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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 7/2/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-45 remain pending in the application.
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) 1-16 and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goertz et al., “Multi-stage chemical heating for instrument-free biosensing”, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces (2018) DOK: 10.1021/acsami.8b11611, hereinafter Goertz in view of United States Application Publication No. 2014/0154786, hereinafter Labarre.
Regarding claim 1, Goertz teaches an exothermic composite (figure 1A), comprising: a reactive material (RM) (figure 1A, MRE Heater) that undergoes an exothermic reaction upon contact with an oxidizer (page 33044, column 2, paragraph 5), and a phase-changing thermal storage material (PCM) (figure 1A, encapsulated PCMs) having a phase change temperature (page 33044, column 2, paragraph 7), and wherein the exothermic composite is shaped so as to accept a reaction vessel inserted at least partially therein (figure 1A, the reaction vessels are inserted into the encapsulated PCMs).
Goertz fails to teach wherein RM and PCM are intermixed with one another.
Labarre teaches RM and PCM are intermixed with one another so that a stable temperature can be achieved during the reaction process depending upon the desired profile (Labarre, paragraph [0089]).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., the RM and PCM are intermixed) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., the RM and PCR are separate) with other component(s) (i.e., the RM and PCM are intermixed), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element with another (i.e., the RM and PCM are separate with them being intermixed), and the results of the substitution (i.e., controlling the temperature) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute the separate components of RM and PCM of reference Goertz with the RM and PCM are intermixed of reference Labarre, since the result would have been predictable. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have intermixed the RM and PCM because it would allow for a stable temperature can be achieved during the reaction process depending upon the desired profile (Labarre, paragraph [0089]).
Regarding claim 2, Goertz teaches wherein RM comprises a metal or a metal alloy (figure 1A).
Regarding claim 3, Goertz teaches wherein RM comprises a magnesium-iron alloy (figure 1A).
Regarding claim 4, Goertz teaches wherein PCM comprises a salt hydrate (page 33044, column 2, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 5, Goertz teaches wherein the composite, following contact with sufficient oxidizer (page 33044, column 2, paragraph 5), maintains for a time interval a substantially isothermal temperature (TI1) (figure 3A) that is sufficient to support a selected biological, physical, or chemical process (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II)).
Regarding claim 6, Goertz teaches wherein TIl is from about 35 deg. C. to about 95 deg. C (figure 3A).
Regarding claim 7, Goertz teaches wherein RM is denoted RMA (see supra), wherein PCM is denoted PCMA (see supra), wherein RMA and PCMA define a composite material ECA (see supra), and wherein the composite comprises an additional phase-changing thermal storage material (PCMB) that has a phase change temperature that differs from the phase transition temperature of PCMA (Goertz, page 7, column 1, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 8, Goertz teaches wherein PCMB is at least partially enclosed within ECA (Goertz, page 7, column 1, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 9, Goertz teaches an additional reactive material RM B, and wherein (1) RMB and PCMB are intermixed with one another to form a composite ECB or (2) one of RMB and PCMB is interpenetrated with the other to form the composite ECB (Goertz, page 7, column 1, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 10, Goertz teaches wherein ECB is at least partially enclosed within ECA or ECA is at least partially enclosed within ECB (see supra).
Regarding claim 11, Goertz teaches wherein PCMB has a phase change temperature in the range of from about 35 deg. C. to about 45 deg. C (page 6, column 1, paragraph 1), and wherein PCMA has a phase change temperature in the range of from about 55 deg. C. and about 75 deg. C (page 6, column 1, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 12, Goertz teaches wherein the composite, following contact with sufficient oxidizer, maintains for a time interval a substantially isothermal temperature TI2 that is sufficient to support a selected biological or chemical process (page 5 column 2, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 13, Goertz teaches wherein TI2 is from about 35 deg. C. to about 98 deg. (page 5 column 2, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 14, Goertz teaches wherein the oxidizer is water (page 33044, column 2, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 15, Goertz teaches further comprising a removeable seal (paragraph [0085]) that separates RM from the oxidizer (page 33044, column 2, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 16, Goertz teaches wherein the exothermic reaction is initiated by removing a seal (page 33044, column 2, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 45, Goertz teaches a container comprising a composite according to claim 1 (figure 1A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 7/2/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 14-16 and 45 under 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Goertz and Labarre.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights