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
Following the interview held on 12/03/2025, Examiner is reopening the case to further discuss Examiners response to arguments in the Final submitted 11/18/2025 as well as arguments submitted by applicant on 12/30/2025.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of Claims 18-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
The amendments under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 12/30/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-20 based upon being rejected under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the last Office action, see response to arguments below.
Regarding the Double Patenting rejection, Examiner stands with rejection as taught in the Non-final Office action as well as the reasons below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/07/2025 and 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Yoda fails to teach or even suggest, as a whole, 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 43°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; second operating the heating device and a cooling device in an alternating manner for a plurality of time intervals, during the plurality of time intervals the heating device is operative for a second period of time, and the cooling device is operative for a third period of time. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yoda discloses passive heat flow during periods wherein the heating device is not operating. Yoda ([0061] As shown in FIG. 5, the temperature change unit H1 increases the temperature of the temperature change area during a heating period T1, and lowers the temperature of the temperature change area during a non-heating period T2. That is, during the non-heating period T2, the skin is cooled) discloses during this time period the skin is cooled therefore the cooling is occurring for a third period of time. The naturally cooling as taught in ([0082]) it is still seen as a cooling period since the claim discloses a cooling device producing the cooling period after the period of heating no matter the method of producing the cooling. Further, Yoda in view of Migneco discloses a cooling device which also provides another period of cooling.
Further, applicant argues that FIG. 5 and FIG. 8 of Yoda, requires a reason as to why a skilled person would make such combination and that the proposed modification of Yoda with Migneco would render Yoda unfit for its intended purpose. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Separate embodiments of Yoda figures 5 and 8 differ only in that the induction unit applies the stimulus to the plurality of induction areas. Therefore, the results would be obvious to combined as Figure 8 just includes a plurality of induction areas. Furthermore, the cooling device taught by Migneco can be set at a temperature that allows for a slower cooling to produce cooled skin temperature similar to the skin temperature taught by Yoda. If in the first period skin temperature is increased to 36 degrees Celsius as taught by Yoda, Migneco cooling device allows for the seat to be cooled within a range of 10-45 degrees Celsius, therefore, the cooling device can allow for the seat to drop to a temperature below 36 degrees Celsius in which will conductively cool the skin temperature in a similar way that is taught by Yoda.
Further, Applicant disagrees with the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the cooling is operative for a third period of time” and believes that Yoda discloses passive heat flow during periods wherein the heating device is not operating. In paragraph [0061] of Yoda, it is disclosed during this time period the skin is cooled therefore the cooling is occurring for a third period of time. While the cooling is naturally cooled as taught in paragraph [0082], it is still seen as cooling period in which since the claim discloses a cooling device producing the cooling period after the period of heating no matter the method of producing the cooling. Further, Migneco discloses a cooling device which also provides a period of cooling (Migneco [0027]-[0028]). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references (Yoda in view of Migneco), the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the cooling device taught by Migneco can be set at a temperature that allows for a slower cooling to produce cooled skin temperature similar to the skin temperature taught by Yoda. For example, if in the first period skin temperature is increased to 36 degrees Celsius as taught by Yoda (Fig 8), Migneco cooling device allows for the seat to be cooled within a range of 10-45 degrees Celsius ([0028]), therefore, the cooling device can allow for the seat to drop to a temperature below 36 degrees Celsius in which will conductively cool the skin temperature.
Applicant further argues that Yoda does not discloses “wherein the thermal contrast therapy achieves about a 10°C to 20°C change in a temperature of a surface of a seat in the at least one section and/or about a 3°C to 6°C change in a temperature of the skin of the vehicle occupant in the region of the at least one section”. However, Yoda discloses in paragraph [0056]-[0057]; wherein the heating device changes the temperature of the skin of a body surface within a range of 0.1°C/sec to 10°C/sec. Therefore, the claim discloses that there is a change in the temperature of the skin, therefore the function of time taught by Yoda does not matter since the claim does not explicitly state when this change is occurring or for how long during the therapy, only that there is a temperature change in which Yoda discloses. The time therefore does not matter, both the method taught by the applicant and the method taught by Yoda are looking at a temperature change over time. The amount of time in the plurality of time intervals is not disclosed in claim 1 therefore, the amount of time being disclosed by Yoda is not crucial to what claim 1 is disclosing. Therefore, the examiner stands with the rejection taught in the non-final action.
Regarding claim 2, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references (Yoda in view of Migneco), the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the cooling device taught by Migneco can be set at a temperature that allows for a slower cooling to produce cooled skin temperature similar to the skin temperature taught by Yoda.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant argues that that Migneco teaches or even suggests wherein the heating device is located in the lower and middle sections and during the plurality of time intervals the heating device in the lower section is brought to a target temperature of about 63 C to 67°C and the heating device in the middle section is brought to a target temperature of about 77°C to 83°C. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Even if 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. Paragraph [0029] of Migneco states wherein it 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.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant argues that Migneco teaches or even suggests wherein the heating device is located in the upper section and during the plurality of time intervals the heating device in the upper section is brought to a target temperature of about 70°C. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The reasoning is the same as stated in regarding to claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant argues that the present claim requires a specific temperature range, and Migneco describes a 10 to 45° C range that is not specific in any respect. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Migneco discloses are range wherein during the plurality of time intervals, the cooling device is brought to a temperature of about 18°C to 22°C ([0028]; wherein cooling can comprise of a temperature within a range of 10 to 45° C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the cooling device is brought to a temperature of about 18°C to 22°C, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claims 17, 18, and 20, Applicant believes the rejections of Claims 17, 18, and 20 are rendered moot. However, Examiner stands with the rejection of claim 1 and therefore rejects claims 17, 18, and 20 as set forth in the previous action.
Regarding Claim 6, Applicant argues that Salter fails to teach or even suggest the heating device is operated by pulse width modulation with a duty cycle of about 55% to 65% and the cooling device is operated by pulse width modulation with a duty cycle of about 85% to 95%. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Salter discloses a heating/cooling unit (38); the heating device is operated by pulse width modulation with a duty cycle of about 55% to 65% and the cooling device is operated by pulse width modulation with a duty cycle of about 85% to 95% ([0077]; wherein the heated/cooling seat can be operated at a desired pulse width modulation with a duty cycle of anywhere between 0%-100%). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the heating device is operated by pulse width modulation with a duty cycle of about 55% to 65% and the cooling device is operated by pulse width modulation with a duty cycle of about 85% to 95%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 7, Applicant argues that Salter fails to teach or even suggest wherein the operating time of the heating device and the cooling device, during the plurality of time intervals, are equal. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Migneco discloses wherein the operating time of the heating device and the cooling device, during the plurality of time intervals, are equal ([0030]; wherein the heating and cooling is individually selectable therefore can operate at plurality of time intervals that are equal). 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 Yoda and Migneco is further view of Salter to operate the heating and cooling devices as taught by Migneco. The motivation being for the user to manually control the heat or cooling function for a certain time period based on the user’s specific needs (Migneco, [0030] 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).
Regarding Claim 14, Applicant argues that Salter fails to teach or even suggest wherein the heating device is operated by pulse width modulation with a duty cycle of about 55% to 65% to realize the first temperature. Salter discloses a heating/cooling unit (38); the heating device is operated by pulse width modulation with a duty cycle of about 55% to 65% ([0077]; wherein the heated/cooling seat can be operated at a desired pulse width modulation with a duty cycle of anywhere between 0%-100%). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the heating device is operated by pulse width modulation with a duty cycle of about 55% to 65%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 15, Applicant argues that the present claim requires a specific temperature range, and Migneco describes a 10 to 450 C range that is not specific in any respect. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Migneco discloses wherein the first temperature is about 55°C to 90°C ([0028]; wherein a first temperature can be within a range of 10 to 45° C as well as can be greater than 45°C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the heating device is operated by pulse width modulation with a duty cycle of about 55% to 65%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Applicant argues that Tijs does not qualify as analogous art. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that Tijs is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case 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 teaches a device that allows for temperature and/or time to be adjusted. 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 8, Applicant argues that Tijs teaches or even suggests wherein the rate of temperature change during the plurality of time intervals is +0.4°C minute to +0.9°C minute for the skin temperature and or +1°C minute to +2.5°C minute for the seat temperature. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tijs discloses a thermal therapy which can be integrated into a seat ([0054]) wherein the rate of temperature change during the plurality of time intervals is ±0.4°C/minute to ±0.9°C/minute for the skin temperature and/or ±1 °C/minute to ±2.5°C/minute for the seat temperature ([0068]; wherein the temperature of the skin can be controlled to increase by a given amount wherein it would be possible to increase the skin temperature ±0.4°C/minute to ±0.9°C/minute). The motivation being allowing for the temperature of the skin to increase at given amount within a given time (Tijs, [0068]). 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 based on the time and temperature being selected.
Regarding Claim 9, Applicant argues that Migneco fails to teach or even suggest wherein the plurality of time intervals persist for a duration of about 20 to 35 minutes. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Migneco discloses wherein the plurality of time intervals persist for a duration of about 20 to 35 minutes ([0027] it is contemplated that the time period may be occupant specific and may, for example, be up to fifteen minutes. In still other embodiments, the time period may be dictated by manual activation) ([0030]; wherein the heating and cooling is individually selectable therefore can operate at plurality of time intervals that persist for a duration of about 20 to 35 minutes). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the plurality of time intervals persist for a duration of about 20 to 35 minutes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 10, Applicant argues that Yoda fails to teach or even suggest wherein the alternating heating and cooling are respectively characterized by a ramp-and- step profile, the ramp-and-step profile of heating being inverse to the ramp-and-step profile of cooling. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yoda discloses wherein the alternating heating and cooling are respectively characterized a ramp-and-step profile (Figure 5; wherein the bottom graph is a ramp and step profile), the ramp-and-step profile of heating being inverse to the ramp-and-step profile of cooling (Figure 5; wherein T1 is the heating and T2 is the cooling). Wherein the ramp would be the overall increasing skin temperature over time and the step would be the temperature increase/drop between time periods.
PNG
media_image1.png
393
539
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Applicant argues that there is no evidence that Migneco teaches or even suggests wherein there is no idle period between the alternating operation of the heating device and the cooling device; wherein the idle period is characterized by a period of time in which both the heating device and the cooling device are not operational. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Migneco discloses wherein there is no idle period between the alternating operation of the heating device and the cooling device ([0030]-[0031]; wherein heating and cooling devices are manually activated therefore can be switched immediately by the user and switching assembly switches the device from cold to hot); wherein the idle period is characterized by a period of time in which both the heating device and the cooling device are not operational ([0030]-[0031]; wherein heating and cooling devices are manually activated therefore can be switched immediately by the user and switching assembly switches the device from cold to hot). The units being on and off can be controlled individually be the user and therefore the plurality of time intervals are manually controlled by the user. The motivation being the user can switch from heating to cooling whenever they choose to (Migneco, [0030] 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).
Regarding Claim 12, Applicant argues that the Office Action does not present sufficient evidence that Yoda teaches or even suggests wherein the time intervals include 6 to 16 time intervals. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yoda discloses wherein the plurality of time intervals include 6 to 16 time intervals (Figure 8; wherein Calf I and Calf II demonstrate a plurality of time intervals which include 6 to 16 time intervals). Figure 8 of Yoda discloses 6 to 16 time intervals. Migneco teaches the longer time intervals of 20-25 minutes and therefore would be obvious to continue the graph of Yoga to expand upon the intervals taught by Migneco.
Regarding Claim 13, Applicant argues that Tijs fails to teach or even suggest wherein the second period of time is 3 to 5 minutes; and wherein the third period of time is 3 to 6 minutes. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tijs discloses wherein the second period of time is about 3 to 5 minutes ([0068]; wherein the time period of heating/cooling can be adjusted to a given therefore can be chosen to be 3-5minutes); and wherein the third period of time is about 3 to 6 minutes ([0068]; wherein the time period of heating/cooling can be adjusted to a given therefore can be chosen to be 3-6minutes). Tijs paragraph [0056] is specified as a given time which reads on any time that is inputted therefore could be 3 to 5 or 3 to 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 time intervals taught by Yoda, Migneco and Salter in further view of Tijs to be the time intervals taught by Tijs. The motivation being allowing for the temperature of the skin to increase at given amount within a given time (Tijs, [0068]). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the second period of time is 3 to 5 minutes; and wherein the third period of time is 3 to 6 minutes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Furthermore, Migneco discloses ([0030] 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 for one minute and then manually switch to cooling for 1 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.
Regarding Claim 16, Applicant argues that Tijs fails to teach or even suggest wherein the first period of time is about 5 to 10 minutes. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tijs discloses a thermal therapy which can be integrated into a seat ([0054]) wherein the first period of time is about 5 to 10 minutes ([0068] For example, it may be desired that a patient's body temperature of a part of the body increases by a given amount (e.g. 2 degrees Celsius) within a given time (e.g. 20 minutes); wherein the time period of heating/cooling can be adjusted to a given therefore can be chosen to be 5-10 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 time intervals taught by Yoda, Migneco and Salter in further view of Tijs to be the time intervals taught by Tijs. The motivation being allowing for the temperature of the skin to increase at given amount within a given time (Tijs, [0068]). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the first period of time is about 5 to 10 minutes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 19, Applicant argues that Barfuss fails to teach or even suggest wherein the heating device in the lower section has a surface power density of about 2,100 Wim2 to 2,500 Wim2. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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 ([0044]-[0045]; wherein surface power density of a heating layer can be about 400 W/m2 or more and 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 be able to produce a higher surface power density since the highest disclose is 2000 W/m2), the heating device has a surface power density of about 1,900 W/m2 to 2,300 W/m2 ([0045]; wherein surface power density of a heating layer is can be 2000 W/m2), and the heating device has a surface power density of about 900 W/m2 to 1,500 W/m2 ([0045]; wherein the surface power density of a heating layer can be 1500 W/m2 or less). 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 Yoda in view of Migneco. 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)). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the heating device in the lower section has a surface power density of about 2,100 Wim2 to 2,500 Wim2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim Interpretation
The use “for” and “adapted to” in the claims 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” and “adapted to” function based on structure.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 & 14-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 & 14-20 of U.S. Application No. 17/957,950 in view of Yoda et al (US 20200297965) herein referred to as Yoda. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of Application No. 17/957,950 in view of Yoda are obvious over the claims of the application as shown in the table and rejection below.
Current Application
17/957,871
Application No.
17/957,950
Claim 1: A method for providing thermal contrast therapy to a vehicle occupant, 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 43°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; and second operating the heating device and a cooling device in an alternating manner for a plurality of time intervals, during the plurality of time intervals the heating device is operative for a second period of time, and the cooling device is operative for a third period of time; wherein the thermal contrast therapy achieves about a 10°C to 20°C change in the temperature of the at least one section of the seat surface and/or about a 3°C to 6°C change in the skin temperature of the vehicle occupant in the region of the at least one section of the seat surface.
Claim 1: A method for providing pulsing thermal therapy to a vehicle occupant, the method comprising: first operating a heating device to apply a first temperature for a first period of time to bring the temperature of at least one section of the seat surface to about 43°C to 46°C and/or to bring a skin temperature of the vehicle occupant in a region of the at least one section to about 36°C or more; and second operating the heating device and a cooling device in an alternating manner for a plurality of time intervals, during the plurality of time intervals the heating device is operative for a second period of time, and the cooling device is operative for a third period of time; wherein the pulsing thermal therapy achieves about a 0.5°C to 2°C change in a temperature of a surface of a seat in the at least one section and/or about a 0.2°C to 1.5°C change in a temperature of the skin of the vehicle occupant in the region of the at least one section.
Claim 2: The method according to Claim 1, wherein during the plurality of time intervals the heating device and the cooling device effectuate temperature changes in the at least one section of the seat surface; wherein the at least one section includes a lower section, a middle section, an upper section, or any combination thereof.
Claim 2: The method according to Claim 1, wherein during the plurality of time intervals the heating device and the cooling device effectuate temperature changes in at least one section of the seat surface; wherein the at least one section includes a lower section, a middle section, an upper section, or any combination thereof.
Claim 3: The method according to Claim 2, wherein the heating device is located in the lower and middle sections and during the plurality of time intervals the heating device in the lower section is brought to a target temperature of about 63°C to 67°C and the heating device in the middle section is brought to a target temperature of about 77°C to 83°C.
Claim 3: The method according to Claim 2, wherein the heating device is located in the lower and middle sections, and during the plurality of time intervals the heating device located in the lower section is brought to a temperature of about 45 to 55°C and the heating device located in the middle section is brought to a temperature of about 75°C to 85°C.
Claim 4: The method according to Claim 3, wherein the heating device is located in the upper section and during the plurality of time intervals the heating device in the upper section is brought to a target temperature of about 70°C.
Claim 4: The method according to Claim 3, wherein the heating device is additionally located in the upper section and during the plurality of time intervals, the heating device located in the upper section is brought to a temperature of about 65°C to 75°C.
Claim 5: The method according to Claim 3, wherein during the plurality of time intervals, the cooling device is brought to a target temperature of about 18°C to 22°C.
Claim 5: The method according to Claim 4, wherein during the plurality of time intervals, the cooling device is brought to a temperature of about 18°C to 22°C.
Claim 6: The method according to Claim 5, wherein during the plurality of time intervals, the heating device is operated by pulse width modulation with a duty cycle of about 55% to 65%and the cooling device is operated by pulse width modulation with a duty cycle of about 85% to 95%.
Claim 6: The method according to Claim 5, wherein during the plurality of time intervals, the heating device is operated by pulse width modulation with a duty cycle of about 55% to 65%and the cooling device is operated by pulse width modulation with a duty cycle of about 85% to 95%.
Claim 7: The method according to Claim 6, wherein the operating time of the heating device and the cooling device, during the plurality of time intervals, are equal.
Claim 7: The method according to Claim 6, wherein the operating time of the heating device and the cooling device, during the plurality of time intervals, are equal.
Claim 14: The method according to Claim 1, wherein the heating device is operated by pulse width modulation with a duty cycle of about 55% to 65% to realize the first temperature.
Claim 14: The method according to Claim 1, wherein the heating device is operated by pulse width modulation with a duty cycle of about 55% to 65% to realize the first temperature.
Claim 15: The method according to Claim 14, wherein the first temperature is about 55°C to 90°C.
Claim 15: The method according to Claim 14, wherein the first temperature is about 40°C to 90°C.
Claim 16: The method according to Claim 15, wherein the first period of time is about 5 to 10 minutes.
Claim 16: The method according to Claim 15, wherein the first period of time is about 2 to 5 minutes.
Claim 17: The method according to Claim 1, wherein the thermal contrast therapy is adapted to relieve pain of the vehicle occupant.
Claim 17: The method according to Claim 1, wherein the pulsing thermal therapy is adapted to relieve pain of the vehicle occupant.
Claim 18: A device for performing the method according to Claim 1, the device comprising: the heating device located in an upper section of the seat, a middle section of the seat, and a lower section of the seat; and a cooling device acting upon the middle section of the seat.
Claim 18: A device for performing the method according to Claim 1, the device comprising: the heating device located in an upper section of the seat, a middle section of the seat, and a lower section of the seat; and a cooling device acting upon the middle section of the seat.
Claim 19: The device according to Claim 18, wherein the heating device comprises a resistance element; and the cooling device comprises a blower, a thermoelectric device, a fluid distribution device, or any combination thereof, wherein the heating device in the lower section has a surface power density of about 2,100 W/m2 to 2,500 W/m2, the heating device in the middle section has a surface power density of about 1,900 W/m2 to 2,300 W/m2, and the heating device in the upper section has a surface power density of about 900 W/m2 to 1,500 W/m2.
Claim 19: The device according to Claim 18, wherein the heating device comprises a resistance element; and the cooling device comprises a blower, a thermoelectric device, a fluid distribution device, or any combination thereof, and wherein the heating device in the lower section has a surface power density of about 2,100 W/m2 to 2,500 W/m2, the heating device in the middle section has a surface power density of about 1,900 W/m2 to 2,300 W/m2, and the heating device in the upper section has a surface power density of about 900 W/m2 to 1,500 W/m2.
Claim 20: A vehicle seat comprising the device according to Claim 18.
Claim 20: A vehicle seat comprising the device according to Claim 18.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1-20, co-pending Application No. 17/957,950 does not disclose wherein the thermal contrast therapy achieves about a 10°C to 20°C change in a temperature of a surface of a seat in the at least one section and/or about a 3°C to 6°C change in a temperature of the skin of the vehicle occupant in the region of the at least one section.
However, Yoda discloses a thermal contrast therapy wherein the thermal therapy achieves about a 3°C to 6°C change in a temperature of the skin of the vehicle occupant in the region of the at least one section ([0056]-[0057]; wherein the heating device changes the temperature of the skin of a body surface within a range of 0.1°C to 10°C). 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 temperature change taught in Application No. 17/957,950 to be within the temperature range taught by Yoda. The motivation being to change the temperature of the skin of a body in smaller increments (Yoda, [0057]).
Examiner notes of co-pending application 17/957,867 which appears to be the same invention. The current claim sets of both this instant application and co-pending application does enact a provisional double patenting rejection, both will be monitored throughout the examination process.
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 1-5, 17-18 & 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Yoda et al (US 20200297965) in view of Migneco et al. (US 20210170926).
Regarding Claim 1, Yoda discloses method for providing thermal contrast therapy ([0128]-[0131]; Paragraph [0080]; wherein the seat can be used in an vehicle), the method comprising: first operating a heating device to apply a first temperature for a first period of time to bring the temperature of at least one section of the seat surface to about 43°C to 48°C and/or to bring a skin temperature of an occupant in a region of the at least one section to about 36°C or more (Figure 8; wherein Calf I skin temperature increases to 36°C for a time interval between 20-25 seconds); and second operating the heating device in an alternating manner for a plurality of time intervals (Figure 5), during the plurality of time intervals the heating device is operative for a second period of time (See annotated Figure 5 below), and the cooling is operative for a third period of time (See annotated Figure 5 below); wherein the thermal contrast therapy achieves about a 10°C to 20°C change in the temperature of the at least one section of the seat surface and/or about a 3°C to 6°C change in a temperature of the skin of the vehicle occupant in the region of the at least one section (Paragraph [0056]-[0057]; wherein the heating device changes the temperature of the skin of a body surface within a range of 0.1°C to 10°C).
PNG
media_image2.png
500
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yoda does not explicitly disclose a cooling device. However, Migneco discloses thermal therapy system for a vehicle occupant (Figure 3) comprising operating a cooling device for a period of time (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). 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 of cooling taught by Yoda for the method of cooling taught by Migneco. The motivation being simple substation of one known method of cooling, natural cooling taught by Yoda for another, cooling by a cooling device as taught by Migneco to obtain predictable results of cooling a portion of a vehicle occupant (MPEP 2143 (B)).
Regarding Claim 2, Yoda teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein during the plurality of time intervals the heating device and the cooling device effectuate temperature changes in at least one section of the seat surface (Figure 1; 121b); wherein the at least one section includes a lower section, a middle section, an upper section, or any combination thereof (See annotated Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
516
535
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Yoda fails to fully teach a cooling device. However, Manchego teaches a cooling device (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). 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 of cooling taught by Yoda for the method of cooling taught by Migneco. The motivation being simple substation of one known method of cooling, natural cooling taught by Yoda for another, cooling by a cooling device as taught by Migneco to obtain predictable results of cooling a portion of a vehicle occupant (MPEP 2143 (B)).
Regarding Claim 3, Yoda fails to fully teach wherein the heating device is located in the lower and middle sections and during the plurality of time intervals the heating device in the lower section is brought to a target temperature of about 63°C to 67°C and the heating device in the middle section is brought to a target temperature of about 77°C to 83°C.
However, Migneco discloses wherein the heating device is located in the lower and middle sections (Figure 3; wherein 60 is the heating/cooling device and 16 is seen as a lower section and 18 is seen as a middle section), and during the plurality of time intervals the heating device located in the lower section is brought to a temperature of about 63 to 67°C ([0028]; wherein heating can comprise of a temperature greater than 45°C) and the heating device located in the middle section is brought to a temperature of about 77°C to 83°C ([0028] & Paragraph [0030]; wherein heating can comprise of a temperature greater than 45°C and each heating/cooling device can work independently of each other). 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 Yoda in view of Migneco to produce the temperatures taught by Migneco. The motivation being to deliver therapeutic benefits to the occupant (Migneco, Pargraph [0028]).
Regarding Claim 4, Yoda fails to fully teach wherein the heating device is located in the upper section and during the plurality of time intervals the heating device in the upper section is brought to a target temperature of about 70°C. However, Migneco discloses wherein the heating device is additionally located in the upper section and during the plurality of time intervals (Figure 3; wherein 60 is the is the heating/cooling device and 19 is seen as a upper section), the heating device located in the upper section is brought to a temperature of about 70°C ([0028]; wherein heating can comprise of a temperature greater than 45°C). 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 Yoda in view of Migneco to produce the temperatures taught by Migneco. The motivation being to deliver therapeutic benefits to the occupant (Migneco, [0028]).
Regarding Claim 5, Yoda fails to fully teach wherein during the plurality of time intervals, the cooling device is brought to a target temperature of about 18°C to 22°C. However, Migneco discloses wherein during the plurality of time intervals, the cooling device is brought to a temperature of about 18°C to 22°C ([0028]; wherein cooling can comprise of a temperature within a range of 10 to 45° C). 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 cooling device taught by Yoda in view of Migneco to produce the temperatures taught by Migneco. The motivation being to deliver therapeutic benefits to the occupant (Migneco, [0028]). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the cooling device is brought to a temperature of about 18°C to 22°C, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 17, Yoda teaches the method according to claim 1, but fails to fully teach wherein the thermal contrast therapy is adapted to relieve pain of the occupant.
However, Migneco wherein the thermal contrast therapy is adapted to relieve pain of the occupant ([0028]; wherein the intended use is to treat an occupants pain). 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 adapt the method taught by Yoda in view of Migneco to relieve pain. The motivation being using heating or cooling to treatment of the person's pain resulting from musculoskeletal afflictions, soft tissue issues, internal organ afflictions, and the like (Migneco, [0028]).
Regarding Claim 18, Yoda fails to fully teach the device comprising: a heating device located in an upper section of a seat, a middle section of the seat, and a lower section of the seat; and a cooling device acting upon the middle section of the seat. However, Migneco discloses a device (Figure 3, 10) comprising: a heating device located in an upper section of the seat (Figure 3; wherein the upper section is 19 which contains a heating device 60), a middle section of the seat (Figure 3; wherein the middle section is 18 which contains a heating device 60), and a lower section of the seat (Figure 3; wherein the lower section is 16 which contains a heating device 60); and a cooling device acting upon the middle section of the seat (Figure 3, 60; [0029]; wherein the thermal units 60 act as both a heating and cooling device). 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 incorporate a device taught by Migneco that is capable of performing the method of claim 1 taught by Yoda in view of Migneco. The motivation being it would be obvious to try different devices that are capable of performing the method taught by Yoda in view of Migneco with reasonable expectation of success to see which device produced the best results of thermal contrast therapy (MPEP 2143 (E)).
Regarding Claim 20, Yoda in view of Migneco discloses the device according to claim 18. Migneco also discloses a vehicle seat comprising the device according to Claim 18 ([0018]; wherein the device is implemented as a vehicle 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 incorporate the device as a vehicle seat as taught by Migneco that is capable of performing the method of claim 1 taught by Yoda in view of Migneco. The motivation being to mitigate the effects on a person being confined within a vehicle for long periods of time (Migneco, [0017]).
Claims 6-7, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Yoda and Migneco in further view of Salter et al. (US 20210268867).
Regarding Claim 6, Yoda in view of Migneco discloses the device according to claim 5. However, Yoda in view of Migneco does not explicitly disclose wherein during the plurality of time intervals, the heating device is operated by pulse width modulation with a duty cycle of about 55% to 65% and the cooling device is operated by pulse width modulation with a duty cycle of about 85% to 95%.
Salter discloses a vehicle heating and cooling system (Figure 1) wherein during the plurality of time intervals, the heating device is operated by pulse width modulation with a duty cycle of about 55% to 65% and the cooling device is operated by pulse width modulation with a duty cycle of about 85% to 95% ([0077]; wherein the heated/cooling seat can be operated at a desired pulse width modulation with a duty cycle of anywhere between 0%-100%). 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 and cooling devices taught by Yoda in view of Migneco to have duty cycles within the range taught by Salter. The motivation being it would be obvious to try different duty cycles to see which produced the best results of thermal contrast therapy (MPEP 2143 (E)). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the heating device is operated by pulse width modulation with a duty cycle of about 55% to 65% and the cooling device is operated by pulse width modulation with a duty cycle of about 85% to 95%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 7, Yoda and Migneco in further view of Salter disclose the method according to claim 6. Migneco also discloses wherein the operating time of the heating device and the cooling device, during the plurality of time intervals, are equal ([0030]; wherein the heating and cooling is individually selectable therefore can operate at plurality of time intervals that are equal). 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 Yoda and Migneco is further view of Salter to operate the heating and cooling devices as taught by Migneco. The motivation being to be able to select and control the heat or cooling function in response to pain (Migneco, [0030]).
Regarding Claim 14, Yoda in view of Migneco discloses the device according to claim 5. However, Yoda in view of Migneco does not explicitly disclose does not explicitly disclose wherein the heating device is operated by pulse width modulation with a duty cycle of about 55% to 65% to realize the first temperature.
Salter discloses a vehicle heating and cooling system (Figure 1) wherein the heating device is operated by pulse width modulation with a duty cycle of about 55% to 65% to realize the first temperature ([0077]; wherein the heated/cooling seat can be operated at a desired pulse width modulation with a duty cycle of anywhere between 0%-100% wherein the seat is being heated or cooled to a temperature). 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 and cooling devices taught by Yoda in view of Migneco to have duty cycles within the range taught by Salter. The motivation being it would be obvious to try different duty cycles to see which produced the best results of thermal contrast therapy (MPEP 2143 (E)). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the heating device is operated by pulse width modulation with a duty cycle of about 55% to 65%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 15, Yoda and Migneco in further view of Salter disclose the method according to claim 14. Migneco also discloses wherein the first temperature is about 55°C to 90°C ([0028]; wherein a first temperature can be within a range of 10 to 45° C as well as can be greater than 45°C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the heating device is operated by pulse width modulation with a duty cycle of about 55% to 65%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 8-13 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Yoda, Migneco and Salter in further view of Tijs et al. (US 20150238350).
Regarding Claim 8, Yoda and Migneco in further view of Salter disclose the method according to claim 7. However, Yoda and Migneco in further view of Salter does not explicitly disclose wherein the rate of temperature change during the plurality of time intervals is ±0.4°C/minute to ±0.9°C/minute for the skin temperature and/or ±1°C/minute to ±2.5°C/minute for the seat temperature.
Tijs discloses a thermal therapy which can be integrated into a seat ([0054]) wherein the rate of temperature change during the plurality of time intervals is ±0.4°C/minute to ±0.9°C/minute for the skin temperature and/or ±1 °C/minute to ±2.5°C/minute for the seat temperature ([0068]; wherein the temperature of the skin can be controlled to increase by a given amount wherein it would be possible to increase the skin temperature ±0.4°C/minute to ±0.9°C/minute). 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 time intervals taught by Yoda and Migneco in further view of Salter to be the time intervals taught by Tijs. The motivation being allowing for the temperature of the skin to increase at given amount within a given time (Tijs, [0068]).
Regrading claim 9, Yoda, Migneco and Salter in further view of Tijs disclose the method according to claim 8. Migneco also discloses wherein the plurality of time intervals persist for a duration of about 20 to 35 minutes. ([0027] it is contemplated that the time period may be occupant specific and may, for example, be up to fifteen minutes. In still other embodiments, the time period may be dictated by manual activation) ([0030]; wherein the heating and cooling is individually selectable therefore can operate at plurality of time intervals that persist for a duration of about 20 to 35 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 heating and cooling device taught by Yoda, Migneco and Salter in further view of Tijs to include wherein the plurality of time intervals persist for a duration of about 20 to 35 minutes. The motivation being to select a time interval that is best suited for relieving the occupant’s pain. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the plurality of time intervals persist for a duration of about 20 to 35 minutes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 10, Yoda discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein the alternating heating and cooling are respectively characterized a ramp-and-step profile (Figure 5; wherein the bottom graph is a ramp and step profile), the ramp-and-step profile of heating being inverse to the ramp-and-step profile of cooling (Figure 5; wherein T1 is the heating and T2 is the cooling).
Regarding Claim 11, Yoda, Migneco and Salter in further view of Tijs disclose the method according to claim 10. Migneco also discloses wherein there is no idle period between the alternating operation of the heating device and the cooling device ([0030]-[0031]; wherein heating and cooling devices are manually activated therefore can be switched immediately by the user and switching assembly switches the device from cold to hot); wherein the idle period is characterized by a period of time in which both the heating device and the cooling device are not operational ([0030]-[0031]; wherein heating and cooling devices are manually activated therefore can be switched immediately by the user and switching assembly switches the device from cold to hot). 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 and cooling device taught by Yoda, Migneco and Salter in further view of Tijs to operate as the heating and cooling devices taught by Migneco. The motivation being the user can switch from heating to cooling whenever they chose to (Migneco, [0030]).
Regarding Claim 12, Yoda, Migneco and Salter in further view of Tijs disclose the method according to claim 12. Yoda also discloses wherein the plurality of time intervals include 6 to 16 time intervals (Figure 8; wherein Calf I and Calf II demonstrate a plurality of time intervals which include 6 to 16 time intervals). Figure 8 of Yoda discloses 6 to 16 time intervals. Migneco teaches the longer time intervals of 20-25 minutes and therefore it would be obvious to continue the graph of Yoga to expand upon the intervals taught by Migneco. Doing so allows the time intervals to be user selective for treatment of specific needs.
Regarding Claim 13, Yoda, Migneco and Salter in further view of Tijs disclose the method according to claim 12. Tijs discloses wherein the second period of time is about 3 to 5 minutes ([0068]; wherein the time period of heating/cooling can be adjusted to a given therefore can be chosen to be 3-5minutes); and wherein the third period of time is about 3 to 6 minutes ([0068]; wherein the time period of heating/cooling can be adjusted to a given therefore can be chosen to be 3-6minutes). 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 time intervals taught by Yoda, Migneco and Salter in further view of Tijs to be the time intervals taught by Tijs. The motivation being allowing for the temperature of the skin to increase at given amount within a given time (Tijs, [0068]). Tijs paragraph [0056] is specified as a given time which reads on any time that is inputted therefore could be 3 to 5 or 3 to 6 minutes. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the second period of time is 3 to 5 minutes; and wherein the third period of time is 3 to 6 minutes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Furthermore, Migneco discloses ([0030] 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 for one minute and then manually switch to cooling for 1 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.
Regarding Claim 16, Yoda and Migneco in further view of Salter disclose the method according to claim 15. However, Yoda and Migneco in further view of Salter does not explicitly wherein the first period of time is about 5 to 10 minutes.
Tijs discloses a thermal therapy which can be integrated into a seat ([0054]) wherein the first period of time is about 5 to 10 minutes ([0068]; wherein the time period of heating/cooling can be adjusted to a given therefore can be chosen to be 5-10 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 time intervals taught by Yoda, Migneco and Salter in further view of Tijs to be the time intervals taught by Tijs. The motivation being allowing for the temperature of the skin to increase at given amount within a given time (Tijs, [0068]). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the first period of time is about 5 to 10 minutes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Yoda and Migneco in view of Barfuss et al. (US 20140339211).
Regarding Claim 19, Yoda in view of Migneco discloses the device according to claim 18 wherein the heating device comprises a resistance element (Migneco, [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 (Migneco, [0029]; wherein cooling device contains a Peltier cooler which is a thermoelectric device). However, Yoda in view of Migenco 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, the heating device in the middle section has a surface power density of about 1,900 W/m2 to 2,300 W/m2, and the heating device in the upper section has a surface power density of about 900 W/m2 to 1,500 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 ([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 be able to produce a higher surface power density since the highest disclose is 2000 W/m2), the heating device has a surface power density of about 1,900 W/m2 to 2,300 W/m2 ([0045]; wherein surface power density of a heating layer is can be 2000 W/m2), and the heating device has a surface power density of about 900 W/m2 to 1,500 W/m2 ([0045]; wherein the surface power density of a heating layer can be 1500 W/m2 or less). 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 Yoda in view of Migneco. 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)). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the heating device in the lower section has a surface power density of about 2,100 Wim2 to 2,500 Wim2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEIGH LAUREN KERN whose telephone number is (703)756-4577. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 4:30 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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at 571-272-1213. 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.
/ASHLEIGH LAUREN KERN/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/ADAM Z MINCHELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794