DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerth et al (US 2022/0347010) in view of Hidaka (US 2005/0021114).
Kerth discloses a wearable thermal therapeutic device comprising a heating plate (e.g. therapy pad 200), an acting section for being applied to the skin on a top side of the heating plate (e.g. Fig. 2C; paragraph 52 discloses the pad being adhesively coupled to the patient), a connecting section for attaching the heating plate to a printed circuit board on a bottom side of the heating plate (e.g. coupling mechanism 218; paragraph 39 - Kerth discloses the control unit 100 may comprise a printed circuit board), a recess on the bottom side of the heating plate (e.g. Examiner considers the interior section of the I/O channel 214 to define a recess. This portion includes physical mating portions such as a male-female or female-male coupling which would inherently include a recess (female portion) for accepting the male portion).
Kerth fails to teach the acting section being formed from a ceramic material. Hidaka teaches that it is known to use ceramic particles as a heat rentention medium for a patient warming system as set forth in paragraph 37, and explicitly teaches that ceramic particles are known to possess superior heat-resistence and heat retention properties. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Kerth with forming the acting section with a ceramic material since such a modification would provide a known alternative material with superior heat resistance and heat retention properties. Additionally, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on it suitability for its intended use is within the level of ordinary skill for a worker in the art (see In re Leshin 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.07).
Kerth discloses the invention as claimed but fails to teach the acting section in the area of the recess has a thickness between 0.2mm and 0.8mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Kerth with the acting section thickness in the area of the recess being between 0.2mm and 0.8mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed within the prior art it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (In re Aller 220 F.2d 454 MPEP 2144.05 II A). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefits of making a smaller/thinner device for ease of use and comfort of the end user and would be inclined to attempt to make a small/thin device while not sacrificing the heat transfer properties or patient safety properties.
PNG
media_image1.png
622
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, as discussed above, the recess accommodates a portion of the PCB when mated and coupled.
With regard to claim 3, the recess of Kerth appears to disclose at least 3 separate heights that are defined by an outer periphery, two circular edges that are at a height that is lower than the outer periphery, and a central rectangular recess that is also lower in height than the outer periphery all of which can be seen in Fig. 2B and reproduced in the annotated figure above.
With regard to claim 4-5, Kerth discloses the recess for coupling a control unit to the heating pad, but fails to explicitly teach the recess extends all the way to the acting section. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Kerth with having the recess extend further into the acting section since such a modification would provide for a low profile connection and would perform equally well as the Kerth recess that only extends to through the back wall and to the insulation layer.
Kerth discloses the recess in an area within the acting section is open in exactly one spatial direction in an area (e.g. see Fig. 2B produced above wherein the coupling member and recess are generally open to only the Z axis direction), and the recess is designed to be closed off from an environment by the PCB (e.g. Fig. 3B shows the control module couples to the recess and effectively seals off the recess from the environment).
With regard to claim 6, Kerth discloses the invention as claimed but fails to teach the acting section is formed of a ceramic material and the connecting section is formed of a different material connected to the ceramic material using a baking process. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Kerth with the acting section being formed of a ceramic material and the connecting section is formed of a different material connected to the ceramic material using a baking process since it has been held that where the general conditions of claim are disclosed the selection of a preferred material based on its suitability is within the level of ordinary skill for a worker in the art. In re Leshin 277 F.2d 197 MPEP 2144.07. Additionally, it is well known in the art that ceramic provide good thermal conductivity and the use of a ceramic for a heat transfer medium would provide the predictable results of ensuring efficient heat transfer.
With regard to claim 7, Kerth fails to disclose the heating plate has a maximum thickness between 0.5mm and 1.5mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Kerth with the acting section thickness in the area of the recess being between 0.2mm and 0.8mm, the heating plate having a maximum thickness between 0.5mm and 1.5mm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed within the prior art it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (In re Aller 220 F.2d 454 MPEP 2144.05 II A). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefits of making a smaller/thinner device for ease of use and comfort of the end user and would be inclined to attempt to make a small/thin device while not sacrificing the heat transfer properties or patient safety properties.
With regard to claim 8 and 17, Kerth discloses the invention as claimed but fails to teach a further recess on the top side of the heating plate in the acting section, the further recess preferably has a depth which is selected such that a bottom of the further recess is brought into contact with the skin when the acting section is applied to the skin by pressing the skin. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Kerth by having a further recess on the top side of the heating plate in the acting section, the further recess preferably has a depth which is selected such that a bottom of the further recess is brought into contact with the skin when the acting section is applied to the skin by pressing the skin, since applicant has not disclosed that having an additional recess solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears the planar top side of the heating plate of Kerth would perform equally well. Additionally, it appears the additional recess(es) are disclosed for ornamental/aesthetic purposes of incorporating a logo which serves no function.
With regard to claim 9 and 18, Kerth discloses the invention as claimed but fails to teach the connecting section comprises a metal layer for soldering the heating plate onto the printed circuit board in particular a copper layer and the metal layer preferably comprises multiple areas not electrically connected to one another for soldering onto multiple soldering surfaces of the PCB.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Kerth with a connecting section comprising a metal layer for soldering the heating plate onto the PCB since such a modification would provide the predictable results providing a permanent connection to the pcb through soldering which is a known electrical connection technique.
With regard to claim 10 and 19, Kerth discloses the invention as claimed but fails to teach an edge section which is set back relative to the acting section on the top side of the heating plate. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Kerth by having an edge section which is set back relative to the acting section on the top side of the heating plate, since applicant has not disclosed that having an edge section which is set back relative to the acting section on the top side of the heating plate solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears the planar top side of the heating plate of Kerth would perform equally well. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Kerth with changing the shape of the acting section to include aan edge section which is set back on the top side of the heating plate, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed changes in shape are within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 MPEP 2144.04 IV B).
With regard to claim 11, Kerth discloses the a device for thermal treatment comprising a printed circuit board (e.g. paragraph 39 - Kerth discloses the control unit 100 may comprise a printed circuit board), a heating plate (e.g. see above with respect to the rejection of claim 1 and heating plate limitation(s)), a heating element thermally connected to the heating plate for heating the heating plate to a treatment temperature (e.g. see paragraph 46).
With regard to claim 12, as discussed above, the recess accommodates a portion of the PCB when mated and coupled.
With regard to claims 13-15, Kerth discloses the invention as claimed but fails to teach the recess(es) being formed by an ablative laser processing, a ceramic powder mold, and parallel processing of multiple heating plates in a panel is performed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Kerth with forming the recess(es) by ablative laser/laser etching or ceramic powder molding, and parallel processing of multiple heating plates since all these techniques are well known manufacturing techniques and the selection of any of these known manufacturing techniques would be within the level of ordinary skill.
With regard to claim 16, Examiner considers Kerth in view of Hidaka to meet the claim limitation of “the recess is designed for accommodating an LED” because the claim only requires the recess be capable of accommodating an LED, the claim does not require the recess also contain an LED. As such, there is nothing within the Kerth reference that would suggest the recess is incapable of receiving an LED. In other words the recess of Kerth is sized and shaped that it would be capable of accommodating an LED.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant continues to argue that the combination of Kerth in view of Hidaka is improper because Hidaka discloses the use of ceramic particles in storage compartments and not the actual skin contacting plate. These arguments appear to either ignore that the applied rejection relies on Kerth for discloses an acting portion in contact with the skin and relies on Hidaka for simply teaching the use of ceramic materials for their thermal properties; or applicant is attempting to perform a piecemeal analysis of the applied art. Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to modify the contacting portion of Kerth with use of ceramic materials as taught by Hidaka. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A STOKLOSA whose telephone number is (571)272-1213. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930AM-530PM.
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, Jonathan Teixeira-Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794