DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s Amendment filed October 3, 2025 (hereinafter “10/03/25 Amendment") has been entered, and fully considered. In the 10/03/25 Amendment, claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 12, 14, 17, & 19 were amended, and claim 4 was cancelled. No claims were newly added. Therefore, claims 1-3 & 5-19 are now pending in the application.
3. The 10/03/25 Amendment has overcome the claim objections and the rejections under §§ 112(b) & 103 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 07/29/25 (“07/29/25 Action”).
4. New claim objections and new rejections under §§ 112(b), 102, & 103 are set forth herein, necessitated by Applicant's Amendment.
5. Additionally, new rejections under § 112(b) are set forth herein with regard to dependent claims 9 & 16 that were not previously set forth in the 07/29/25 Action. As such, this action constitutes a second Non-Final Action.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 2, 7, 12-14, & 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. In claim 2, lines 2-3, the recitation of “cool a body temperature of a user” should instead recite --decrease a body temperature of a user-- since it is not clear how a “temperature” can be “cooled.”
b. In claim 7, line 4, the recitation of “said enclosure” should instead recite --said outer enclosure--.
c. In claim 12, line 3, the recitation of “said enclosure” should instead recite --said outer enclosure--.
d. In claim 12, line 5, the recitation of “said enclosure” should instead recite --said outer enclosure--.
e. In claim 13, lines 1-2, the recitation of “is comprised of a Peltier module” should instead recite --comprises a Peltier module--.
f. In claim 14, line 3, the recitation of “said enclosure” should instead recite --said outer enclosure--.
g. In claim 17, line 13, the recitation of “said at least two thermally conductive surfaces” should instead recite --said at least two thermally conductive portions-- to be consistent with the prior recitation in line 3 of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
8. Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
9. Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
10. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
11. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
12. NOTE: With respect to the first prong of this analysis, a claim element that does not include the term "means" or "step" triggers a rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply. When the claim limitation does not use the term "means," examiners should determine whether the presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply is overcome. The presumption may be overcome if the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder (a term that is simply a substitute for the term "means"). The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354, 80 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1886–87; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214-1215, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
13. CLAIMS 7 & 17 - “temperature modification module”
14. Claims 7 & 17 each recites the limitation “temperature modification module.”
15. The claim limitation in claims 7 & 17 of “temperature modification module” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses the non-structural generic placeholder “module” coupled with functional language “temperature modification” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
16. Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 7 & 17 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
17. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
The structure recited in ¶[0029] of the published application [U.S. 2025/0017765, published 01/16/2025] (“It will also be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that different air temperature modification techniques involving a heat exchanger, heat sink, thermoelectric module, fluid crossflow heat transfer device, some combination thereof, or the like (individually or collectively, “air temperature modification devices”) may be employed for decreasing air temperature without departing from the scope of the present invention”); emphasis added.
18. If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
19. If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
20. For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
21. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
22. Claims 7-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
23. Claim 7 recites the limitation “the glabrous region” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this recitation in the claim.
24. Claims 8-16 are rejected as ultimately depending from a claim (claim 7) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
25. Claim 9 recites the limitation “an aerobic exercise device” in line 2. This recitation renders the claim indefinite, as it is not clear whether the recited “an aerobic exercise device” is intended to be the same “an exercise device” of claim 8 (from which claim 9 depends), or a separate/additional exercise device. As such, the structure required by the claim is not clear, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required.
26. Claims 10 & 11 are rejected as ultimately depending from a claim (claim 9) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
27. Claim 12 recites the limitation “a thermally conductive first hemispherical portion secured to a first end of said enclosure” and “a thermally conductive second hemispherical portion secured to a second end of said enclosure” in lines 2-4. This recitation renders the claim indefinite, as it is not clear whether the recited thermally conductive first and second hemispherical portions are provided in addition to the “at least one hemispherical shaped portion” of independent claim 7 (from which claim 12 depends), or whether the at least one hemispherical shaped portion of claim 7 is intended to further comprise the thermally conductive first and second hemispherical portions of claim 12. As such, the structure required by the claim is not clear, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required.
28. Claim 14 is rejected as ultimately depending from a claim (claim 12) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
29. Claim 16 recites the limitation “a control module receptacle, wherein said control module receptacle is configured to secure one or more interior portion components of said device” in lines 1-3. This recitation renders the claim indefinite, as claim 7 (from which claim 16 depends) fails to recite a “control module,” and it is not clear whether the recited “one or more interior portion components” are intended to comprise the components of the “interior portion” of claim 7 (i.e., the “fan,” “temperature modification module,” and “control circuitry”), and/or separate/additional components. As such, it is not clear what components the “control module receptacle” is required to secure. Clarification is required.
30. Claim 17 recites the limitation “the user’s palms” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this recitation in the claim.
31. Claim 17 recites the limitation “such that both palms of a user's hand may be cooled simultaneously” in lines 13-14. This recitation renders the claim indefinite as a human “hand” only has one palm. Further, the recitation of “may be” renders the claim indefinite, because it is susceptible to more than one plausible construction. It is unclear, for example, whether the limitation refers to a capability that is required to be present in the claimed device, or whether it refers to a device capability that is a mere possibility that is not required. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required.
32. Claims 18 & 19 are rejected as ultimately depending from a claim (claim 17) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
33. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
34. Claims 1-3 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 11,808,493 to Ostepchuk (“Ostepchuk”).
35. Regarding claim 1, Ostepchuk discloses a cooling therapy device, comprising:
a curved solid shaped, thermally conductive outer enclosure [as broadly as claimed, ergonomic housing (104) of apparatus (100) includes a curved shape (FIG. 6A), and has high thermal conductivity - col. 16, ll. 40-51] having at least one ambient air inlet and at least one air outlet [see col. 17, ll. 4-6 (“Cool air may enter at one end of housing 104, travel through, and exit at the opposite end of housing 104”)];
an interior portion [interior of housing (104)], comprising:
a power supply secured within said outer enclosure [note that the interior of housing (104) may include a “cooling element” (108), which may comprise a thermoelectric cooler, and which may be battery-powered - col. 3, ll. 54-57; col. 4, ll. 23-25; col. 5, ll. 5-25; see also col. 17, ll. 7-12 & 32-37];
at least one Peltier module [Peltier device] secured within said outer enclosure [(104)] [col. 5, ll. 5-25]; and
wherein said at least one Peltier module [Peltier Device] is configured to generate a cooler temperature at a thermally conductive end face [the entire outer housing is thermally conductive - col. 16, ll. 48-51 (“housing 104 may be made from a material having high thermal conductivity. As a non-limiting example, housing 104 may be made from a metal, such as copper or aluminum”)] of said outer enclosure [(104)] than a temperature of ambient air [e.g., col. 3, ll. 57-59 (“cooling element 108 may be a device configured to reduce the temperature of a glabrous area of a user by heat transfer through housing 104”)], and wherein said device is configured to be hand-held [e.g., col. 2, ll. 40-43 (“housing 104 may be in contact with a glabrous area of the user when the user wraps their hand around housing 104, such that housing 104 is in contact with the palm of the user”); see also col. 3, ll. 30-53; FIG. 6A].
36. Regarding claim 2, Ostepchuk discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Ostepchuk further discloses wherein said device, at said outer enclosure [housing (104)], is configured to cool a body temperature of a user for a limited period of time [e.g., col. 3, ll. 57-59].
37. Regarding claim 3, Ostepchuk discloses all of the limitations of claim 2 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Ostepchuk further discloses wherein said outer enclosure [housing (104)] comprises aluminum [col. 16, ll. 48-51 (“housing 104 may be made from a material having high thermal conductivity. As a non-limiting example, housing 104 may be made from a metal, such as copper or aluminum”)].
38. Regarding claim 6, Ostepchuk discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Ostepchuk further discloses wherein said device is secured within and made part of a grip portion of an exercise machine [col. 3, ll. 30-53].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
39. 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.
40. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
41. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostepchuk.
42. Regarding claim 5, Ostepchuk discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
While Ostepchuk discloses that a battery, among other components, may be provided/contained in a control housing (608) of housing (104) [see col. 17, ll. 7-12 & 32-40], Ostepchuk does not explicitly disclose:
wherein said power supply is a battery pack secured between brackets within a receptacle.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ostepchuk such that the battery be secured within the control housing using any number of securement devices including, e.g., between brackets within a receptacle, in order to prevent the battery from moving freely (unconstrained) within the control housing.
43. Claims 7-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostepchuk in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0015561 to Leichter ("Leichter"), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,771,587 to Maunder et al. ("Maunder").
44. Regarding claim 7, Ostepchuk teaches a cooling therapy device comprising:
an outer enclosure… [ergonomic housing (104) of apparatus (100) - col. 16, ll. 40-51; FIG. 6A] configured to be hand-held in the glabrous region of a user's palms [e.g., col. 2, ll. 40-43 (“housing 104 may be in contact with a glabrous area of the user when the user wraps their hand around housing 104, such that housing 104 is in contact with the palm of the user”); see also col. 3, ll. 30-53; FIG. 6A], and having [an]… ambient air inlet, and [an]… air outlet… [see col. 17, ll. 4-6 (“Cool air may enter at one end of housing 104, travel through, and exit at the opposite end of housing 104”)];
an interior portion [interior of housing (104)] comprising:
a fan [fan (604) - col. 16, line 66 - col. 17, line 3; FIG. 6A];
a temperature modification module [Peltier Device - col. 5, ll. 5-25];
control circuitry [broadly, and of the circuitry associated with incorporated sensors (col. 5, ll. 39-43), and/or the components of control housing (608) of housing (104) - col. 17, ll. 7-12 & 32-40];
wherein said fan [(604)] is configured to cause ambient air to be drawn in through… said… ambient air inlet and directed to said temperature modification module [col. 17, ll. 1-6 (“In some embodiments, apparatus 100 may include two fans 604, with one on both ends of housing 104 for constant airflow. In some embodiments, fan 604 may be a battery-powered fan. Cool air may enter at one end of housing 104, travel through, and exit at the opposite end of housing 104”); the Peltier device is located in the housing];
wherein said temperature modification module [Peltier Device] is configured to reduce a temperature of… said outer enclosure [NOTE: the entire outer housing is thermally conductive - see col. 16, ll. 48-51 (“housing 104 may be made from a material having high thermal conductivity. As a non-limiting example, housing 104 may be made from a metal, such as copper or aluminum”); and, e.g., col. 3, ll. 57-59 (“cooling element 108 may be a device configured to reduce the temperature of a glabrous area of a user by heat transfer through housing 104”)]; and
wherein said interior portion is configured to direct air to said… air outlet to be discharged therefrom [col. 17, ll. 1-6].
A. Hemispherical Shaped Portion
Ostepchuk teaches that the outer enclosure [housing (104)] may be in contact with a glabrous area of a palm of the user [col. 2, ll. 34-43], that housing (104) may include an ergonomic shape for maximum conductive heat transfer [col. 3, ll. 6-8], and that housing (104) may include a “geometric composition” similar to that of a wide variety of different devices [col. 3, ll. 30-53].
Ostepchuk does not, however, explicitly teach the following emphasized claim limitations:
an outer enclosure including at least one hemispherical shaped portion, [and]
wherein said temperature modification module is configured to reduce a temperature of said at least one hemispherical portion of said outer enclosure.
Leichter, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a heatable and coolable therapeutic device [Abstract] in the form of two balls separated by a spacer [¶’s [0014]-[0016]; FIG. 3]. Each ball may be spherical in shape [¶[0014]], and would each therefore include at least one hemispherical shaped portion.
Given Ostepchuk’s explicit teaching (noted above) that housing (104) may include a “geometric composition” similar to that of a wide variety of different devices [col. 3, ll. 30-53], it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ostepchuk such that the outer enclosure take the form of a known, art-recognized therapeutic cooling device such as that of, e.g., Leichter, wherein the outer enclosure comprises at least one hemispherical shaped portion, since such a modification amounts merely to the simple substitution of one known enclosure/housing configuration for another, yielding only predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
B. Plurality of Inlets and Outlets
Finally, Ostepchuk teaches an air inlet and an air outlet (as noted above), but does not explicitly teach a plurality of air inlets and outlets.
As such, the combination of Ostepchuk and Leichter does not teach the following emphasized claim limitations:
an outer enclosure… configured to be hand-held in the glabrous region of a user's palms, and having a plurality of ambient air inlets, and a plurality of air outlets positioned around said enclosure,
wherein said fan is configured to cause ambient air to be drawn in through one or more of said plurality of ambient air inlets, and
wherein said interior portion is configured to direct air to said plurality of air outlets to be discharged therefrom.
Maunder, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a thermal therapy pad for providing both heat and cold therapy [Abstract] that includes, inter alia, an electric powered thermal transferring element (“ETFE”) such as a Peltier device [col. 5, ll. 15-17; col. 7, line 52], and one or more vents (126), heat sinks (128), and/or fans (130) to dissipate operational heat away from the Peltier ETFE’s [col. 8, ll. 31-39]. Maunder further teaches that the one or more vents (126) may used as both inlets [e.g., col. 9, ll. 8-10] and outlets [e.g., col. 8, ll. 31-39; col. 8, ll. 45-47; col. 8, ll. 65-66]. Maunder teaches placing vents in both the (top) outer surface and side walls of (i.e., “around”) the housing [e.g., col. 8, ll. 38-39; and col. 8, ll. 45-47 (“Greater surface area results in more vent holes 126 and more vent holes 126 result in greater air flow to better dissipate operational heat from Peltier ETFE”)].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combination of Ostepchuk and Leichter to include a plurality of air inlets and outlets, or, more particularly, a plurality of ambient air inlets, and a plurality of air outlets positioned around said enclosure, wherein said fan is configured to cause ambient air to be drawn in through one or more of said plurality of ambient air inlets, and wherein said interior portion is configured to direct air to said plurality of air outlets to be discharged therefrom, since including a plurality of air inlets and outlets would allow for greater air flow to better dissipate operational heat from the Peltier device, as explicitly taught by Maunder.
45. Regarding claim 8, the combination of Ostepchuk, Leichter, & Maunder teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Ostepchuk further teaches wherein said device is secured within and made a part of a portion of an exercise device [col. 3, ll. 38-53].
46. Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ostepchuk, Leichter, & Maunder teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Ostepchuk further teaches wherein said device is secured in a handle of an aerobic exercise device [e.g., a bike - col. 38, ll. 38-53].
47. Regarding claims 10 & 11, the combination of Ostepchuk, Leichter, & Maunder teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
While Ostepchuk teaches that the device is secured in a handle of an aerobic exercise device [e.g., a bike - col. 38, ll. 38-53], the combination of Ostepchuk, Leichter, & Maunder does not explicitly teach:
[claim 10] wherein said aerobic exercise device is an elliptical machine, or
[claim 11] wherein said aerobic exercise device is a stationary bicycle.
However, given the breadth of different examples contemplated by Ostepchuk, selection of any number of different aerobic exercise devices to include the device, such as, e.g., an elliptical machine or a stationary bike, would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
48. Regarding claim 12, the combination of Ostepchuk, Leichter, & Maunder teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Ostepchuk teaches that the housing (104) of apparatus (100) has high thermal conductivity [col. 16, ll. 40-51].
Ostepchuk was further modified above (in the rejection of claim 7) to include the housing (outer enclosure) shape/configuration of Leichter.
Leichter teaches that the outer enclosure is comprised of a thermally conductive first hemispherical portion secured to a first end of said enclosure and a thermally conductive second hemispherical portion secured to a second end of said enclosure [clearly shown in FIG. 3].
49. Regarding claim 13, the combination of Ostepchuk, Leichter, & Maunder teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Ostepchuk further teaches wherein said temperature modification module is comprised of a Peltier module [Peltier Device - col. 5, ll. 5-25].
50. Regarding claim 14, the combination of Ostepchuk, Leichter, & Maunder teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Ostepchuk was modified above (in the rejection of claim 7) to include a plurality of air inlets and outlets.
Maunder further teaches:
wherein said plurality of air inlets and outlets are positioned across and around said enclosure [e.g., Maunder teaches placing vents in both the (top) outer surface and side walls of (i.e., “around”) the housing [e.g., col. 8, ll. 38-39; and col. 8, ll. 45-47 (“Greater surface area results in more vent holes 126 and more vent holes 126 result in greater air flow to better dissipate operational heat from Peltier ETFE”)].
Again, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combination of Ostepchuk, Leichter, & Maunder such that said plurality of air inlets and outlets are positioned across and around said enclosure, since such a distribution of the plurality of air inlets and outlets would allow for greater air flow to better dissipate operational heat from the Peltier device.
51. Regarding claim 15, the combination of Ostepchuk, Leichter, & Maunder teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Ostepchuk further teaches wherein said outer enclosure [housing (104)] comprises aluminum [col. 16, ll. 48-51 (“housing 104 may be made from a material having high thermal conductivity. As a non-limiting example, housing 104 may be made from a metal, such as copper or aluminum”)].
52. Regarding claim 16, the combination of Ostepchuk, Leichter, & Maunder teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Ostepchuk further teaches a control module receptacle [control housing (608) - col. 17, ll. 7-12; FIG. 6A], wherein said control module receptacle is configured to secure one or more interior portion components of said device [col. 17, ll. 7-12; col. 17, ll. 32-40].
53. Regarding claim 17, Ostepchuk teaches a cooling therapy device, comprising:
an exterior enclosure [ergonomic housing (104) of apparatus (100) - col. 16, ll. 40-51; FIG. 6A] configured to be hand-held [e.g., col. 2, ll. 40-43 (“housing 104 may be in contact with a glabrous area of the user when the user wraps their hand around housing 104, such that housing 104 is in contact with the palm of the user”); see also col. 3, ll. 30-53; FIG. 6A], having [an]… air inlet and air outlet [see col. 17, ll. 4-6 (“Cool air may enter at one end of housing 104, travel through, and exit at the opposite end of housing 104”)], and [a]… thermally conductive portion of said exterior enclosure [NOTE: the entire outer housing is thermally conductive - see col. 16, ll. 48-51 (“housing 104 may be made from a material having high thermal conductivity. As a non-limiting example, housing 104 may be made from a metal, such as copper or aluminum”); and, e.g., col. 3, ll. 57-59 (“cooling element 108 may be a device configured to reduce the temperature of a glabrous area of a user by heat transfer through housing 104”)] configured to cool glabrous skin of the user's palms [the device is capable of cooling glabrous skin of a user's palms - e.g., col. 2, ll. 40-43; FIG. 6A];
an interior portion [interior of housing (104)] comprising:
at least one fan [fan (604) - col. 16, line 66 - col. 17, line 3; FIG. 6A];
a temperature modification module [Peltier Device - col. 5, ll. 5-25];
a power supply [battery - col. 5, ll. 5-25; col. 17, ll. 7-12 & 32-37] and control circuitry [broadly, and of the circuitry associated with incorporated sensors (col. 5, ll. 39-43), and/or the components of control housing (608) of housing (104) - col. 17, ll. 7-12 & 32-40; it is noted that apparatus (100) (FIGS. 1, 6A) includes a computing device - col. 6, ll. 32-35; col. 16, ll. 40-42], adapted to drive said at least one fan and said temperature modification module [e.g., col. 6, ll. 32-34; col. 7, line 62 - col. 8, line 27];
wherein said at least one fan is configured to cause air to be drawn in through said… air inlet and directed to said temperature modification module [col. 17, ll. 1-6 (“In some embodiments, apparatus 100 may include two fans 604, with one on both ends of housing 104 for constant airflow. In some embodiments, fan 604 may be a battery-powered fan. Cool air may enter at one end of housing 104, travel through, and exit at the opposite end of housing 104”); the Peltier device is located in the housing];
wherein said temperature modification module [Peltier Device] is configured to reduce a temperature of said… thermally conductive surface of said exterior enclosure [NOTE: the entire outer housing is thermally conductive - see col. 16, ll. 48-51 (“housing 104 may be made from a material having high thermal conductivity. As a non-limiting example, housing 104 may be made from a metal, such as copper or aluminum”); and, e.g., col. 3, ll. 57-59 (“cooling element 108 may be a device configured to reduce the temperature of a glabrous area of a user by heat transfer through housing 104”)].
A. Thermally Conductive Portions
Ostepchuk (as noted above) teaches that the entire outer housing is thermally conductive [e.g., col. 3, ll. 57-59; col. 16, ll. 48-51], and configured to cool glabrous skin [e.g., col. 2, ll. 34-43]. Ostepchuk also teaches that housing (104) may include an ergonomic shape for maximum conductive heat transfer [col. 3, ll. 6-8], and that housing (104) may include a “geometric composition” similar to that of a wide variety of different devices [col. 3, ll. 30-53].
Ostepchuk does not, however, explicitly teach at least two thermally conductive portions of said exterior enclosure that enable both palms to be cooled simultaneously, and therefore fails to teach the following emphasized claim limitations:
an exterior enclosure configured to be hand-held, having [an]… air inlet and air outlet, and at least two thermally conductive portions of said exterior enclosure configured to cool glabrous skin of the user's palms; [and]
wherein said temperature modification module is configured to reduce a temperature of said at least two thermally conductive surfaces of said exterior enclosure such that both palms of a user's hand may be cooled simultaneously when said thermally conductive surfaces are in contact with the user's palms.
Leichter, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a heatable and coolable therapeutic device [Abstract] in the form of two balls separated by a spacer [¶’s [0014]-[0016]; FIG. 3]. The balls are spherical in shape [¶[0014]], and would be capable of (and allow for) thermal contact with respective palms of a user’s hands simultaneously.
Given Ostepchuk’s explicit teaching (noted above) that housing (104) may include a “geometric composition” similar to that of a wide variety of different devices [col. 3, ll. 30-53], it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ostepchuk such that the outer enclosure take the form of a known, art-recognized therapeutic cooling device such as that of, e.g., Leichter, wherein the outer enclosure comprises two balls that enable both palms of a user's hands to respectively be cooled simultaneously when said thermally conductive surfaces are in contact with the user's palms, since such a modification amounts merely to the simple substitution of one known enclosure/housing configuration for another, yielding only predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
B. Plurality of Inlets and Outlets
Finally, Ostepchuk teaches an air inlet and an air outlet (as noted above), but does not explicitly teach a plurality of air inlets and outlets.
As such, the combination of Ostepchuk and Leichter does not teach the following emphasized claim limitations:
an exterior enclosure configured to be hand-held, having a plurality of air inlets and air outlets; [and]
wherein said at least one fan is configured to cause air to be drawn in through said plurality of air inlets and directed to said temperature modification module.
Maunder, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a thermal therapy pad for providing both heat and cold therapy [Abstract] that includes, inter alia, an electric powered thermal transferring element (“ETFE”) such as a Peltier device [col. 5, ll. 15-17; col. 7, line 52], and one or more vents (126), heat sinks (128), and/or fans (130) to dissipate operational heat away from the Peltier ETFE’s [col. 8, ll. 31-39]. Maunder further teaches that the one or more vents (126) may used as both inlets [e.g., col. 9, ll. 8-10] and outlets [e.g., col. 8, ll. 31-39; col. 8, ll. 45-47; col. 8, ll. 65-66]. Maunder teaches placing vents in both the (top) outer surface and side walls of (i.e., “around”) the housing [e.g., col. 8, ll. 38-39; and col. 8, ll. 45-47 (“Greater surface area results in more vent holes 126 and more vent holes 126 result in greater air flow to better dissipate operational heat from Peltier ETFE”)].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combination of Ostepchuk and Leichter to include a plurality of air inlets and outlets, since including a plurality of air inlets and outlets would allow for greater air flow to better dissipate operational heat from the Peltier device, as explicitly taught by Maunder.
54. Regarding claim 18, the combination of Ostepchuk, Leichter, & Maunder teaches all of the limitations of claim 17 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Ostepchuk further teaches wherein said temperature modification module comprises a Peltier module [Peltier Device - col. 5, ll. 5-25].
55. Regarding claim 19, the combination of Ostepchuk, Leichter, & Maunder teaches all of the limitations of claim 17 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Ostepchuk further teaches a temperature sensor in said device for monitoring a temperature of a surface of the device during use of said device and controlling operation of the device at least in part from a temperature reading [e.g., col. 5, ll. 26-43; col. 7, line 62 - col. 8, line 27].
Response to Arguments
56. As noted above, the 10/03/25 Amendment has overcome the claim objections and the rejections under §§ 112(b) & 103 previously set forth in the 07/29/25 Action.
57. New claim objections and new rejections under §§ 112(b), 102, & 103 are set forth herein, necessitated by Applicant's Amendment.
58. Additionally, new rejections under § 112(b) are set forth herein with regard to dependent claims 9 & 16 that were not previously set forth in the 07/29/25 Action. As such, this action constitutes a second Non-Final Action.
Conclusion
59. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bradford C. Blaise whose telephone number is (571)272-5617. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Linda Dvorak can be reached on 571-272-4764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Bradford C. Blaise/Examiner, Art Unit 3794