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 April 10, 2026 (hereinafter “04/10/26 Amendment") has been entered, and fully considered. In the 04/10/26 Amendment, claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 12-14, & 16-19 were amended. No claims were cancelled (claim 4 was previously cancelled), or newly added. Therefore, claims 1-3 & 5-19 remain pending in the application.
3. The 04/10/26 Amendment has overcome the claim objections, and the rejections under § 112(b) previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 01/12/26 (“01/12/26 Action”).
4. The 04/10/26 Amendment has additionally overcome the prior rejection of independent claim 1 under § 102. A new rejection under § 103 is set forth herein, however, necessitated by Applicant’s Amendment.
5. The prior rejection of independent claims 7 & 17 under § 103 has been updated, and maintained.
6. Applicant's arguments are addressed in detail below in the “Response to Arguments” section.
Claim Objections
7. Claims 7, 12, & 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. In claim 7, line 17, the recitation of “said at least one hemispherical portion” should instead recite --said at least one hemispherical shaped portion-- to be consistent with the prior recitation line 2 of the claim.
b. In claim 12, lines 1-2, the recitation of “said at least one hemispherical portion” should instead recite --said at least one hemispherical shaped portion--.
c. In claim 17, lines 15-16, the recitation of “when said thermally conductive portions” should instead recite --when said at least two thermally conductive hemispherical portions--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-3, 5, & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,808,493 to Ostepchuk (“Ostepchuk”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0015561 to Leichter ("Leichter").
11. Regarding claim 1, Ostepchuk teaches 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].
Hemispherical, Thermally Conductive End Face
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 including balls [col. 3, ll. 30-53 (“In some embodiments, housing 104 may include a geometric composition similar to handles. A “handle,” as used in this disclosure, is part of, or attachment to, an object that allows it to be grasped and manipulated by hand or foot. Handles may include handlebars such as drop handlebars, uprights handlebars, riser handlebars, barbells, hand grips, dumbbells, exercise equipment handlebars. Handles may include hand knobs, such as doorknobs, squeeze bulbs, dynamometers, stress balls, exercise balls, medical equipment (e.g. blood pressure monitors, etc.), and similar equipment”)].
Ostepchuk does not, however, explicitly teach the following emphasized claim limitations:
a hemispherical, thermally conductive end face.
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, thermally conductive end face.
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 including, e.g., balls [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, or include, a known, art-recognized therapeutic cooling device shape such as that of, e.g., Leichter, which includes a hemispherical, thermally conductive end face, since such a modification amounts merely to the simple substitution of one known enclosure/housing shape/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).
12. Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ostepchuk and Leichter teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Ostepchuk further teaches 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].
13. Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ostepchuk and Leichter teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 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”)].
14. Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ostepchuk and Leichter teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
While Ostepchuk teaches 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 teach:
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.
15. Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ostepchuk and Leichter teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Ostepchuk further teaches wherein said device is secured within and made part of a grip portion of an exercise machine [col. 3, ll. 30-53].
16. Claims 7-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostepchuk in view of Leichter, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,771,587 to Maunder et al. ("Maunder").
17. 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 a 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];
at least one selected from the group of a thermoelectric module [Peltier Device - col. 5, ll. 5-25], heat exchanger, heat sink, and fluid crossflow heat transfer device;
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 at least one selected from the group of the thermoelectric module [Peltier Device], heat exchanger, heat sink, and fluid crossflow heat transfer device [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 at least one selected from the group of the thermoelectric module [Peltier Device], heat exchanger, heat sink, and fluid crossflow heat transfer 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 including balls [col. 3, ll. 30-53 (“In some embodiments, housing 104 may include a geometric composition similar to handles. A “handle,” as used in this disclosure, is part of, or attachment to, an object that allows it to be grasped and manipulated by hand or foot. Handles may include handlebars such as drop handlebars, uprights handlebars, riser handlebars, barbells, hand grips, dumbbells, exercise equipment handlebars. Handles may include hand knobs, such as doorknobs, squeeze bulbs, dynamometers, stress balls, exercise balls, medical equipment (e.g. blood pressure monitors, etc.), and similar equipment”)].
Ostepchuk does not, however, explicitly teach the following emphasized claim limitations:
an outer enclosure including at least one hemispherical shaped portion [and]
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 including, e.g., balls [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, or include, a known, art-recognized therapeutic cooling device shape 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 shape/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… having a plurality of ambient air inlets, and a plurality of air outlets positioned around said outer 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.
18. 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].
19. 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 exercise device is an aerobic exercise device, and said device is secured in a handle of said aerobic exercise device [e.g., a bike - col. 38, ll. 38-53].
20. 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.
[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.
21. 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 wherein said at least one hemispherical portion comprises a thermally conductive first hemispherical portion secured to a first end of said outer enclosure and a thermally conductive second hemispherical portion secured to a second end of said outer enclosure [clearly shown in FIG. 3].
22. 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 at least one selected from the group of the thermoelectric module, heat exchanger, heat sink, and fluid crossflow heat transfer device includes a Peltier module [Peltier Device - col. 5, ll. 5-25].
23. 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.
24. 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”)].
25. 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 receptacle [control housing (608) - col. 17, ll. 7-12; FIG. 6A] configured to secure said control circuitry [col. 17, ll. 7-12; col. 17, ll. 32-40].
26. 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 a 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 thermoelectric 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 thermoelectric 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 thermoelectric 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 thermoelectric module [Peltier Device] is configured to reduce a temperature of said… thermally conductive… 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 further teaches that the outer enclosure [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 including balls [col. 3, ll. 30-53 (“In some embodiments, housing 104 may include a geometric composition similar to handles. A “handle,” as used in this disclosure, is part of, or attachment to, an object that allows it to be grasped and manipulated by hand or foot. Handles may include handlebars such as drop handlebars, uprights handlebars, riser handlebars, barbells, hand grips, dumbbells, exercise equipment handlebars. Handles may include hand knobs, such as doorknobs, squeeze bulbs, dynamometers, stress balls, exercise balls, medical equipment (e.g. blood pressure monitors, etc.), and similar equipment”)].
Ostepchuk does not, however, explicitly teach at least two thermally hemispherical 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… at least two thermally conductive hemispherical portions of said exterior enclosure configured to cool glabrous skin of a user's palms; [and]
wherein said thermoelectric module is configured to reduce a temperature of said at least two thermally conductive hemispherical portions of said exterior enclosure such that said user's palms are cooled simultaneously when said thermally conductive portions are in contact with said 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 including, e.g., balls [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, or include, a known, art-recognized therapeutic cooling device shape such as that of, e.g., Leichter, wherein the exterior enclosure comprise two balls, i.e., at least two thermally conductive hemispherical portions configured to cool glabrous skin of a user's palms, such that said user's palms are cooled simultaneously when said thermally conductive portions are in contact with said user's palms, since such a modification amounts merely to the simple substitution of one known enclosure/housing shape/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… 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 thermoelectric 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.
27. 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 thermoelectric module comprises a Peltier module [Peltier Device - col. 5, ll. 5-25].
28. 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
29. As noted above, the 04/10/26 Amendment has overcome the claim objections, and the rejections under § 112(b) previously set forth in the 01/12/26 Action.
30. The 04/10/26 Amendment has additionally overcome the prior rejection of independent claim 1 under § 102, although a new rejection under § 103 is set forth herein necessitated by Applicant’s Amendment.
31. The prior rejection of independent claims 7 & 17 under § 103 has been updated, and maintained.
32. In the Remarks, Applicant argues against the propriety of modifying the outer enclosure of Ostepchuk to take the form of, or include, a known, art-recognized therapeutic cooling device shape such as that of, e.g., Leichter, wherein the exterior enclosure comprise two balls (each of which includes a hemispherical, thermally conductive end face) as follows:
Leichter '561 involve a pair of polymer shell balls 14, 16 filled with a liquid/gel (see e.g., Leichter '561 Paras. [0014] - [0015]). This shell is not a thermally conductive outer enclosure for housing active cooling components. Because Leichter '561 teaches this shell defines a hollow area meant for holding the liquid/gel, it is unclear how the balls 14, 16 of Leichter '561 could internally house a thermoelectric module, heat exchanger, heat sink, or fluid crossflow heat transfer device. Thus, the shell of Leichter '561 is not an equivalent housing, and therefore the proposed change is not a mere substitution of one equivalent housing for another. The Examiner contends Ostepchuk '493 explicitly teaches the geometric composition of the housing of Ostepchuk '493 may be varied, but Applicant respectfully submits a substantial redesign of Ostepchuk '493's structure would be required to arrive at the claimed invention. The cited prior art does not provide a sufficient teaching, suggestion or motivation for such a redesign.
04/10/26 Amendment, pg. 10, emphasis added.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, and as noted in the body of the rejections, Ostepchuk already expressly suggests that the outer enclosure [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 including balls [col. 3, ll. 30-53]. Leichter merely teaches a known, art-recognized therapeutic cooling device having such an exterior shape.
Further, the formulated rejection is not based on modifying Leichter to internally house various components (i.e., including a thermoelectric module), but rather modifying the housing of Ostepchuk (which already includes the claimed components) to merely have a known, exterior housing shape (a ball shape with a hemispherical, thermally conductive end face) which is already expressly contemplated by Ostepchuk as a possibility [Ostepchuk, col. 3, ll. 30-53].
For these reasons, independent claims 1, 7, & 17 are obvious under § 103. Applicant has failed to establish otherwise.
Conclusion
33. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
34. 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights