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 9 February 2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings and Claims have overcome every Drawing objection. The Drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification have overcome the Specification objection. The Specification objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous 35 USC 112 rejection. However, the Applicant’s amendments have provided grounds for a new 35 USC 112 rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 9 February 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, after conducting an updated search, additional references were identified, which teach the amended portions of the claims. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 9 February 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1, 21, and 23-25 have been amended. Claim 12 is withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-15 and 21-25 are pending.
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.
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”) 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.
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 following:
“temperature control module” in claim 1
The generic placeholder is “module” and the functional limitation is “temperature control.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the functional limitation is a “temperature sensor, ” “PCB,” and “wireless communication.”
“thermal element” in claim 1
The generic placeholder is “element” and the functional limitation is “configured to heat or cool.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the functional limitation is a “thermoelectric heater or cooler.” Claim 11 has sufficient structure such that 112(f) is not invoked for the “thermal element” in this claim.
“spreader” in claims 4 and 15
The “spreader” is understood to be a “means for spreading” (“spreading is the functional limitation”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the functional limitation is a “finger spreader.”
“thermal control module” in claim 21
The generic placeholder is “module” and the functional limitation is “thermal control.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the functional limitation is a “temperature sensor,” “PCB,” and “wireless communication.”
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 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.
Claims 21-25 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 21 recites “…thermal contact fingers electrically coupled to the thermal control module….” An electrical coupling between the fingers and the thermal control module is not mentioned in the original Specification or in the original set of Claims. Instead, Specification discloses that “the finger spreaders 42 are hingedly attached to the spreader member 40” (paragraph 0128). As a result, by using the claim limitation “electrically coupled,” the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application.
This new rejection has been added based on the amended portion of the claim. Claims 22-25 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 21.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandel et al. (US-20130085552-A1) in view of Kilbey et al. (US-20180325724-A1) and Silverberg et al. (US-20160135517-A1, cited in 892 form filed 7 October 2025).
Regarding claim 1, Mandel teaches a wearable temperature control assembly (fig. 1), comprising:
a primary strap (band 1, fig. 1) including an opening (window 7, fig. 1) extending through the primary strap; and
a temperature control module (electronic unit 1A; “sensors,” para 0014; circuit board 18, fig. 3; “wireless,” para 0047) configured to be disposed through the opening (paras 0031-0032), the temperature control module comprising a contact (thermal distribution pad 17, fig. 2A) and a thermal element (Peltier device 11A, fig. 2A) configured to heat or cool the contact;
a back surface of the contact (top surface of thermal distribution pad 17, fig. 2A; construed such that the heat sink faces outwards in the band 1, figs. 1 and 6).
Mandel, figs. 1 and 2A
PNG
media_image1.png
524
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
308
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mandel does not explicitly disclose a tunnel extending along a length of the primary strap; the tunnel including two tunnel ends; a secondary strap configured to be disposed through the tunnel and including two secondary strap ends that are configured to be securable to the primary strap, each of the secondary strap ends configured to extend beyond the respective tunnel ends when coupled together; wherein the secondary strap within the tunnel extends over the contact.
However, in the same field of endeavor of wearable temperature therapy devices, Kilbey teaches a tunnel (loop coverings over straps 24, 26, 28, and 30, fig. 1 and stay pocket cover 42, fig. 3) extending along a length of the primary strap (belt 10, fig. 1); the tunnel including two tunnel ends (annotated below); a secondary strap (straps 24, 26, 28, and 30, fig. 1 and straps that are in the loops 44, 46, 48, and 50, fig. 3; annotated in figs. 1 and 3 below) configured to be disposed through the tunnel and including two secondary strap ends (strap ends of straps 24, 26, 28, and 30, fig. 1) that are configured to be securable to the primary strap, each of the secondary strap ends configured to extend beyond the respective tunnel ends when coupled together (as shown in fig. 6).
Kilbey, figs. 1 and 3 (annotated)
PNG
media_image3.png
486
1002
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
630
976
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Mandel, in view of the teachings of Kilbey, by attaching straps 24, 26, 28, and 30 under loop coverings, as taught by Kilbey in fig. 1, on the backside of the band 1, as taught by Mandel, such that the straps 24, 26, 28, and 30 are attached to a cover lumbar panel 38 via loops 44, 46, 48, and 50, as taught by Kilbey in fig. 3, in order to use a lumbar panel that attaches over a window, providing support to a patient’s lumbar spine while allowing the patient’s lumbar area to be exposed, so that heating and cooling devices can be attached or detached (Kilbey, paras 0010-0012).
Mandel/Kilbey do not explicitly disclose wherein the secondary strap within the tunnel extends over the contact (the straps taught by Kilbey do not extend through the pocket cover 42 in fig. 3 over the window 32 in fig. 1).
However, in the same field of endeavor of wearable temperature therapy devices, Silverberg teaches wherein the secondary strap (strap 242, fig. 16c) within the tunnel (“the strap 242 disposed between the inner liner panel 172 and the backing strip 182,” para 0092; the construed “tunnel” is annotated in fig. 16c below) extends over the contact (temperature regulating elements are passed into pockets 90, para 0058).
Silverberg, fig. 16c (annotated)
PNG
media_image5.png
325
624
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Mandel/Kilbey, in view of the teachings of Silverberg, by using two straps 42, as taught by Silverberg in fig. 16c, inside the pocket cover 42 between the small straps that are connected to the loops 44, 46, 48, and 50, as taught by Kilbey in fig. 3, because this amounts to a simple substitution of one connection type known in the art for another with predictable results (using straps inside the pocket cover 42 will not change the operation of the cover panel 38, but will continue to allow the cover panel to provide lumbar support while heat is provided inwards to a patient’s lumbar area; Silverberg teaches a finite number of options for connecting straps over pockets in figs. 16a-c).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Mandel in view of Kilbey and Silverberg as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 2. Specifically, Kilbey teaches wherein the tunnel is a first tunnel (left tunnel, fig. 1, annotated above), the secondary strap is a first secondary strap (straps 28 and 30, fig. 1), the primary strap includes a second tunnel (right tunnel, fig. 1, annotated above) extending along the length of the primary strap (belt 10, fig. 1) and located on an opposite side (right side, fig. 1) of the opening (window 32, fig. 1) from the first secondary strap (straps 28 and 30 are on the left side, fig. 1), and the assembly comprises a second secondary strap (straps 24 and 26, fig. 1) configured to be disposed through the second tunnel.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Mandel in view of Kilbey and Silverberg as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 8. Specifically, Kilbey teaches wherein the secondary strap (straps 24, 26, 28, and 30, fig. 1 and straps that are in the loops 44, 46, 48, and 50, fig. 3) has a greater elasticity than the primary strap (belt 10, fig. 1; para 0087 and fig. 10).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Mandel in view of Kilbey and Silverberg as set forth above regarding claims 1 and 8 teaches the invention of claim 9. Specifically, Kilbey teaches wherein the secondary strap (straps 24, 26, 28, and 30, fig. 1 and straps that are in the loops 44, 46, 48, and 50, fig. 3) has a lower spring constant than the primary strap (belt 10, fig. 1; para 0087 and fig. 10; construed such that because the straps 24, 26, 28, and 30 are elastic, the belt will be stiffer and have a higher spring constant than the belt).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Mandel in view of Kilbey and Silverberg as set forth above regarding claims 1 and 8 teaches the invention of claim 10. Specifically, Kilbey teaches wherein the secondary strap is shorter in all directions than the primary strap (straps 24, 26, 28, and 30 and straps that are in the loops 44, 46, 48, and 50, fig. 3 have smaller widths and lengths than belt 10, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Mandel teaches wherein the thermal element (unit 1A, fig. 1) is a thermoelectric heater or cooler (“heating and cooling,” para 0033).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Mandel in view of Kilbey and Silverberg as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 13. Specifically, Kilbey teaches wherein: the primary strap (belt 10, fig. 1) includes a first pair of fasteners (Velcro panel 76 and loop panel 34, fig. 2) configured to releasably connect two portions (edges 20 and 78, fig. 2) of the first strap to one another so as to enable the primary strap to be secured around a torso (para 0083; fig. 8); and the secondary strap (construed as straps 24, 26, 28, and 30 and straps that are in the loops 44, 46, 48, and 50, fig. 3) includes a second pair of fasteners (strap loops 44, 46, 48, and 50, fig. 3) configured to releasably connect two portions of the secondary strap to the primary strap (end portions of straps 24, 26, 28, and 30 and end portions of the straps that are in the loops 44, 46, 48, and 50, fig. 3; para 0076) in a configuration wherein the secondary strap extends around the torso and a portion of the temperature control module (straps 24, 26, 28, and 30 and straps that are in the loops 44, 46, 48, and 50, fig. 3, extend around the torso and window 32, figs.1, 6, and 11). Additionally, Silverberg teaches wherein the secondary strap (strap 242, fig. 16c) extends around the temperature control module (temperature regulating elements are passed into pockets 90, para 0058).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Mandel in view of Kilbey and Silverberg as set forth above regarding claims 1 and 13 teaches the invention of claim 14. Specifically, Kilbey teaches wherein the first pair of fasteners (Velcro panel 76 and loop panel 34, fig. 2) and the second pair of fasteners (strap loops 44, 46, 48, and 50, fig. 3) each include a patch of hook material and a patch of loop material configured to form a hook and loop connection with one another when pressed together (paras 0085 and 0089).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandel et al. (US-20130085552-A1) in view of Kilbey et al. (US-20180325724-A1) and Silverberg et al. (US-20160135517-A1) as applied to claims 1-2 above and further in view of Smith et al. (US-20050075593-A1, hereinafter Smith ‘593).
Mandel teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the opening is a first opening, the temperature control module is a first temperature control module, the primary strap includes a second opening located between the first tunnel and the second tunnel, and the assembly comprises a second temperature control module configured to be disposed through the second opening.
However, in the same field of endeavor of wearable temperature therapy devices, Smith ‘593 teaches wherein the opening is a first opening (opening inside top pocket 120, fig. 2), the temperature control module is a first temperature control module (pad 200, fig. 3; construed as being in the top pocket 120 of fig. 2), the primary strap includes a second opening (opening inside bottom pocket 120, fig. 2) located between the first tunnel and the second tunnel (the two pads 200 in fig. 2 are construed as being located at the position of the windows taught by Mandel and Kilbey), and the assembly comprises a second temperature control module (bottom pad 200, fig. 2) configured to be disposed through the second opening (bottom pocket 120, fig. 2).
Smith ‘593, fig. 2
PNG
media_image6.png
466
836
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Mandel, in view of the teachings of Smith ‘593, by using two devices 200, as taught by Smith ‘593, instead of just one electronic unit 1A, in order to use more than one therapy device, where the combined treatment of the devices can be used together to increase power and better distribute the hot and cool therapy to the treatment area as a result of using two devices, for the advantage of increasing circulation, reducing swelling, and promoting healing (Mandel, para 0047).
Claims 4-7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandel et al. (US-20130085552-A1) in view of Kilbey et al. (US-20180325724-A1) and Silverberg et al. (US-20160135517-A1) as applied to claims 1-2 above and further in view of Smith et al. (US-20180042761-A1, hereinafter Smith ‘761).
Regarding claim 4, Mandel teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the contact includes a spreader configured to extend transverse to a thickness of the primary strap beyond a perimeter of the opening when the temperature control module is disposed through the opening.
However, in the same field of endeavor of wearable temperature therapy devices, Smith ‘761 teaches wherein the contact (bottom of device 100, fig. 11F) includes a spreader (spring clips, fig. 11F; construed as finger spreaders) configured to extend transverse to a thickness of the primary strap (the spring clips are vertical, fig. 11F; the “thickness of the primary strap” is construed as being along a horizontal plane) beyond a perimeter of the opening when the temperature control module is disposed through the opening (when the device 100 is inserted, the clips extend out beyond the perimeter of the base 168, which is construed as being the outer perimeter of the window, fig. 11F).
Smith ‘761, fig. 11F
PNG
media_image7.png
709
716
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Mandel, in view of the teachings of Smith ‘761, by using spring clips, as taught by Smith ‘761, on the outer perimeter of the window 24A, as taught by Mandel, in order to use spring clips to secure the electrical unit 1A, for the advantage of appropriately aligning the unit with the housing of the belt to ensure that the thermoelectric material of the unit is correctly positioned next to the wearer’s skin (Smith ‘761, para 0139).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Mandel in view of Kilbey, Silverberg, and Smith ‘761 as set forth above regarding claims 1-2 and 4 teaches the invention of claim 5. Specifically, Kilbey teaches wherein the first tunnel and the second tunnel (annotated tunnels in fig. 1 above) are spaced apart across the opening by a spacing distance (width of window 32, fig. 1). Additionally, Smith ‘761 teaches the spreader (spring clips, fig. 11F) is configured to extend relative to the temperature control module (device 100, fig. 11F) in a direction (vertical direction, fig. 11F) that is transverse to the length (horizontal direction, fig. 11F) of the primary strap when the temperature control module is disposed through the opening (opening at the base 168, fig. 11F). Moreover, Mandel teaches such that a total width of the contact in a direction parallel to the spacing distance is greater than the spacing distance (length of device 22 is greater than the length of window 24A, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Mandel in view of Kilbey, Silverberg, and Smith ‘761 as set forth above regarding claims 1-2 and 4 teaches the invention of claim 6. Specifically, Smith ‘761 teaches wherein the spreader is one spreader among a plurality of spreaders (six clips, fig. 11F) included by the contact (bottom of device 100, fig. 11F) and configured to be located proximate the opening (opening of base 168, fig. 11F) when the temperature control module (device 100, fig. 11F) is disposed through the opening.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Mandel in view of Kilbey, Silverberg, and Smith ‘761 as set forth above regarding claims 1-2, 4, and 6 teaches the invention of claim 7. Specifically, Smith ‘761 teaches wherein the spreaders (clips, fig. 11F) among the plurality of spreaders are each configured to be movably connected to a hub portion (base 168, fig. 11F) of the temperature control module at a respective connection point (connection points between the clips and the base 168, fig. 11F) and configured to be biased about the respective connection point in a direction relative to the hub portion of the control module that is away from the primary strap when the temperature control module is disposed through the opening (when the device 100 is inserted into the clips, the clips with biased inwards away from the construed connection points, against the device 100, fig. 11F).
Regarding claim 15, Mandel teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the contact includes a spreader configured to extend transverse to a thickness of the primary strap across a perimeter of the opening and configured to be movably connected to a hub portion of the temperature control module at a connection point and biased about the connection point in a direction relative to the hub portion of the temperature control module that is away from the primary strap when the temperature control module is disposed through the opening.
However, in the same field of endeavor of wearable temperature therapy devices, Smith ‘761 teaches wherein the contact (bottom of device 100, fig. 11F) includes a spreader (spring clips, fig. 11F; construed as finger spreaders) configured to extend transverse to a thickness of the primary strap (the spring clips are vertical, fig. 11F; the “thickness of the primary strap” is construed as being along a horizontal plane) across a perimeter of the opening (when the device 100 is inserted, the clips extend out beyond the perimeter of the base 168, which is construed as being the outer perimeter of the window, fig. 11F) and configured to be movably connected to a hub portion (base 168, fig. 11F) of the temperature control module at a connection point (connection points between the clips and the base 168, fig. 11F) and biased about the connection point in a direction relative to the hub portion of the temperature control module that is away from the primary strap when the temperature control module is disposed through the opening (when the device 100 is inserted into the clips, the clips with biased inwards away from the construed connection points, against the device 100, fig. 11F).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Mandel, in view of the teachings of Smith ‘761, by using spring clips, as taught by Smith ‘761, on the outer perimeter of the window 24A, as taught by Mandel, in order to use spring clips to secure the electrical unit 1A, for the advantage of properly aligning the unit with the housing of the belt to ensure that the thermoelectric material of the unit is correctly positioned next to the wearer’s skin (Smith ‘761, para 0139).
Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US-20200268592-A1).
Regarding claim 21, Johnson teaches a wearable assembly (fig. 6B; “secure…on the body part,” para 0088), comprising:
a primary strap (compression straps 618, fig. 6B) having a length direction (vertical direction, fig. 6B) and a thickness direction (depth direction (not shown) in fig. 6B; the straps are construed as having a thickness and a width in the vertical direction, fig. 6B) and configured to wrap around a first portion of a wearer (“side, or back of the patient's lower leg,” para 0088);
a thermal control module (compression device 600 and backing component 604, fig. 6B; “temperature sensor,” para 0088) extending through the primary strap in the thickness direction (when the straps 618 wrap around and connect to the other side of the pad 602, the compression device 600 and the backing component 604 extends between the straps 618 in a depth direction; construed such that the compression device 600 and backing component 604 extends through the straps 618 when the straps wrap around the leg);
a secondary strap (pad 602, fig. 6B) connected to the primary strap (pad 602 is connected to straps 618, fig. 6B), configured to wrap around a second portion of the wearer (“fits over the front portion of the lower leg,” para 0089), and extending across the thermal contact fingers (the pad 602 extends horizontally across the compression device 600; the compression device 600 is construed as having four fingers, which are annotated in fig. 6B below) such that a respective axis parallel to the thickness direction (four axes in the depth direction of fig. 6B, labeled in fig. 6B below as rings) extends through each of the thermal contact fingers and a respective point on the secondary strap (the construed axes would extend in a depth direction through the pad 602 as well as the construed fingers).
Johnson, fig. 6B (annotated)
PNG
media_image8.png
509
822
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In this embodiment, Johnson does not explicitly disclose a thermal control module including thermal contact fingers electrically coupled to the thermal control module and extending transverse to the length direction and the thickness direction.
However, in a different embodiment, Johnson teaches a thermal control module (compression device 302, fig. 3A; the compression plate can be made of “metals,” para 0118; metals are thermal conductors and construed as being “thermal;” control board 308, fig. 3A; “wireless capability,” para 0080) including thermal contact fingers (compression plates 316, fig. 3A; each plate is construed as two fingers; four plates are shown and thus eight fingers, fig. 3A) electrically coupled to the thermal control module (“a power source in electrical communication with the one or more motors and the controller,” para 0115; the plates 316 are construed as being electrically coupled together) and extending transverse (the compression plates 316 extend horizontally, fig. 3A) to the length direction (vertical, fig. 3A) and the thickness direction (depth, fig. 3A).
Johnson, fig. 3A
PNG
media_image9.png
1168
722
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiment of fig. 6B, in view of the embodiment of 3A, by using a compression system 300, from fig. 3A, as the compression system 600, from fig. 6B, but with two compression plates 316 instead of four compression plates 316, in order to use a compression system that provides two zones of compression using two motors because two zones of compression as opposed to only one zone allows for compression that better conforms to the patient’s anatomy and also facilitates sequential compression (paras 0099 and 0124).
Regarding claim 22, Johnson teaches wherein at least one of the primary strap or the secondary strap includes at least one vibration motor (motors 304, fig. 3A; construed as being on the pad 602, fig. 6B or the secondary strap; can be use to cause vibrations in the vibration element 2626 that is part of the compression system, fig. 26E).
Regarding claim 23, Johnson teaches wherein the secondary strap (pad 602, fig. 6B) overlaps the primary strap (compression straps 618, fig. 6B; coming from the perspective from the interior, i.e., the perspective of the leg, the pad 602 overlaps straps 618).
Regarding claim 24, Johnson teaches wherein the secondary strap is a first secondary strap (annotated in fig. 6B below), the thermal contact fingers are first thermal contact fingers (annotated in fig. 6B below), the thermal control module includes second thermal contact fingers extending transverse to the thickness direction (annotated in fig. 6B below; the construed second thermal contact finger extend horizontally, which is transverse the depth direction), and comprising a second secondary strap extending across the second thermal contact fingers (annotated in fig. 6B below) such that a respective axis parallel to the thickness direction (four axes in the depth direction of fig. 6B, labeled in fig. 6B below as rings) extends through each of the second thermal contact fingers and a respective point on the second secondary strap (the construed axes would extend in a depth direction through the pad 602 as well as the construed fingers).
Johnson, fig. 6B (annotated)
PNG
media_image10.png
766
852
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Johnson teaches wherein the first secondary strap and the second secondary strap are spaced apart by a distance (vertical distance between the two straps 618, fig. 6B) in a width direction (vertical direction, fig. 6B) perpendicular to the thickness direction (depth direction, fig. 6B), and the thermal control module is wider in the width direction than the distance (the compression device 600 and the backing component 604 are longer in the vertical direction than the space between the straps 618, fig. 6B).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 9 February 2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of claim 21 that are based on Johnson and the arguments do not apply to the rejections of claim 1 that are based on Mandel and Kilbey combined with Silverberg.
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 ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 5/2/2026
Prosecution Insights