Prosecution Insights
Last updated: September 25, 2026
Application No. 17/942,604

MULTI-ZONE COOLING FOR A FOAM PADDING

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 12, 2022
Priority
Sep 24, 2021 — LU 500685 +1 more
Examiner
GAITONDE, MEGHA MEHTA
Art Unit
1781
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Variowell Development GmbH
OA Round
6 (Final)
40%
Grant Probability
Moderate
7-8
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 40% of resolved cases
40%
Career Allowance Rate
244 granted / 603 resolved
-24.5% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+35.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
634
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
58.2%
+18.2% vs TC avg
§102
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
§112
17.2%
-22.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 603 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 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 1-6, 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LU 100834 Kirchhoff in view of US 2005/0288749 Lachenbruch. Regarding claim 1, Kirchhoff teaches a foam padding having edges, and at least one upper section and at least one lower section located below the upper section (paragraph 0002), the foam padding comprising: at least one absorber embedded in the upper section (the upper half of one band, figure 1), the at least one absorber for absorbing thermal energy from the upper section (paragraph 0008); and at least one band embedded in the lower section (the lower half a different band, figure 1), the at least one band configured for transferring thermal energy within the lower section from a sub-section with excess thermal energy to at least one sub-section without excess thermal energy (paragraph 0008), wherein the at least one sub-section without excess thermal energy is located at the edges of the foam padding (paragraph 0038), wherein the at least one absorber and the at least one band are separate parts (different bands, figure 1), and wherein part of the foam padding is provided between the upper section and the lower section (figure 1), wherein the absorber has a higher thermal capacity than the band (paragraphs 0020 and 0028, where graphite has a higher thermal capacity than PE, and the graphite portion of the absorber has a higher thermal capacity than the PE portion of the band). Kirchoff does not explicitly teach the thickness of the upper and lower sections. However, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04 Section IV Part A). Therefore, without a showing of criticality, the claimed upper and lower section thicknesses do not impart patentability to the claims. Kirchoff does not teach that the absorber and the band are solely in the upper and lower sections, respectively. Lachenbruch teaches a heat wick for cooling in a mattress, where the thermally conductive materials 3 are embedded (due to being beneath the ticking) exclusively in the upper or lower sections of the mattress along the sides (figure 1), and wherein part of the foam padding is provided between the upper section and the lower section thereby separating the at least one absorber from the at least one band (figure 1, where there is mattress material in the central portion and horizontal absorbers and bands above and below the central portion, respectively. The only difference between the claim and the prior art is the combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention could have combined the elements using known methods and there is no evidence that the conductive bands exclusively in the upper or lower sections performs differently when combined with the other elements of the claim than it does separably nor is there any evidence that the combination would produce any unexpected results (MPEP 2141, Part III. KSR A: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predictable Results). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to alter the orientation of the bands in Kirchoff to be solely in the upper or lower sections as the bands in Lachenbruch. Regarding claim 2, Kirchhoff teaches that the upper section is located between the lower section and a surface of the foam padding (figure 1, where the claim does not require a particular distinction between the upper and lower sections). Regarding claim 3, Kirchhoff teaches that the lower section has an inhomogeneous temperature distribution (paragraph 0038). Regarding claim 4, Kirchhoff teaches that the absorber comprises at least one conducting layer (paragraph 0020). Regarding claim 5, Kirchhoff teaches that the absorber comprises a plurality of conducting strips (sheets of graphite, paragraph 0020) connected together by a conducting connecting band (PE layer, paragraph 0028), wherein the connecting band is more flexible than the plurality of conducting strips (paragraphs 0020 and 0028, where PE is more flexible than graphite). Regarding claim 6, Kirchhoff teaches that the band comprises a continuous conducting layer (paragraph 0021) extending from within the at least one sub-section with excess thermal energy to the at least one sub-section without excess thermal energy (paragraph 0022). Regarding claim 8, Kirchhoff teaches that the conducting layer has a thickness of 0.5 mm (paragraph 0020). Regarding claim 9, Kirchhoff teaches that the conducting layer is made of graphite (paragraph 0020). Regarding claim 10, Kirchhoff teaches that the absorber is laminated on at least one side with polyethylene or polyurethane (paragraph 0028). Regarding claim 11, Kirchhoff teaches that the band is punctured or perforated (paragraph 0027). Regarding claim 12, Kirchhoff teaches that the lower section has a temperature distribution that is inhomogeneous in a direction parallel to the surface of the padding (right and left, paragraph 0022). Regarding claim 13, Kirchhoff teaches that the lower section has a temperature distribution that is inhomogeneous in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the padding (bottom surface in contact with box spring, paragraph 0022). Regarding claim 14, Kirchhoff teaches that the foam padding is in the form of a mattress (paragraph 0002). Regarding claim 15, Kirchhoff teaches that the upper section has a substantially homogenous temperature distribution (within each air cell, paragraph 0017), and the lower section has an inhomogeneous temperature distribution (cooler on bottom or sides, paragraph 0022). Regarding claim 16, Kirchhoff teaches that the conducting layer has a thickness of less than or more than 0.5 mm (paragraph 0020, where higher than the range has been envisioned), and a width of less than or more than 4-10 mm (paragraph 0034, where the width of the conducting layer is the same as the width of the band). “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, the taught ranges of less than or more than 0.5 mm and less than or more than 4-10 mm reads on the claimed ranges of 0.5 to 2.00 mm and 30 to 70 mm. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed August 6, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Kirchhoff explicitly teaches away from absorption. However, it is unclear how the bands in Kirchhoff can transport thermal energy without first absorbing it. The independent but identical upper and lower bands of Kirchhoff still read on the claim. Please note that the claim as written allows the absorber and band to have the same dual-material composition. Applicant argues that Kirchhoff does not teach upper and lower sections. However, as discussed above, these dimensions do not impart patentability to the claim. Applicant may show how the claimed thicknesses are critical. Furthermore, the only separation between the upper and lower regions is the claimed foam padding, a feature that is present throughout the product. Applicant argues that Lachenbruch’s product does not teach embedding. However, this feature is taught by Kirchhoff. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Megha M Gaitonde whose telephone number is (571)270-3598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am to 5 pm. 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, Frank Vineis can be reached on 571-270-1547. 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. /MEGHA M GAITONDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 10 earlier events
Nov 12, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §103
Feb 12, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 15, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Jul 14, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 14, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 06, 2026
Response Filed
Sep 01, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12715989
ANTIGLARE FILM LAMINATE, POLARIZING PLATE, AND DISPLAY DEVICE
3y 11m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12716134
GRAIN-ORIENTED ELECTRICAL STEEL SHEET AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR
2y 11m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12703170
LAMINATED GLAZING
3y 11m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12696923
Laminate for a Wrapped Bundle of Tobacco Industry Products
5y 2m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12697834
METHOD OF APPLYING A PATTERN, AND SECURITY DEVICE FOR AN ARTICLE
3y 8m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
40%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+35.6%)
3y 7m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 603 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month