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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 13 objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 3 and 13 state: “wherein the heating component is filamentous and coiled in a reciprocating in the thermal gel” which appears to be missing a term after reciprocating. The examiner’s best guess is that the word “manner” should follow “reciprocating” as per Specification Para [0049]. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 3-4 and 13-14 use the term “roughly” which should be changed to “approximately” for a more defined meaning in context. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 11-14, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 10,993,557 to Nardo et al. (hereinafter Nardo).
Regarding claim 1, Nardo teaches: A memory foam heating cushion body, comprising:
a memory foam main body (see Fig. 1, foam layers 20 and 40, see also col. 8 lines [3-18], which contemplates exchanging HD and LD foam layers with “viscoelastic foam”), wherein the memory foam main body has an upper surface and a lower surface (see Fig. 1, layer 20 has an upper and lower surface);
thermal gel (see Fig. 1, spacer layer 100, see also col. 8, lines [3-18] which contemplates exchanging “gel” as a material for the spacer layer), wherein the thermal gel is at least partially covered at the upper surface of the memory foam main body (see Fig. 3, head cover 103 covers the layer 100); and
a heating component (see Fig. 1, flexible heating member 60), wherein the heating component is arranged between the thermal gel and the memory foam main body (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Nardo teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the thermal gel (see Fig. 5, layer 100) has a connecting surface connected to the memory foam main body (see Fig. 5, lower surface 104) and a contact surface configured to be in contact with a user (see Fig. 5, upper surface 106); the heating component is uniformly distributed between the connecting surface and the memory foam main body (see Fig. 5, heating member 60 located between top surface 46 of layer 40 and lower surface 104 of layer 100); and a region where the heating component is located corresponds to a region where the contact surface is located (see Fig. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 3, Nardo teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 2, and additionally teaches: wherein the heating component is filamentous and is coiled in a reciprocating in the thermal gel to form a similar pulse width modulation (PWM) wavy structure (see Fig. 1, 5, 8, shown as a coil of filament, noting also col. 4, lines [35-67] and col. 5, lines [1-61] for additional details on the heating element 60) and; and a distance between two adjacent sections of the heating component is roughly the same (see Fig. 8, gap 38 remains approximately the same [e.g. 2mm] between each spiral as shown).
Regarding claim 4, Nardo teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 2, and additionally teaches: wherein the heating component comprises a plurality of heating wires (see Fig. 1, 5, 8, shown as a coil of filament, noting also col. 4, lines [35-67] and col. 5, lines [1-61] for additional details on the heating element 60), and a distance between two adjacent heating wires is roughly the same (see Fig. 8, gap 38 remains approximately the same [e.g. 2mm] between each spiral 66 as shown).
Regarding claim 6, Nardo teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the heating component is one or more of an alloy wire, a resistance wire, a carbon fiber, and graphene (see col. 4, lines [52-66]: discussion of thermoplastic PTC carbon ink or PTC thermistor).
Regarding claim 7, Nardo teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: further comprising a heating control panel (see Fig. 3, controller 160), wherein the memory foam main body is provided with an accommodating slot (see Fig. 2-4, wires from cable interface 70 are shown entering between layers 40 and 100, inherently a “slot” must be present); and the heating control panel is threaded out of the accommodating slot (see Fig. 3) and is electrically connected to the heating component through an electrical connecting wire (see Fig. 3, controller cable interface 170).
Regarding claim 11, Nardo teaches: A memory foam heating seat cushion (see col. 8, lines [16-18]: “may be adapted to support portions of a patient other than the head”), comprising:
a memory foam main body (see Fig. 1, foam layers 20 and 40, see also col. 8 lines [3-18], which contemplates exchanging HD and LD foam layers with “viscoelastic foam”), wherein the memory foam main body has an upper surface and a lower surface (see Fig. 1, layer 20 has an upper and lower surface) and the upper surface of the memory foam main body is provided with a connecting slot (see Fig. 1, slot/space where connector interface 70 is fed);
thermal gel (see Fig. 1, spacer layer 100, see also col. 8, lines [3-18] which contemplates exchanging “gel” as a material for the spacer layer), wherein the thermal gel is inserted into the connecting slot (see Fig. 1, 3-4, spacer layer 100 covers slot formed and filled by connector interface 70) and is at least partially covered at the upper surface of the memory foam main body (see Fig. 3, head cover 103 covers the layer 100); and
a heating component (see Fig. 1, flexible heating member 60), wherein the heating component is arranged between the thermal gel and the memory foam main body (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Nardo teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 11, and additionally teaches: wherein the thermal gel (see Fig. 5, layer 100) has a connecting surface connected to the memory foam main body (see Fig. 5, lower surface 104) and a contact surface configured to be in contact with a user (see Fig. 5, upper surface 106); the heating component is uniformly distributed between the connecting surface and the memory foam main body (see Fig. 5, heating member 60 located between top surface 46 of layer 40 and lower surface 104 of layer 100); a region where the heating component is located corresponds to a region where the contact surface is located (see Fig. 1 and 5), and the contact surface is matched with the upper surface of the memory foam main body (see Fig. 1-5).
Regarding claim 13, Nardo teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 12, and additionally teaches: wherein the heating component is filamentous and is coiled in a reciprocating in the thermal gel to form a similar pulse width modulation (PWM) wavy structure (see Fig. 1, 5, 8, shown as a coil of filament, noting also col. 4, lines [35-67] and col. 5, lines [1-61] for additional details on the heating element 60) and; and a distance between two adjacent sections of the heating component is roughly the same (see Fig. 8, gap 38 remains approximately the same [e.g. 2mm] between each spiral as shown).
Regarding claim 14, Nardo teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 12, and additionally teaches: wherein the heating component comprises a plurality of heating wires (see Fig. 1, 5, 8, shown as a coil of filament, noting also col. 4, lines [35-67] and col. 5, lines [1-61] for additional details on the heating element 60), and a distance between two adjacent heating wires is roughly the same (see Fig. 8, gap 38 remains approximately the same [e.g. 2mm] between each spiral 66 as shown).
Regarding claim 16, Nardo teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 11, and additionally teaches: wherein the heating component is one or more of an alloy wire, a resistance wire, a carbon fiber, and graphene (see col. 4, lines [52-66]: discussion of thermoplastic PTC carbon ink or PTC thermistor).
Regarding claim 17, Nardo teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 11, and additionally teaches: further comprising a heating control panel (see Fig. 3, controller 160), wherein the memory foam main body is provided with an accommodating slot (see Fig. 2-4, wires from cable interface 70 are shown entering between layers 40 and 100, inherently a “slot” must be present); and the heating control panel is threaded out of the accommodating slot (see Fig. 3) and is electrically connected to the heating component through an electrical connecting wire (see Fig. 3, controller cable interface 170).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5, 8-10, 15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,993,557 to Nardo in view of U.S. Patent 6,924,467 to Ellis et al. (hereinafter Ellis).
Regarding claim 5, Nardo teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 2, however it does not teach the following: wherein protruding massage parts are distributed on a surface of the contact surface.
Ellis, however, teaches: wherein protruding massage parts are distributed on a surface of the contact surface (see col. 15, lines [20-22]: “alternating pressure portions that exert a varying massage-like pressure against a patient situated on the pad”).
Nardo and Ellis are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of thermal heating cushions, pillows, and other body supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Nardo with these aforementioned teachings of Ellis in order to add massaging elements as taught by Ellis to the surface of the upper layer of Nardo with a reasonable expectation of success to provide an improved body contacting surface that facilitates massage and desired comfort.
Regarding claim 8, Nardo teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 7, however it does not teach the following: further comprising an adjustment button, wherein the adjustment button is connected to the heating control panel; and the adjustment button is configured to be pressed by the user to generate an electrical signal transmitted to the heating control panel.
Ellis, however teaches: further comprising an adjustment button (see Fig. 1, control panel 122 contains a graphical display in which temperatures can be selected see also Fig. 7 for selector “buttons” 773), wherein the adjustment button is connected to the heating control panel (see Fig. 7, buttons are located on control panel 122); and the adjustment button is configured to be pressed by the user to generate an electrical signal transmitted to the heating control panel (see Ellis, col. 11, lines [64-67] thru col. 12, lines [1-15]).
Nardo and Ellis are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of thermal heating cushions, pillows, and other body supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Nardo with these aforementioned teachings of Ellis in order to utilize a controlling panel with temperature selecting buttons as taught by Ellis as an improved means of controlling the existing controller of Nardo with a reasonable expectation of success to provide an improved and quick means of selecting a desired heating temperature for a heating pad for a patient (see Ellis, col. 4, lines [12-30]).
Regarding claim 9, Nardo teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 7, however it does not teach the following: further comprising a display device, wherein the display device is arranged on one side of the heating control panel facing away from the accommodating slot and is electrically connected to the heating control panel; and the display device is configured to display a working state of the heating component.
Ellis, however, teaches: further comprising a display device (see Fig. 1, and 7, temperature display 771), wherein the display device is arranged on one side of the heating control panel facing away from the accommodating slot and is electrically connected to the heating control panel (see Fig. 1 and 7, and col. 11, lines [46-63]); and the display device is configured to display a working state of the heating component (see Fig. 7, 771 displays the active temperature of the device).
Nardo and Ellis are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of thermal heating cushions, pillows, and other body supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Nardo with these aforementioned teachings of Ellis in order to utilize a temperature display as taught by Ellis as an improved means of controlling the warming of the device of Nardo with a reasonable expectation of success to provide an improved and quick means of selecting a desired heating temperature for a heating pad for a patient (see Ellis, col. 4, lines [12-30]).
Regarding claim 10, Nardo teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 7, and additional teaches the following: further comprising an electrical connector (see Fig. 1 and 3, connector interface 70), wherein the electrical connector is arranged in the accommodating slot (see Fig. 2-4, wires from cable interface 70 are shown entering between layers 40 and 100, inherently a “slot” must be present); a connecting end of the electrical connector is electrically connected to the heating control panel (see Fig. 3, wire extends between connector interface 70 to controller 160).
Nardo does not teach: and a free end of the electrical connector is configured to be connected to an external power supply.
Ellis, however, teaches: and a free end of the electrical connector is configured to be connected to an external power supply (see Fig. 1, retractable power cord 124).
Nardo and Ellis are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of thermal heating cushions, pillows, and other body supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Nardo with these aforementioned teachings of Ellis in order to provide an external power cord as taught by Ellis extending from the existing controller of Nardo with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a means to supply power to the heating elements (see Ellis, col. 4, lines [6-12]).
Regarding claim 15, Nardo teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 12, however it does not teach the following: wherein protruding massage parts are distributed on a surface of the contact surface.
Ellis, however, teaches: wherein protruding massage parts are distributed on a surface of the contact surface (see col. 15, lines [20-22]: “alternating pressure portions that exert a varying massage-like pressure against a patient situated on the pad”).
Nardo and Ellis are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of thermal heating cushions, pillows, and other body supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Nardo with these aforementioned teachings of Ellis in order to add massaging elements as taught by Ellis to the surface of the upper layer of Nardo with a reasonable expectation of success to provide an improved body contacting surface that facilitates massage and desired comfort.
Regarding claim 18, Nardo teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 17, however it does not teach the following: further comprising an adjustment button, wherein the adjustment button is connected to the heating control panel; and the adjustment button is configured to be pressed by the user to generate an electrical signal transmitted to the heating control panel.
Ellis, however teaches: further comprising an adjustment button (see Fig. 1, control panel 122 contains a graphical display in which temperatures can be selected see also Fig. 7 for selector “buttons” 773), wherein the adjustment button is connected to the heating control panel (see Fig. 7, buttons are located on control panel 122); and the adjustment button is configured to be pressed by the user to generate an electrical signal transmitted to the heating control panel (see Ellis, col. 11, lines [64-67] thru col. 12, lines [1-15]).
Nardo and Ellis are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of thermal heating cushions, pillows, and other body supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Nardo with these aforementioned teachings of Ellis in order to utilize a controlling panel with temperature selecting buttons as taught by Ellis as an improved means of controlling the existing controller of Nardo with a reasonable expectation of success to provide an improved and quick means of selecting a desired heating temperature for a heating pad for a patient (see Ellis, col. 4, lines [12-30]).
Regarding claim 19, Nardo teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 17, however it does not teach the following: further comprising a display device, wherein the display device is arranged on one side of the heating control panel facing away from the accommodating slot and is electrically connected to the heating control panel; and the display device is configured to display a working state of the heating component.
Ellis, however, teaches: further comprising a display device (see Fig. 1, and 7, temperature display 771), wherein the display device is arranged on one side of the heating control panel facing away from the accommodating slot and is electrically connected to the heating control panel (see Fig. 1 and 7, and col. 11, lines [46-63]); and the display device is configured to display a working state of the heating component (see Fig. 7, 771 displays the active temperature of the device).
Nardo and Ellis are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of thermal heating cushions, pillows, and other body supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Nardo with these aforementioned teachings of Ellis in order to utilize a temperature display as taught by Ellis as an improved means of controlling the warming of the device of Nardo with a reasonable expectation of success to provide an improved and quick means of selecting a desired heating temperature for a heating pad for a patient (see Ellis, col. 4, lines [12-30]).
Regarding claim 20, Nardo teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 17, and additional teaches the following: further comprising an electrical connector (see Fig. 1 and 3, connector interface 70), wherein the electrical connector is arranged in the accommodating slot (see Fig. 2-4, wires from cable interface 70 are shown entering between layers 40 and 100, inherently a “slot” must be present); a connecting end of the electrical connector is electrically connected to the heating control panel (see Fig. 3, wire extends between connector interface 70 to controller 160).
Nardo does not teach: and a free end of the electrical connector is configured to be connected to an external power supply.
Ellis, however, teaches: and a free end of the electrical connector is configured to be connected to an external power supply (see Fig. 1, retractable power cord 124).
Nardo and Ellis are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of thermal heating cushions, pillows, and other body supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Nardo with these aforementioned teachings of Ellis in order to provide an external power cord as taught by Ellis extending from the existing controller of Nardo with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a means to supply power to the heating elements (see Ellis, col. 4, lines [6-12]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited patents show heated cushions, pillows, and other body supports with similar properties to the claimed invention. They show the general state of the art and are of general relevance with respect to the claimed subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R HARE whose telephone number is (571)272-4420. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at 571-272-8525. 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.
Sincerely,
/DAVID R HARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
10/17/2025