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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's After-Final submission filed on 07/10/26 (hereinafter “07/10/26 Amendment") has been entered, and fully considered [by the filing of the 07/30/26 RCE].
Response to Amendment
3. In the 07/10/26 Amendment, claims 7 & 9 were amended, and claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, & 10-19 were cancelled (claim 4 was previously cancelled). No claims were newly added. Accordingly, claims 7 & 9 are now pending in the application.
4. The 07/10/26 Amendment has overcome the claim objections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 05/13/26 (“05/13/26 Action”).
5. New grounds of rejection under § 103 are set forth herein, necessitated by Applicant’s Amendment.
6. Applicant’s arguments are addressed below in the “Response to Arguments” section.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 7 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 11,808,493 to Ostepchuk (“Ostepchuk”) in view of U.S. to 2016/0015561 to Leichter ("Leichter").
10. 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 held in contact with a glabrous region of a user's first hand palm [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]…; the outer enclosure [(104)] further 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 fan [fan (604) - col. 16, line 66 - col. 17, line 3; FIG. 6A];
a temperature sensor [e.g., col. 5, ll. 26-27; & col. 5, ll. 39-43];
at least one heat transfer device 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, any 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 the at least one ambient air inlet and directed to said at least one 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 heat transfer device [Peltier Device] is configured to reduce a temperature at 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 air is directed to said at least one air outlet to be discharged therefrom [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”)]; and
wherein said temperature sensor is configured to monitor a temperature of [the outer enclosure] [e.g., col. 5, ll. 29-38; col. 7, line 62 - col. 8, line 27; note also that the outer enclosure is the heat transfer surface to the glabrous area of a user], in association with regulating operation of said device based at least in part on said temperature [col. 5, ll. 29-38; col. 7, line 62 - col. 8, line 27].
ROUNDED-SHAPED PORTIONS OF OUTER ENCLOSURE
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 having a first rounded-shaped portion configured to be held in contact with a glabrous region of a user's first hand palm, and an opposing second rounded-shaped portion configured to be held in contact with a glabrous region of the user's second hand palm, simultaneously;
wherein said at least one heat transfer device is configured to reduce a temperature at said at least two rounded-shaped portions; [and]
wherein said temperature sensor is configured to monitor a temperature of at least one of said rounded-shaped portions.
Leichter, in a similar field of endeavor [e.g., a therapeutic device (see ¶[0001]) for cooling - i.e., for maintaining a decreased temperature relative to ambient temperature over an extended period of time (see ¶[0016])], 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 [see ¶[0014]; FIG. 3], and would each therefore include a rounded-shaped portion. As such, and with reference to annotated FIG. 3 of Leichter (provided below), Leichter teaches an outer enclosure comprising a first rounded-shaped portion and an opposing second rounded-shaped portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
298
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated FIG. 3 of Leichter
Still further, the first rounded-shaped portion is capable of being held in contact with a glabrous region of a user's first hand palm, and the opposing second rounded-shaped portion is capable of being held in contact with a glabrous region of the user's second hand palm, simultaneously [NOTE: a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result
in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to
patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is
capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Moreover, the claim does not specify any dimensions (radius, diameter, etc.) of the claimed rounded-shaped portions, the size of the glabrous region, palm, or hand of an intended user, nor the age (child, adult, etc.) or size of an intended user of the device].
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 clearly includes an outer enclosure having a first rounded-shaped portion, and an opposing second rounded-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).
As modified, the first rounded-shaped portion of Ostepchuk/Leichter would be capable of being held in contact with a glabrous region of a user's first hand palm, the opposing second rounded-shaped portion would be capable of being held in contact with a glabrous region of the user's second hand palm, simultaneously, the at least one heat transfer device would be capable of reducing a temperature at said at least two rounded-shaped portions, and the temperature sensor would monitor a temperature of at least one of said rounded-shaped portions (which now serves as a portion of the outer enclosure).
11. Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ostepchuk and Leichter teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Ostepchuk was modified above in the rejection of claim 7 such that the outer enclosure comprise at least two rounded-shaped portions.
As such, as modified, Ostepchuk further teaches wherein the at least two rounded-shaped portions of said outer enclosure comprise aluminum [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”)].
Response to Arguments
12. As noted above, the 07/10/26 Amendment has overcome the claim objections previously set forth in the 05/13/26 Action.
13. New grounds of rejection under § 103 are set forth herein (based on the combination of Ostepchuk and Leichter), necessitated by Applicant’s Amendment.
14. The body of the rejection (set forth above) addresses the alleged deficiencies of Ostepchuk/Leichter raised by Applicant in the Remarks of the 07/10/26 Amendment.
Conclusion
15. 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, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM MST.
Examiner Interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. 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, Joanne M. Rodden, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4276. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing 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