DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 06/30/2026 is sufficient 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. Claim 12 has been cancelled.
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 with respect to claims 1-12 and 14-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The claim amendments changed the scope of the claimed invention. See new grounds for rejection below.
Regarding the double patenting rejection, Examiner is withdrawing the rejection based on the amendments to claim 1. Examiner plans to continue monitoring both 17/957,867 & 17/957,950 throughout the examination process.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 13 recites “the method according to Claim 12.” Claim 12 has been cancelled. For examining purposes, claim 13 was read as “the method according to Claim 11.”
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, 2, and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Diller (US 20200000627 A1) in view of Yoda et al (US 20200297965).
Regarding Claim 1, Diller discloses method for providing thermal contrast therapy ([abstract] Disclosed herein are dual temperature, dual reservoir devices for providing contrast therapy), the method comprising: first operating a heating device, according to a pre-determined program ([0039]; wherein processing module is programmed to adhere to an automated heating and cooling program), 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 5; wherein from minute 20 to minute 42, skin temperature is brought up to a little above 36°C); and second operating the heating device ([0031]) and a cooling device ([0031] The temperature of the liquid in each reservoir is maintained by separate heating and cooling elements 12, 14), according to a pre-determined program ([0039]; wherein processing module is programmed to adhere to an automated heating and cooling program), in an alternating manner for a plurality of time intervals (Figure 7), during the plurality of time intervals the heating device is operative for a second period of time ([0052] heating device operated for 1 min), and the cooling is operative for a third period of time ([0052] cooling device operated for 1 min).
Diller fails to fully teach 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; wherein the plurality of time intervals include 6 to 16 time intervals.
However, Yoda teaches 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) over 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 T=0 to T=30).
Regarding Claim 2, Diller in view of Yoda teaches the method according to claim 1, Yoda further teaches 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; 120, 130, 140); wherein the at least one section includes a lower section, a middle section, an upper section, or any combination thereof (Fig 1; 120, 130, 140).
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 Diller for the multiple seat sections taught by Yoda. Doing so allows for a thermal change in different sections of the seat.
Regarding Claim 17, Diller teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the thermal contrast therapy is adapted to relieve pain of the occupant ([0007]).
Claims 3-5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Diller (US 20200000627 A1) in view of Yoda et al (US 20200297965), further in view of Krier et al. (US 20220288997).
Regarding Claim 3, Diller in view of Yoda teaches the method according to claim 2 wherein the heating device is located in the lower and middle sections (Yoda, 130 & 140). Diller in view of Yoda fails to fully teach wherein 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, Krier discloses the heating device located in the lower section is brought to a temperature of about 63 to 67°C ([0052]; wherein the heating device is brought to a temperature of 40-50°C or more) and the heating device located in the middle section is brought to a temperature of about 77°C to 83°C ([0052]; wherein the heating device is brought to a temperature of 70-80°C or more). 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 Diller in view of Yoda, further in view of Krier to produce the temperatures taught by Krier. Doing so allows for the device to deliver therapeutic benefits to the occupant (Diller, [0046]).
Regarding Claim 4, Diller 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, Yoda discloses wherein the heating device is additionally located in the upper section (Figure 1, 120). 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 Diller for the multiple seat sections taught by Yoda. Doing so allows for a thermal change in different sections of the seat.
Further, Krier teaches wherein the heating device is brought to a temperature of about 70°C (Paragraph [0052]; wherein the heating device is brought to a temperature of 60-70°C or more). 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 in the lower and middle sections of the seat to be programmed to be brought to a temperature within the ranges taught by Krier. The motivation being variables are able to be programmed to best suit the user (Diller, [0046]; setting one or more variables of the contrast therapy including the temperature of the heated liquid, the temperature of the cooled liquid, the duration of the heating/cooling period based on the physiological, medical, or anatomical measurements or instructions from or about the subject).
Regarding Claim 5, Diller teaches wherein during the plurality of time intervals, the cooling device is brought to a temperature of about 18°C to 22°C (Figure 4, TinletTz).
Claims 6-11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Diller (US 20200000627 A1) in view of Yoda et al (US 20200297965), further in view of Krier et al. (US 20220288997), and Salter et al. (US 20210268867).
Regarding Claim 6, Diller in view of Yoda in view of Krier discloses the device according to claim 5. However, Diller in view of Yoda 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% (Paragraph [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 Diller, Yoda, Krier 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, Diller and Yoda and Krier in further view of Salter disclose the method according to claim 6. Diller also discloses wherein the operating time of the heating device and the cooling device, during the plurality of time intervals, are equal ([0051]-[0052]; wherein heating and cooling operation times can both be 1 minute)).
Regarding Claim 8, Diller, Yoda, and Krier in further view of Salter disclose the method according to claim 7. Diller further discloses 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 (Figure 5, wherein over a 71 minute plurality of time intervals, skin temperature of T changes from 31°C to 17°C which equals 0.197°C/minute rate of temperate change).
Regarding claim 9, Diller, Yoda, Krier, in view of Salter disclose the method according to claim 8. Diller also discloses wherein the plurality of time intervals persist for a duration of about 20 to 35 minutes. (Fig 3-5; time for 90 min). 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, Diller discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein the alternating heating and cooling are respectively characterized a ramp-and-step profile (Figure 7; Ramp step profile).
Further, Yoda discloses 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). 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 the ramp-and-step profile of heating being inverse to the ramp-and-step profile of cooling. Doing so allows for a period of cooling equal to the period of heating.
Regarding Claim 11, Diller, Yoda, Krier, in view of Salter disclose the method according to claim 10. Diller also discloses 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 ((Figure 4; wherein the temperature sensors are constantly reading a temperature of either the heated fluid or cooled fluid therefore showing, that there is no idle period between the heating and cooling).
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Diller (US 20200000627 A1) in view of Yoda et al (US 20200297965), further in view of Krier et al. (US 20220288997), and Salter et al. (US 20210268867), further in view of Tijs (US 20150238350).
Regarding Claim 13, Diller, Yoda, Krier and Salter disclose the method according to claim 11. Diller fails to fully disclose wherein the second period of time is about 3 to 5 minutes; and wherein the third period of time is about 3 to 6 minutes.
However, Tijs teaches 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 3-6 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 Diller, Yoda, Krier 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.
Claims 14-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Diller (US 20200000627 A1) in view of Yoda et al (US 20200297965), and Salter et al. (US 20210268867).
Regarding Claim 14, Diller in view of Yoda discloses the device according to claim 5. However, the combination 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 Diller in view of Yoda 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, Diller in view of Yoda in further view of Salter disclose the method according to claim 14. Diller also discloses wherein the first temperature is about 55°C to 90°C (Claim 35; heated liquid reaches a maximum of greater than 43 degrees Celsius). 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 temperature is about 55°C to 90°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 16, Diller in view of Yoda in further view of Salter disclose the method according to claim 15. Diller further discloses wherein the first period of time is about 5 to 10 minutes (Figure 4; First heating interval is at 25 deg Celsius and held for 10 min). 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.
Claims 18 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Diller (US 20200000627 A1) in view of Yoda et al (US 20200297965), further in view of Panic (US 20050085968).
Regarding Claim 18, Diller 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, Panic discloses a device (Figure 1) comprising: a heating device located in an upper section of the seat, a middle section of the seat, and a lower section of the seat (Figure 1; 40); and a cooling device acting upon the middle section of the seat (Figure 1; 24). 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 device taught by Diller in view of Yoda to include heating and cooling devices in the locations taught by Panic. The motivation being to apply both heating and cooling to a seat (Panic, Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding Claim 20, Diller and Yoda in view of Panic discloses a vehicle seat (Panic, Figure 1) comprising the device according to Claim 18 (See claim 18). 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 seat taught by Diller in view of Yoda to be a vehicle seat as taught by Panic. The motivation being this is a common design known in the art (Panic, Paragraph [0003]).
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Diller (US 20200000627 A1) in view of Yoda et al (US 20200297965), further in view of Panic (US 20050085968) and in view of Barfuss et al. (US 20140339211).
Regarding Claim 19, Diller in view of Yoda and Panic discloses the device according to claim 18 wherein the heating device comprises a resistance element (Diller, [0031]); and the cooling device comprises a blower, a thermoelectric device, a fluid distribution device, or any combination thereof (Diller, [0031]; wherein cooling element can be a thermoelectric chip). However, Diller in view of Yoda and Panic 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.
However, 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 Diller, Yoda, and Panic. 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights