DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendment filed 11/06/2025. Claims 1-10 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-6, filed 11/6/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4 and 6-8 under 102 over Baker have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Smith, as described in detail below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,561,525 to Baker et al. (Baker) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0352777 to Smith et al. (Smith).
In reference to claim 1, Baker teaches a cooling device for personal cooling (FIG. 2), comprising a thermoelectric heat pump (208, FIG. 2) having a first side (side of TEC 208 closer to 202, FIG. 2) and a second side (side of TEC 208 closer to 210, FIG. 2), wherein the thermoelectric heat pump is operable to extract heat from a heat source via the first side and transfer the heat from the first side to the second side on application of an electric current from a power source through the thermoelectric heat pump (col 3, lines 4-55; via plug 206, FIG. 2); a fan operable to dissipate the heat extracted by the thermoelectric heat pump (col 5, lines 30-57); a power source or a power interface (battery or fuel cell 108, FIG. 1-2) electrically connected to the thermoelectric heat pump and the fan (col 6, lines 4-11) and a housing (202, 214 and 210, FIG. 2) having a plurality of openings (openings on 210, FIG. 2), wherein the thermoelectric heat pump and the fan are received in the housing (within recess 214 of the socket 202, FIG. 2), but does not teach that the power source or a power interface is received in the housing. Smith teaches methods and systems for dissipating thermal loads in wearable devices (FIG. 1-2) wherein the power source or a power interface (battery 112, FIG. 2B) is received in the housing (102, FIG. 2B) in order to provide a more subtle, esthetically pleasing, wearable cooler.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling device of Baker, to have the power source or a power interface received in the housing, as taught by Smith, in order to provide a more subtle, esthetically pleasing, wearable cooler.
In reference to claim 3, Baker and Smith teach cooling device as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Baker additionally teaches wherein the power interface is selected from a group consisting of one or more wires (col 6, lines 9-11).
In reference to claim 4, Baker and Smith teach cooling device as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Baker additionally teaches a heat sink attached to the second side of the thermoelectric heat pump (col 5, lines 30-40).
In reference to claim 6, Baker and Smith teach cooling device as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Baker additionally teaches wherein the housing comprises a base (202, FIG. 2); and a casing (209, FIG. 2) detachably attached to the base.
In reference to claim 7, Baker and Smith teach cooling device as explained in the rejection of claim 6 above, and Baker additionally teaches wherein the casing is secured to the base by one of a plurality of bolts, a plurality of threaded connections formed on the base and the casing, a plurality of fasteners and an adhesive (col 5, lines 18-30).
In reference to claim 8, Baker and Smith teach cooling device as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Baker additionally teaches one or more lugs provided with the housing (col 5, lines 18-30).
In reference to claim 9, Baker and Smith teach cooling device as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Smith additionally teaches wherein the power source is a battery (battery 112, FIG. 2B) received in the housing (102, FIG. 2B).
In reference to claim 10, Baker and Smith teach cooling device as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Smith additionally teaches wherein the first side of the thermoelectric heat pump is configured to be used on a skin surface so as to transfer the heat from blood vessels close to the skin surface (par 0030 and 0032).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker in view of Smith, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0132380 to Robinson, II (Robinson).
In reference to claim 2, Baker and Smith teach cooling device as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, but they do not explicitly teach that the power interface is routed through a printed circuit board (PCB) before connecting to the thermoelectric heat pump and the fan. Robinson teaches a thermoelectric heat transferring unit (FIG. 1-9) wherein the power interface (200, FIG. 1-9) is routed through a printed circuit board (PCB) (par 0037 and 0041) before connecting to the thermoelectric heat pump (110, FIG. 1-9) and the fan (400, FIG. 1-9) in order to provide programmed temperature control system (par 0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling device of Baker and Smith, to have the power interface routed through a printed circuit board (PCB) before connecting to the thermoelectric heat pump and the fan, as taught by Robinson, in order to provide programmed temperature control system.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker in view of Smith, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 8,468,837 to Pinet (Pinet).
In reference to claim 5, Baker and Smith teach cooling device as explained in the rejection of claim 4 above, but they do not explicitly teach wherein the heat sink comprises a plurality of fins. Pinet teaches a high efficiency TEC system and method of operation (FIG. 4A and 4B) wherein the heat sink (25, FIG. 4A and 4B) comprises a plurality of fins (27, FIG. 4A and 4B) in order to efficiently absorb heat from the interior of the space (col 5, lines 35-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooling device of Baker and Smith, to have the heat sink comprising a plurality of fins, as taught by Pinet, in order to efficiently absorb heat from the interior of the space.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See attached PTO-892 for relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILIP ZEC whose telephone number is (571)270-5846. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 9-5.
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, JD Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/FILIP ZEC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
12/13/2025