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 Amendments
The amendment filed 10/17/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are not seen as persuasive, see reasonings below. Examiner is reopening the case after discussing arguments on Examiners response to arguments in the Final Rejection during the interview on 12/03/2025 as well as the arguments submitted 12/23/2025. Examiner believed applicant was persuasive in regards to Examiners arguments not being answered in a proper manner.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues the range covers both heating and/or cooling, in which the examiner wants to acknowledge that it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art that the higher temperatures disclosed in the range are heating since it does not make sense to cool a seat to 45°C, with that being said, Migneco overlaps majority of the range disclosed by applicant and applicant also discloses in claim 1 that the temperature is “about 40°C to 48°C” suggesting that that therapeutic benefits are delivered explicitly outside of the claimed range being taught in claim 1 since “about” leaves room for the temperature to be above or below the range being taught therefore the range is not crucial. Applicant also argues that the second operating the heating device to maintain a skin temperature in the region of the at least one section of about 36°C to 39°C and/or a seat surface temperature of about 43°C to 46°C, it would be obvious that the heating device is operating at these temperature ranges to be able to bring the seat to this temperature. Examiner disagrees with applicant on the evidence appears to suggest that therapeutic benefits are being taught as an infinite range, since it known in the art that cooling and heating can both provide thermal therapeutic benefits to the occupant such that a cooling temperature can be much lower than a heating temperature which could create a wide range of values, Examiner wants to acknowledge in claim 1 the range is “about 36°C to 39°C.” suggesting that that therapeutic benefits are delivered explicitly outside of the claimed range being taught in claim 1 since “about” leaves room for the temperature to be above or below the range being taught therefore the range is not crucial. applicant argues that Migneco does not disclose a method providing localized thermal therapy. Applicant also argues that Migneco does not disclose a method providing localized thermal therapy. Examiner wants to point to claim 15 which discloses a method of providing thermal therapy such that “activating one or more of the thermal generation element assemblies”, which the details of the activation is disclosed in Paragraph [0027]-[0028], the activating includes wherein the period of time being operated may be occupant based or dictated by manual activation to deliver heating and/or cooling therapeutic benefits within a range of 10-45 °C which overlaps the 40°C to 48°C that is taught in the claim as well as also discloses that the temperature can go above 45°C. Applicant does not specify in the claim how the steps in the method is being performed therefore, Migneco method covers the claim language of claim 1. Therefore, Examiner stands by the rejection.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant argues that the Migneco does not explicitly disclose wherein after the heating device achieves a first temperature in the lower section, the cooling device selectively operates to attenuate a temperature rise… Examiner disagrees, Examiner wants to point to claim 15 which discloses a method of providing thermal therapy such that “activating one or more of the thermal generation element assemblies”, which the details of the activation is disclosed in Paragraph [0027]-[0028], the activating includes wherein the period of time being operated may be occupant based or dictated by manual activation to deliver heating and/or cooling therapeutic benefits within a range of 10-45 °C which overlaps the 40°C to 48°C that is taught in the claim as well as also discloses that the temperature can go above 45°C. Applicant does not specify in the claim how the steps in the method is being performed therefore, Migneco method covers the claim language of claim 1. Examiner acknowledges that the temperature taught by Migneco discloses that the seat itself is being brought to the temperatures not the heating device itself, it would be obvious that the heating device is operating at these temperature ranges to be able to bring the seat to this temperature. While examiner acknowledges that the heating and cooling units operate independently of each other is broad, Examiner wants to point to Paragraph [0029] of Migneco wherein it is stated that the thermal units are configured to generate heat and/or cooling, therefore by them being operated independently of each other, the cooling and heating functions of each unit is independent from the rest such that as taught in paragraph [0028] of Migneco, the heat and/or cooling delivered from seat assembly to areas of the person in contact with the seat may have a temperature within a range of 10 to 45° C or greater than 45° C. In regards to applicant discussing therapy programming, the claim does not require the specifics of therapy programming, therefore applicant should amend the claims to reflect that. While examiner acknowledges the Figures and paragraphs being disclosed for criticality, Examiner wants applicant to understand that a skilled person in the art would adjust heating/cooling times and temperatures based on many different factors such as locations of pain, types of pain, what exact therapeutic benefits a user may need. Therefore, Examiner stands by the rejection.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant argues that the remarks above for claim 5 are equally as applicable and with that Examiner stands by the rejection as taught above in regards to those remarks. Examiner wants applicant to understand that a skilled person in the art would adjust heating/cooling times and temperatures based on many different factors such as locations of pain, types of pain, what exact therapeutic benefits a user may need, therefore, Migneco discloses that is it possible to have temperatures above 45° C. With that being said, in the portion of the specification disclosed by applicant, there is no critically on why the temperatures being “about 70-90° C” is providing an inventitive therapeutic benefit. The range is “about 70°C to 90°C.” suggesting that that therapeutic benefits are delivered explicitly outside of the claimed range being taught in claim 1 since “about” leaves room for the temperature to be above or below the range being taught therefore the range is not crucial.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant argues does not present sufficient evidence that Salter et al. teaches or even suggests the heating device is provided by a duty cycle of about 90% to 100% such that the range is too wide to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Examiner wants to point towards Figure 2 of Salter, wherein there is only one heating/cooling element 38 being shown in communication with the seat therefore is the only element in the seat that could operate with pulse width modulation. Examiner also wants to point out in claim 6 both ranges being taught are “about” therefore reading on that these duty cycle % are not crucial, in which Salter still discloses a range that reads on the entire range being taught. Claim 6 also does not disclose why these ranges are crucial therefore, the prior art reads on the claim. Applicant also argues that it would not be obvious to try different duty cycle ranges in which examiner disagrees. Applicant is disclosing a method wherein there is a temperature change occurring over plurality of time cycles such that depending on the duty cycle will effect the temperature therefore, it would be obvious to try different duty cycles to be able to achieve the exact temperature change being disclosed in the dependent claims. Therefore, Examiner stands with the rejection.
Regarding claim 8, Applicant also argues wherein the first operation of the heating device is terminated when a skin temperature in the region of the at least one section of about 40°C to 48°C and/or a seat surface temperature of about 40°C to 48°C, it would be obvious that the heating device is operating at these temperature ranges to be able to bring the seat to this temperature. Examiner disagrees with applicant on the evidence appears to suggest that therapeutic benefits are being taught as an infinite range, since it known in the art that cooling and heating can both provide thermal therapeutic benefits to the occupant such that a cooling temperature can be much lower than a heating temperature which could create a wide range of values, Examiner wants to acknowledge in claim 8 the range is “about 40°C to 48°C.” suggesting that that therapeutic benefits are delivered explicitly outside of the claimed range being taught in claim 8 since “about” leaves room for the temperature to be above or below the range being taught therefore the range is not crucial.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant also argues wherein after termination of the first operation of the heating device, the heating device is brought down to a temperature of about about 55°C to 65°C, it would be obvious that the heating device is operating at these temperature ranges to be able to bring the seat to this temperature. Examiner disagrees with applicant on the evidence appears to suggest that therapeutic benefits are being taught as an infinite range, since it known in the art that cooling and heating can both provide thermal therapeutic benefits to the occupant such that a cooling temperature can be much lower than a heating temperature which could create a wide range of values, Examiner wants to acknowledge in claim 9 the range is “about 55°C to 65°C.” suggesting that that therapeutic benefits are delivered explicitly outside of the claimed range being taught in claim 9 since “about” leaves room for the temperature to be above or below the range being taught therefore the range is not crucial.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant argues does not present sufficient evidence that Salter et al. teaches or even suggests the heating device is provided by a duty cycle of about 45% to 55% such that the range is too wide to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Examiner wants to point towards Figure 2 of Salter, wherein there is only one heating/cooling element 38 being shown in communication with the seat therefore is the only element in the seat that could operate with pulse width modulation. Examiner also wants to point out in claim 6 both ranges being taught are “about” therefore reading on that these duty cycle % are not crucial, in which Salter still discloses a range that reads on the entire range being taught. Claim 6 also does not disclose why these ranges are crucial therefore, the prior art reads on the claim. Applicant also argues that it would not be obvious to try different duty cycle ranges in which examiner disagrees. Applicant is disclosing a method wherein there is a temperature change occurring over plurality of time cycles such that depending on the duty cycle will effect the temperature therefore, it would be obvious to try different duty cycles to be able to achieve the exact temperature change being disclosed in the dependent claims. Therefore, Examiner stands with the rejection.
Regarding the art of Tijs, applicant argues that Tijs is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed subject matter. Examiner disagrees, to which applicant pointed to MPEP 2141.01(a)(1), while Tijs might not be identical to the current applicant, both contain a method of supplying a thermal therapy, wherein thermal therapy is using heat or cold to treat injuries, pain, certain diseases and stimulating healing. Such that while the reasons for the thermal therapy are different, they are both providing a thermal therapy.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant argues Tijs does not disclose wherein the heating device is operated to maintain the skin temperature and/or the seat surface temperature over a duration of about 20 to 25 minutes. Examiner disagrees, while tijs discloses the body temperature being increased over a period of time, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art to come to conclusion of maintaining a skin and/or seat temperature based on Tijs teaching such that if the heating device taught by TJs is operating within a given time frame, it would be obvious that the seat surface is going to main the same surface temperature over a duration of that time. Tijs also discloses in paragraph [0068]; that it may be desired that a patient body temperature of a part of the body increased by a certain amount such that the patients skin would fall under that. Therefore, by Migneco teaching a device that allows for temperature and/or time to be adjusted, it can allow for the device to be able to benefit many different people with different needs. Such that the temperature scheduler disclosed by Tijs allows for body temperature to be controlled through the heating element 101 which is seen in Figure 1.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant also argues wherein after termination of the second operation of the heating device, the heating device is operated to maintain a skin temperature of less than 36°C and/or a seat temperature of less than 43°C, it would be obvious that the heating device is operating at these temperature ranges to be able to bring the seat to this temperature. Examiner disagrees with applicant on the evidence appears to suggest that therapeutic benefits are being taught as an infinite range, since it known in the art that cooling and heating can both provide thermal therapeutic benefits to the occupant such that a cooling temperature can be much lower than a heating temperature which could create a wide range of values, Examiner wants to acknowledge in claim 13 the range is “less than 36°C.” or “less than 43°C” suggesting that that therapeutic benefits are delivered explicitly outside of the claimed range being taught in claim 9 since “about” leaves room for the temperature to be above or below the range being taught therefore the range is not crucial.
Regarding claim 14, Examiner fixed the rejection below and apologizes for the typo. Claim 8 is rejected under Migneco and Salter in further view of Tijs. Applicant argues that the office action does not provide sufficient reasoning as the motivation. Examiner wants applicant to understand that a skilled person in the art would adjust heating/cooling times and temperatures based on many different factors such as locations of pain, types of pain, what exact therapeutic benefits a user may need. Therefore, by Migneco teaching a device that allows for temperature and/or time to be adjusted, it can allow for the device to be able to benefit many different people with different needs. Such that the temperature scheduler disclosed by Tijs allows for body temperature to be controlled through the heating element 101 which is seen in Figure 1. Therefore, the temperature scheduler is what is controlling the heating element that is producing the temperatures over the selected time period based on successful heating treatment and/or patient characteristics which is disclosed in paragraph [0085]. Therefore the range being taught in claim 8 could fall under successful heating treatment and/or patient characteristics based on the time and temperature being selected.
Regarding claim 15, Appliciant argues that Migneco does not explicitly disclose wherein the first operation of the heating device, the seat temperature increases by 2.7°C/minute to 3.1°C/minute. Examiner disagrees and wants to point towards Paragraph [0030] of Migneco wherein it is stated that the “units 60 can be activated manually as needed by the seat assembly 14 occupant. Accordingly, the thermal units 60 are individually selectable and controllable to generate heat or cooling” such that a user can activate a single thermal unit on a heated setting such that the user manually increased the seat temperature by 3°C/minute, since the units being on and off can be controlled individually be the user therefore the plurality of time intervals is manually controlled by the user. Examiner acknowledges that individually selectable portion is disclosed many times throughout the rejection and wants applicant to understand that a skilled person in the art would adjust heating/cooling times and temperatures based on many different factors such as locations of pain, types of pain, what exact therapeutic benefits a user may need. Therefore, by Migneco teaching a device that allows for temperature and/or time to be adjusted, it can allow for the device to be able to benefit many different people with different needs. In regards to why claim 14 was rejected differently then claim 15, the require different limitations wherein 14 is focused on the skin temperature and 15 is in regards to the seat temperature.
Regarding claim 16, Applicant argues that Tijs et al. teaches or even suggests the second period of time is about 2 to 6 minutes; and wherein the third period of time is about 1 to 2 minutes. While Tijs gives an example of a time period being 20 minutes, it is not limited to 20 minutes such that in Paragraph [0056] it is specified as a given time which reads on any time that is inputted therefore could be 1-2 minutes.
Regarding claim 19, Applicant argues wherein the heating device in the lower section has a surface power density of about 2,100 W/m2 to 2500 W/m2. Examiner stands by the heating layer of a car seat would be higher than a steering wheel therefore would be able to provide surface power density within the range due to the steering wheel at max being 2000 W/m2. The equation for surface power density is the amount of power generated or consumed per unit of surface area, due to the surface area being greater for a car seat compared to a steering wheel, there is going to be more power generated and/or consumed therefore leading to a higher surface power density then a steering wheel such that operating a higher temperature for therapeutic benefits will also cause the power to be greater. One of the ordinary skill in the art could have come to this conclusion based on the art taught by the steering wheel and known that the surface power density would be greater. Examiner wants to acknowledge in claim 19 the range is “about 2,100 W/m2 to 2500 W/m2.” suggesting that that therapeutic benefits are delivered explicitly outside of the claimed range being taught in claim 1 since “about” leaves room for the temperature to be above or below the range being taught therefore the range is not crucial.
Regarding claims 2-4, 12, 17-18 & 20, Examiner sees claim 1 dependents as being unpatentable over Migneco as taught by the final action and the reasonings above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-6, 17-18 & 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Migneco et al. (US 20210170926) herein referred to as Migneco.
Regarding claim 1, Migneco discloses a method for providing localized thermal therapy to a vehicle occupant (Claim 15), the method comprising: first operating a heating device to apply a first temperature for a first period of time to bring a temperature of at least one section of a seat surface to about 40°C to 48°C and/or a skin temperature of the vehicle occupant in a region of the at least one section to about 36°C or more (Paragraph [0027] - [0028]; wherein seat assembly is cooled by seating system to be within a range of 10 to 45° C and the period of time being operated may be occupant based or dictated by manual activation); and second operating the heating device to maintain a skin temperature in the region of the at least one section of about 36°C to 39°C and/or a seat surface temperature of about 43°C to 46°C (Paragraph [0027] - [0028]; wherein seat assembly is cooled/heated by seating system to be within a range of 10 to 45° C and the period of time being operated may be occupant based or dictated by manual activation).
Regarding claim 2, Migneco discloses the method according to Claim 1, wherein the heating device effectuates a temperature change in the at least one section of the seat surface (Figure 3, 60; wherein 60 is the thermal units); wherein the at least one section includes a lower section (Figure 3, 16; wherein lower section 16 contains ten thermal units 60), a middle section (Figure 3, 18), an upper section (Figure 3, 14), or any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 3, Migneco discloses the method according to Claim 2, wherein the heating device is located in the lower section (Figure 3, 16; wherein lower section 16 contains ten thermal units 60).
Regarding claim 4, Migneco discloses the method according to Claim 3, wherein the heating device is additionally located in the middle section (Figure 3, 18; wherein middle section 18 contains ten thermal units 60).
Regarding claim 5, Migneco discloses the method according to Claim 3, wherein a cooling device is located in the middle section (Figure 3, 18; wherein middle section 18 contains ten thermal units 60); and wherein after the heating device achieves the first temperature in the lower section (Figure 3, 16; Paragraph [0027] - [0028]; wherein seat assembly is cooled by seating system to be within a range of 10 to 45° C and the period of time being operated may be occupant based or dictated by manual activation), the cooling device selectively operates to attenuate a temperature rise of the seat surface in the middle section (Paragraph [0027] - [0028]; wherein seat assembly is cooled by seating system to be within a range of 10 to 45° C and the period of time being operated may be occupant based or dictated by manual activation; Paragraph [0030]; wherein the thermal units 60 can be configured to work independently therefore the middle section can rise the seat surface of just the middle section); and wherein the middle section is maintained at about 32°C to 34°C (Paragraph [0027] - [0028]; wherein seat assembly is cooled by seating system to be within a range of 10 to 45° C).
Regarding claim 6, Migneco discloses the method according to Claim 1, wherein the first temperature is about 70°C to 90°C (Paragraph [0027] - [0028]; wherein seat assembly is heated by seating system to be greater than 45°C therefore can be up to 70°C to 90°C).
Regarding claim 17, Migneco discloses the method according to Claim 1, wherein the localized thermal therapy is adapted to relieve pain of the vehicle occupant (Paragraph [0030]; wherein the thermal units 60 can be configured to work independently or in unison to sense localized pain and provide localized thermal tissue stimulation).
Regarding claim 18, Migneco discloses a device for performing the method according to Claim 1 (Figure 3) comprising: the heating device located at least in a lower section of a seat (Figure 3, 16; wherein lower section 16 contains ten thermal units 60; Paragraph [0030]; wherein thermal units can generate heat or cooling); and a cooling device acting upon the middle section of the seat (Figure 3, 18; wherein middle section 18 contains ten thermal units 60; Paragraph [0030]; wherein thermal units can generate heat or cooling).
Regarding claim 20, Migneco discloses vehicle seat comprising the device according to Claim 18 (Figure 3).
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 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Migneco in view of Salter et al. (US 20210268867) herein referred to as Salter.
Regarding Claim 7, Migneco discloses the method according to Claim 6. However, Migneco does not explicitly disclose wherein the heating device is provided a duty cycle of about 90% to 100% to realize the first temperature.
Salter discloses a method providing localized thermal therapy to a vehicle occupant (Figure 5) wherein the heating device is provided a duty cycle of about 90% to 100% to realize the first temperature (Paragraph [0081]; wherein adjusting the temperature set point of the HVAC system by an offset value and applying an electrical current at a desirable duty cycle
(e.g., 0%-100%) to the heated/cooled seat). 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 heating device taught by Migneco to allow for a duty cycle of 90-100%. The motivation being it would be obvious to try different duty cycles being applied to the heating device to see which allowed for the best thermal therapy (MPEP 2143 (E)).
Regarding claim 8, Migneco in view of Salter discloses the method according to Claim 7. Migneco also discloses wherein the first operation of the heating device is terminated when the seat surface temperature of about 40°C to 48°C and/or the skin temperature of about 36°C or more is realized or when the first period of time has elapsed (Paragraph [0027] - [0028]; wherein seat assembly is cooled by seating system to be within a range of 10 to 45° C and the period of time being operated may be occupant based or dictated by manual activation).
Regarding claim 9, Migneco in view of Salter discloses the method according to Claim 8. Migneco also discloses wherein after termination of the first operation of the heating device, the heating device is brought to a target temperature of about 55°C to 65°C (Claim 10; wherein the system is manually activated therefore can be terminated manually when the heating device is brought to a temperature of 55°C to 65°C which the temperature range is taught in paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 10, Migneco in view of Salter discloses the method according to Claim 9. Salter also discloses wherein after termination of the first operation of the heating device (Migneco, claim 10), the heating device is provided a duty cycle of about 45% to 55% (Paragraph [0081]; wherein adjusting the temperature set point of the HVAC system by an offset value and applying an electrical current at a desirable duty cycle (e.g., 0%-100%) to the heated/cooled seat). 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 heating device taught by Migneco to allow for a duty cycle of 45-55%. The motivation being it would be obvious to try different duty cycles being applied to the heating device to see which allowed for the best thermal therapy (MPEP 2143 (E)).
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Migneco and Salter in further view of Tijs et al. (US 20150238350) herein referred to as Tijs.
Regarding Claim 11, Migneco in view of Salter discloses the method according to Claim 10. However, Migneco in view of Salter does not explicitly disclose wherein the heating device is operated to maintain the skin temperature and/or the seat surface temperature over a duration of about 20 to 35 minutes.
Tijs discloses a method for providing localized thermal therapy (Paragraph [0037]-[0040]) wherein the heating device is operated to maintain the skin temperature and/or the seat surface temperature over a duration of about 20 to 35 minutes (Paragraph [0081]; wherein the heating device is operated within a given time such as 20 minutes). 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 method taught by Migneco in view of Salter to occur over the given time period as taught by Tijs. The motivation being allowing for the skin temperature to be controlled within a desired time (Tijs, Paragraph [0081]).
Regarding claim 12, Migneco and Salter in further view of Tijs discloses the method according to Claim 11. Migneco also discloses wherein the second operation of the heating device is terminated when a predetermined period of time has elapsed (Claim 10; wherein the system is manually activated therefore can be terminated manually when desired such as a predetermined time).
Regarding claim 13, Migneco and Salter in further view of Tijs discloses the method according to Claim 12. Migneco also discloses wherein after termination of the second operation of the heating device (Claim 10; wherein the system is manually activated therefore can be terminated manually), the heating device is operated to maintain a skin temperature of less than 36°C and/or a seat surface temperature of less than 43°C (Paragraph [0027] - [0028]; wherein seat assembly is cooled by seating system to be within a range of 10 to 45° C).
Regarding claim 14, Migneco and Salter in further view of Tijs discloses the method according to Claim 13. Tijs also discloses wherein in the first operation of the heating device, the skin temperature increases by 0.5 C/minute to 0.9°C/minute (paragraph [0068]; wherein that it may be desired that a patient body temperature of a part of the body increased by a certain amount such that the patients skin would fall under that.). 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 method taught by Migneco and Salter in further view of Tijs to occur over the given time period as taught by Tijs. The motivation being allowing for the skin temperature to be controlled within a desired time (Tijs, Paragraph [0081]).
Regarding claim 15, Migneco and Salter in further view of Tijs discloses the method according to Claim 14. Migneco also discloses the seat surface temperature increases by 2.7°C/minute to 3.1°C/minute (Paragraph [0027] - [0028]; wherein seat assembly is cooled by seating system to be within a range of 10 to 45° C and is manually controlled as taught in claim 10, therefore the seat surface temperature can be manually increased by 2.7°C/minute to 3.1°C/minute such that a user can increase the temperature up 3°C every minute).
Regarding claim 16, Migneco and Salter in further view of Tijs discloses the method according to Claim 15. Tijs also discloses wherein the first period of time is about 2 and 6 minutes (Paragraph [0081]; wherein the heating device is operated within a desired given time therefore could be 2-6 minutes). 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 method taught by Migneco in view of Salter to occur over the given time period as taught by Tijs. The motivation being allowing for the skin temperature to be controlled within a desired time (Tijs, Paragraph [0081]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Migneco in view of Barfuss et al. (US 20140339211) herein referred to as Barfuss.
Regarding Claim 19, Migneco discloses the device according to claim 18 wherein the heating device comprises a resistance element (Paragraph [0029]; wherein the heating unit contains classical resistive heating elements); and the cooling device comprises a blower, a thermoelectric device, a fluid distribution device, or any combination thereof (Paragraph [0029]; wherein cooling device contains a Peltier cooler which is a thermoelectric device). However, Migneco does not explicitly disclose wherein the heating device in the lower section has a surface power density of about 2,100 W/m2 to 2,500 W/m2.
Barfuss discloses a thermal vehicle device (Figure 1) wherein the heating device has a surface power density of about 2,100 W/m2 to 2,500 W/m2 (Paragraph [0044]-[0045]; wherein surface power density of a heating layer can be about 400 W/m2 or more therefore could be 2,100 W/m2 to 2,500 W/m2 since surface power density is based on basis weight and areal weight of the heating layer, the heating layer of a car seat would be higher than a steering wheel since the size of a car seat is larger therefore it would be obvious that the heating layer would beable to produce a higher surface power density since the highest disclose is 2000 W/m2). 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 heating device taught by Migneco to have a surface power density in the range taught by Barfuss. The motivation being it would be obvious to try different surface power densities in different portions of the seat to see which surface power density in each seat section allowed for the best form of treatment (MPEP 2143(E)).
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