DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Request
The applicant is requested to provide line numbers to each claim in all future claim submissions to aide in examination and communication with the applicant about claim recitations. The applicant is thanked for aiding examination.
Examiner Comment
While the rejection below illustrates that the application has many remaining issues, the Examiner commends the applicant for the amendment as such has improved the claims and drawings substantially.
Specification
The amendment to the specification dated 12/22/2025 is accepted.
Drawings
The amendments to the drawings dated 12/22/2025 have overcome several issues but are not entered as they enter new matter: There is no support for two temperature collectors as shown in Fig. 6. The disclosure only references one temperature collector (page 8, para. 5 “the temperature collector is disposed at the position of the first surface 112 at the position of an outlet hole of the first surface 112”) not two temperature collectors as amended. Further, there is no evidence to support that the outlet hole of the cooling channel (111) is located along the long side of the coolers 130 as implicit by the location of the temperature collector (300) as amended; Further the division of the cooler (110) and the cooling channel (111) as depicted in Fig. 6 appears to create serious new matter issues.
Further the drawings dated 12/22/2025 have other remaining issues as explained below:
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the location of the thermoelectric element (140) relative to the vest in Fig. 1 and relative to the coolers (110) in Fig. 8. In addition, the depiction of the cooling channel (111) as being separated from structure the coolers (110) in fig. 6 creates ambiguity and confusion as to what the structure of the coolers (110) must have.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
At present it is not possible to discern what structure the coolers (110) must have.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Finally, since the drawings dated 12/22/2025 have not been entered, therefore, all of the previous drawing objections in the office action dated 9/24/2025 remain as previously presented, yet not repeated here.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “one or more holders in which a plurality of unit coolers is inserted” contains new matter scope including that one holder has a plurality of unit coolers and this is not supported.
The recitation, “wireless communicator” is new matter as there is nothing in the original disclosure that supports the scope of a wireless communicator as claimed and connected to the unit coolers as claimed. Further, the figures appear to show a wired connection between the controller (200) and coolers (110) (see fig. 1, 9).
The recitation, “a server…allowing the controller to control the degree of cooling of the plurality of unit coolers.” contains new matter as there is no disclosure that the server performs some “allowing” for the controller to perform the degree of cooling of the unit coolers. Further, the disclosed server does not “allow” control of the unit coolers nor do any permitting such that the controller is “allowed” to control the cooling of the coolers; the disclosure especially does not support that the cooling already controlled by the controller in response to the first temperature adjustment information is some gate-kept by the server. There are many controlling functions encompassed by the recitation “allowing” as recited that are not supported in any degree and the recitation introduces new matter.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “a vest clothing” is indefinite for being redundant and it is unclear what the addition of “clothing” provides to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recitation. For present examination, the recitation is presumed to be amended to merely recite --a vest--.
The recitation, “unit coolers” is indefinite as there is not disclosure of “unit coolers” in the specification and one is left to speculate as to what structure is required to meet such. For present examination, the unit coolers are interpreted as being at least heat exchange structure that can provide cooling, i.e. coolers.
The recitation, “detachably coupled to the vest clothing” is indefinite as there is no way to discern what structure is and is not detachably disposed. The specification does nothing to explain this structure other than repeat the recitation of the function.
The recitation, “a wireless communicator to transmit first temperature adjustment information to the unit coolers” is indefinite since there is no disclosure transmitting from the controller through a wireless communicator to the coolers and therefore it is unclear what structure is sufficient to meet the present recitation and what structure is required of the unit coolers and the communicator.
The recitation, “a server…allowing the controller to control the degree of cooling of the plurality of unit coolers.” is indefinite for being inconsistent with the claim recitations and with the disclosure. The claim already defines that the controller is able to control a degree of cooling of the plurality of unit coolers and an external server does not perform any “allowing” for the controller to perform control of cooling of the unit coolers. Further, the disclosed server does not “allow” control of the unit coolers nor do any permitting such that the controller is “allowed” to control the cooling of the coolers and there is no way to determine what structure is required of the server as presently recited.
In regard to claim 2, the recitation, “a cooling channel is disposed in the plurality of unit coolers” is unclear whether each unit cooler has a cooling channel or if the plurality of unit coolers has somewhere among them one cooling channel and therefore the recitation is unclear.
The recitation, “a Peltier thermoelectric element” is indefinite for being redundant as a Peltier element and a thermoelectric element are the same thing and this is equivalent to referring to a car as a car vehicle and therefore improper for introducing terms that do not further limit the meaning of the claim.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
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.
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.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitation “user terminal” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph and is interpreted as a smart phone (spec. page 7).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the obvious modification of West (US 2024/0156185). See the 112 rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 1, West teaches a cooling vest (see whole disclosure; para. 25) comprising:
a vest (para. 7) including at least one cooling area (para. 9, area) and a plurality of holders (see part of vest holding panels; para. 31) each having a unit cooler (at least each panel; para. 31) forming a plurality of unit coolers (at least plurality of panels; para. 31);
a controller (para. 5, 29, 55 controller) detachably coupled (fully capable of being installed and removed by at least some means/actions) to the vest (vest), the controller configured to transmit first temperature adjustment information (commands of controller cool more or less) to the plurality of unit coolers (panels) to control the unit coolers (panels) and control a degree of cooling (para. 5, 29, 55) of the plurality of unit coolers (panels), the controller (controller) having a wireless communicator (part of controller to communicate with the cell phone; para. 26, 29);
a temperature collector (temperature sensor, para. 63) configured to collect cooling temperature information that is transmitted to the controller (controller), allowing the controller (controller) to control the degree of cooling of the plurality of unit coolers (panels);
a user terminal (cell phone para. 26, 29) connected to the wireless communicator (part of controller) through a network (of cell phone; para. 26, 29) and configured to collect the cooling temperature information (temperature data detected) and transmit second temperature adjustment information (further commands given input from the user or user app from cell phone) to the controller (controller), allowing the controller (controller) to control the degree of cooling of the plurality of unit coolers (panels).
West does not appear to explicitly teach a server is connected to the user terminal through the network and configured to collect the cooling temperature information and the first temperature adjustment information and transmit third temperature adjustment information to the controller via the user terminal. However, official notice is taken that it is routine and ordinary to perform software operations, decisions, computations, and communications with cellular phones using servers. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify West with a server connected to the user terminal through the network and configured to collect the cooling temperature information and the first temperature adjustment information and transmit third temperature adjustment information to the controller via the user terminal for the purpose of accessing the tremendous computational power of servers to aide in deciding how to adjust the cooling operations of the coolers and to access a wide array of external data and server based data, computations, evaluations, and determinations.
In regard to claim 2, West teaches a cooling channel (see figures 1, 2, 4, 7, 8; paths in panel, also see 2; para. 30 hereafter cooling path for air) is formed disposed in the plurality of unit coolers (panels), a cooling air (cold air - para. 32) generated by a Peltier element (5A, para. 33) flows through the cooling channel (cooling path for air), and the plurality of unit coolers (1, panels) are configured to form a single cooling area (at least area cooled by coolers).
In regard to claim 3, West teaches that each of the plurality of unit coolers (1; panels) includes at least one inflow tube (at least part of 2 or 20) detachably connected (fully capable of being connected and disconnected by some means or acts) to the cooling channel (cooling path for air) and configured to guide the cooling air (cold air, para. 32) generated by the Peltier element (5A) into the cooling channel (cooling path for air),
the cooling channel (cooling path for air) includes a single tube (2) repeatedly bent in a plurality of S shapes (see fig. 7-8) along a longitudinal direction to define a row of unit cooling passage (see at least one row), and
a plurality of unit cooling passages (see each row) extend side-by-side at predetermined intervals (see spacing in figures) in a width direction (see spacing left to right).
In regard to claim 4, West teaches that each of the plurality of unit coolers (1; panels) include: a first surface (15; Fig. 3) facing toward a skin of a wearer (para. 42) and disposed under the cooling channel (cooling path for air), a second surface (50) disposed opposite to the first surface (15), a plurality of cylindrical cooling protrusions (14) disposed on the first surface (15), and a plurality of cooling gap spaces (between 14) defined between the plurality of cylindrical cooling protrusions (14), the plurality of cooling gap spaces (between 14) extending perpendicularly between the wearer (user, para. 32) and the first surface (15).
West does not explicitly teach that the temperature collector is disposed on the first surface (15) at a position corresponding to an outlet hole (16) of the cooling channel (cooling path for air). However, official notice is taken that providing clothing elements with a plurality of temperature sensors near the body are well known for the purpose of diagnosing needs of the wearer of the clothing. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the vest of West with a host of temperature sensors throughout the vest and near the outlet hole (16) for the purpose of determining the influence and performance of the operation of the plurality of unit coolers being commanded by the controller.
In regard to claim 5, West teaches that the at least one inflow tube (part of 2 or 20) of one unit cooler (one panel) and at least one outflow tube (other part of 2) of another unit cooler (panel 1) adjacent to the one unit cooler (one panel) are detachably connected to each other (fully capable of being connected and disconnected from each other by some means or acts), thereby connecting the plurality of unit coolers (panels) to form the at least one cooling area (area cooled), and the at least one inflow tube (part of 2) and the at least one outflow tube (other part of 2) are made of a flexible material (para. 30, 43), thereby allowing the at least one cooling area (area cooled) to conform to a curve of a body of the wearer (para. 32, 43).
In regard to claim 6, West teaches a plurality of heat discharge holes (13 or 16) are defined on the plurality of the holders (part of vest holding panels, para. 31) to discharge heat discharged from the Peltier element (5A) or the body of the wearer (user, para. 42).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West (US 2024/0156185) in view of DeSeve (US 2018/0250159). See the 112 rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 7, West, as modified above, teaches all of the claim limitations but does not appear to explicitly teach a display and user input interface as claimed. However, providing a display is routine and ordinary as taught by DeSeve. DeSeve teaches a cooling garment (para. 51) with controller (112) having a display (132) and user input interface (133) permitting a user to perform some controls, including at least some initial cooling operations having first temperature adjustment information (para. 90), without a user terminal (para. 99 smart phone). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the controller of West with a display and user input interface to provide the ability to perform some simple initiation actions without the need for reach for the user terminal.
In regard to claim 8, West teaches that the user terminal (phone) is configured to:
display the cooling temperature information in an installed application (para. 5), and is fully capable of generating the second temperature adjustment information (cooling commands from the phone) based on the input information (initial cooling commands input to the controller by the user), by the wearer touching a screen (of the phone). Note that further adjustment of the cooling operations of the cooling vest using commands to the user terminal (smart phone) would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide robust controls and ease and permit review of higher levels of data.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West (US 2024/0156185) in view of DeSeve (US 2018/0250159) and Yip (US 2016/0220174). See the 112 rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 9, West, as modified, does not explicitly teach all of the functional language that claim 9 requires of the server; specifically that the server is configured to: collect the cooling temperature information of the wearer from the user terminal to collect a cooling state of respective areas of the body of the wearer, the cooling temperature information including wearing position information on the body of the wearer, position information of the at least one cooling area, and cooling information of each of the at least one cooling area, and transmit, to the user terminal, the third temperature adjustment information generated based on weather information and the cooling temperature information, the weather information including temperature, humidity, and wind information of an area where the wearer is positioned and collected from an external weather system, and wherein the server includes an artificial intelligence model trained to extract features and possibility of danger of skin temperature based on a temperature difference between center temperature of front and back of the body of the wearer and portions around the front and the back of the body of the wearer as learning data, and extract thermal information of the body of the wearer based on feature analysis of the cooling information of each of the at least one cooling area. However, programming the server to collect temperature information, position information related to the temperature information, and cooling information concerning each cooler would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for the purpose of providing information essential to the development and improvement of the operation of the cooling vest over time and would obviously be useful in improving the performance of the cooling vest. In addition, Yip teaches providing servers with machine learning is well known and routine and provided to evaluate data and optimize functionality based on sensor input (para. 35-37) Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the server of West with artificial intelligence as claimed for the purpose of autonomously improving the cooling operation of the coolers based on the weather, location data, location and operation of the coolers, analysis of the operational features of the cooling vest so as to improve operation autonomously and reduce risks of heat stroke to users with less design cost.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of the grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any of 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. 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.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights