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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11 & 13-15 remain pending in the application. Claim 25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-11 & 13-15 have been considered but are not seen as persuasive, see reasonings below.
Regarding amended claim 1, applicant argues Lowe does not explicitly disclose “bending” cannot be interpreted as rotation or twisting. Examiner disagrees, Paragraph [0168], discloses that the central region of the pad, which is seen as a neck, tends to undergo twisting and bending in more than one direction, therefore, Lowe discloses the neck can be twisted in multiple directions which can lead to an inversion of the pad. While examiner acknowledges Lowe’s twisting to be in the context of the patient’s dependency, there is no context in the applicant’s claim of why and/or how there is rotation or twisting occurring in the pad such that Lowe’s twisting reads on the claim. Examiners suggest amending the claim to better read on the how/why there is rotation or twisting occurring. Applicant also argues that it would not be obvious to combine Latham in view of Lowe. Examiner wants to point out that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2145). Therefore, Examiner rejection of Latham in view of Lowe would have suggested to those of the ordinary skill to incorporate the elements as taught by Lowe. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to disclose a pad that allows for twisting and/or rotation to allow for conformability and flexibility of a medical pad while being able to provide efficient heat transfer. Such that a pad could be inverted based on the conformability to a complex anatomical shape.
In regards to claims 2-11 & 13-25, Examiner sees claim 1 dependents as being unpatentable over Latham in view of Lowe by the Final action and the reasonings above.
Claim Interpretation
The use “for” in the claim is seen as intended use and therefore is given limited patentable weight and the prior art used below would be capable of performing the “for” function based on structure.
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.
Claims 1-3, 13, 15 & 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Latham et al. (US 20120288848) herein referred to as Latham, in view of Lowe et al. (US 20120172774) herein referred to as Lowe.
Regarding claim 1, Latham discloses a medical pad for exchanging thermal energy with a patient (Figure 1), the pad comprising: a central pad defining a top end and a bottom end (See annotated figure 1 below), the central pad configured for placement on a back side of the patient (Paragraph [0057]; wherein the pad can be applied to a back); and a plurality of extension pads coupled with the central pad (See annotated figure 1 below), wherein each extension pad extends away from right and left lateral sides of the central pad (See annotated Figure 1 below), and is coupled with the central pad via a neck extending between the extension pad and the central pad (See annotated Figure 1 below), and wherein each of the central pad and the plurality of extension pads includes a fluid containing layer configured for circulation of a TTM fluid therein (Paragraph [0010]) , and one or more extension pads are rotatable with respect to the central pad (Figure 12A-D). However, Latham does not explicitly disclose wherein: the rotation defines a twist in the neck along an axis of rotation extending parallel with the neck, and the rotation inverts the one or more extension pads with respect to the central pad.
Lowe discloses a medical pad (Figure 6, 30c) wherein: one or more extension pads are rotatable with respect to the central pad (Paragraph [0168]; wherein the central region which is seen as a neck undergoes twisting in more than one direction which is seen as rotatable), the rotation is about an axis of rotation parallel with the neck (Paragraph [0168]; wherein the central region which is seen as a neck undergoes twisting in more than one direction such that since the necking region is more narrow then the extension pads off of it, there would be some rotation along an axis of rotation extending parallel to the neck due to the both the structure of the neck and its flexibility to bend and twist in multiple directions.), and the twist inverts the one or more extension pads with respect to the central pad in the neck (Paragraph [0168]; wherein a necking region as such is prone to bending and twisting in multiple directions due to the width of the material such that that the bending and twisting can result in an inversion). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pad taught by Latham to allow for rotation as taught by Lowe. The motivation being that the pad is conformable to a complex anatomical shape and provides efficient heat transfer over the treatment surface under compressive force (Lowe, Paragraph [0014]).
PNG
media_image1.png
483
631
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Latham in view of Lowe discloses the medical pad according to claim 1. Latham also discloses wherein the central pad is sized to extend laterally across the back side of the patient (Paragraph [0057]; wherein the pad is designed so it can be applied to a back)
Regarding claim 3, Latham in view of Lowe discloses the medical pad according to claim 1. Latham also discloses wherein the central pad is sized to extend downward along the legs of the patient (Figure 14)
Regarding claim 13, Latham in view of Lowe discloses the medical pad according to claim 1. Latham also discloses wherein: one or more extension pads are foldable with respect to the central pad (Figure 12F), folding the extension pad defines a crease extending across the neck (Figure 1; wherein if the pad is folded at the neck is would allow define a crease since the pad is flexible and able to fold), and when folded, the extension pad overlaps the central pad (Figure 12F; wherein when the pad is folded the pads overlap a portion of the central pad on the top of the head).
Regarding claim 15, Latham in view of Lowe discloses the medical pad according to claim 13. Lowe also discloses wherein: one or more extension pads are rotatable with respect to the central pad (Paragraph [0168]; wherein the central region which is seen as a neck undergoes twisting in more than one direction which is seen as rotatable), the rotation is about an axis of rotation parallel with the neck (Paragraph [0168]; wherein the central region which is seen as a neck undergoes twisting in more than one direction which is seen as rotatable about an axis of rotation parallel with the neck since it can rotate/twist in multiple directions), and the rotation defines a twist in the neck (Paragraph [0168]; wherein the central region which is seen as a neck undergoes twisting in more than one direction which is seen as rotatable). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pad taught by Latham to allow for rotation as taught by Lowe. The motivation being that the pad is conformable to a complex anatomical shape and provides efficient heat transfer over the treatment surface under compressive force (Lowe, Paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 25, Latham in view of Lowe discloses the medical pad according to claim 1. Lowe also discloses wherein: each of the central pad and the plurality of extension pads includes a patient facing side and an outward facing side (Figure 3, 37 & 41), and the inversion causes the patient facing side of the one or more extension pads to face outward from the patient (Paragraph [0168]; wherein a necking region as such is prone to bending and twisting in multiple directions due to the width of the material such that that the bending and twisting can result in an inversion, wherein an inversion of the patient facing side of the one or more extension pads to face outward from the patient). The motivation being that the pad is conformable to a complex anatomical shape and provides efficient heat transfer over the treatment surface under compressive force (Lowe, Paragraph [0014]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Latham and Lowe in further view of Kelly et al. (US 5383919) herein referred to as Kelly.
Regarding Claim 4, Latham in view of Lowe discloses the medical pad according to claim 1 wherein the central pad comprises a slit (See annotated Figure 15 below and [0012]; specifically that open-face holes (slits) are for fitting oddly shape objects). However, Latham does not explicitly disclose wherein the slit: is disposed centrally between the right and left lateral sides of the central pad, extends upward away from the bottom end of the central pad, and extends between a top side and an underside of the central pad.
PNG
media_image2.png
458
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kelly discloses a medical pad (Figure 2) wherein the slit: is disposed centrally between the right and left lateral sides of the central pad (See annotated Figure 2 below), extends upward away from the bottom end of the central pad (See annotated figure 2 below), and extends between a top side and an underside of the central pad (See annotated figure 2 below; wherein slit goes through the entire pad). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the slit taught by Latham and Lowe to be positioned as taught by Kelly. The motivation being it would be obvious to try different positionings and locations of the slit on the pad to allow for the best conformability of the pad to the patient’s body (MPEP 2143 (E)).
PNG
media_image3.png
605
528
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Latham and Lowe in further view of Elkins (US 20010034545) herein referred to as Elkins.
Regarding Claim 5, Latham in view of Lowe discloses the medical pad according to claim 1. However, Latham in view of Lowe does not explicitly disclose wherein: the central pad comprises indicia disposed on the top side of the central pad, and the indicia includes an alignment indicium to aide in applying the central pad to the back side of the patient.
Elkins discloses a medical pad (Figure 2) wherein: the central pad comprises indicia disposed on the top side of the central pad (Figure 2, 28), and the indicia includes an alignment indicium to aide in applying the central pad to the back side of the patient (Paragraph [0029]; wherein the indicia is used to aid in applying the pad to the backside which can be seen in Figure 1A, wherein the indicia is used to align the pad and secure it onto a person). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pad taught by Latham to include indicia as taught by Elkins. The motivation being to adjust and align the pad securely to a person (Elkins, Paragraph [0029]).
Regarding Claim 6, Latham and Lowe in further view of Elkins discloses the medical pad according to claim 5. Latham also discloses wherein the fluid containing layer comprises at least one delivery flow path and at least one return flow path extending along each neck (See annotated Figure 1 below; wherein the arrows annotate flow path).
PNG
media_image4.png
475
753
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Latham and Lowe in further view of Elkins discloses the medical pad according to claim 5. Latham also discloses wherein the fluid containing layer comprises a fluid free zone (See annotated figure 1 below), and wherein the fluid free zone is disposed centrally between the right and left lateral sides of the central pad (See annotated figure 1 below), and extends downward away from the top end of the central pad (See annotated figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
346
620
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 8-9 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Latham, Lowe and Elkins in further view of Nofzinger (US 20110125238) herein referred to as Nofzinger.
Regarding Claim 8, Latham and Lowe in further view of Elkins discloses the medical pad according to claim 5, comprising: an insulation layer disposed on a top side of the fluid containing layer (Latham, Paragraph [0007]). However, Latham and Lowe in view of Elkins does not explicitly disclose a hydrogel layer disposed on an underside of the fluid containing layer; and a hydrogel liner coupled with the hydrogel layer on an underside of the hydrogel layer.
Nofzinger discloses a medical pad (Figure 4A) comprising hydrogel layer disposed on an underside of the fluid containing layer (Paragraph [0075]; wherein a hydrogel adhesive layer is used to hold the pad snuggly to a patient wherein the hydrogel layer would be under the fluid containing layer since the hydrogel is the bottom layer attaching to the patient); and a hydrogel liner coupled with the hydrogel layer on an underside of the hydrogel layer (Paragraph [0092]; wherein a disposable material or cover, therefore a liner can be applied and the cover is configured as a biogel cover wherein biogel is a hydrogel). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pad as taught by Latham, Lowe and Elkins to include the hydrogel layer and hydrogel liner as taught by Nofzinger. The motivation being to improve thermal conductivity and keep the pad against the forehead with minimal air gaps (Nofzinger, Paragraph [0074])
Regarding Claim 9, Latham, Lowe and Elkins in further view of Nofzinger disclose the medical pad according to claim 8. Nofzinger also discloses wherein in use, the hydrogel layer is disposed in direct contact with a skin of the patient (Paragraph [0075]; wherein a hydrogel adhesive layer is used to hold the pad snuggly to a patient skin). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pad as taught by Latham, Lowe and Elkins in view of Nofzinger to allow for the hydrogel layer to be in direct contact with skin. The motivation being to improve thermal conductivity and keep the pad against the forehead with minimal air gaps (Nofzinger, Paragraph [0074])
Regarding Claim 11, Latham, Lowe and Elkins in further view of Nofzinger disclose the medical pad according to claim 8. Nofzinger also discloses wherein in use at least a first portion of the hydrogel liner is removed from the pad (Paragraph [0092]; wherein only a portion is disposable), and a second portion of the hydrogel liner remains coupled with the pad (Paragraph [0092]; wherein only a portion is disposable therefore the other portion remains coupled to the pad). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the pad as taught by Latham, Lowe and Elkins in view of Nofzinger to include the hydrogel liner as taught by Nofzinger. The motivation being to transfer heat over a portion of the pad (Nofzinger, Paragraph [0092]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Latham, Lowe, Elkins and Nofzinger in view of Pyrozyk et al. (US 5431622) herein referred to as Pyrozyk.
Regarding Claim 10, Latham, Lowe and Elkins in further view of Nofzinger disclose the medical pad according to claim 8. However, Latham, Lowe and Elkins in further view of Nofzinger does not explicitly disclose wherein the hydrogel liner comprises one or more separation lines, and wherein the separation lines: extend laterally across the central pad between the right and left lateral sides of the central pad, and facilitate separation of the hydrogel liner into two or more portions of the hydrogel liner.
Pyrozyk discloses a medical bandage for exchanging thermal energy (Figure 2) wherein the adhesive liner comprises one or more separation lines (Figure , 84), and wherein the separation lines: extend laterally across the central bandage between the right and left lateral sides of the central bandage (Figure 2, 84), and facilitate separation of the adhesive liner into two or more portions of the adhesive liner (Column 4, lines 23-28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hydrogel liner as taught by Latham, Lowe and Elkins in further view of Nofzinger to include the adhesive separation lines as taught by Pyrozyk. The motivation being to separate two different portions (Column 4, lines 23-28).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Latham and Lowe in further view of Nofzinger
Regarding Claim 14, Latham in view of Lowe discloses the medical pad according to claim 13. However, Latham in view of Lowe does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the central pad or the one or more extension pads comprises an adhesive configured to attach the extension pad to the central pad when the extension pad is folded.
Nofzinger discloses a medical pad (Figure 4A) wherein at least one of the central pad comprises an adhesive (Paragraph [0076]; wherein an adhesive is applied on the pad). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the central pad taught by Latham to comprise an adhesive as taught by Nofzinger to allow for the extension pads to attach when the pad is folded. The motivation being applying a known technique, using adhesive to adhere two surfaces together, to a known device, Latham’s medical pad (MPEP 2143 (D).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA M PAPE whose telephone number is (703)756-5947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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 Rodden 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.
ALYSSA M. PAPE
Examiner
Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights