefore require different times to heat up the different muscle layers and what falls within the limitation or one user and location may not do the same for a different location or user.
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 Drew J Mitchum whose telephone number is (571)272-5610. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30.
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, Edward F Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/D.J.M./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights