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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1; line 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a dental material” should be - -the dental material- -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2; line 2 (two instances); claim 3, line 2 (two instances); claim 11, line 7 and 8; claim 12, line 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the plane” should be - -a plane- -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2; line 2; claim 11, line 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wall 17a” should be - -wall- -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7; line 2-3; claim 15, line 2-3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “one or more light emitting diodes situated such that they are in thermal communication with the warming cavity, wherein the LEDs” should be - - one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs) are in thermal communication with the warming cavity, wherein the one or more LEDs- -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8; line 2; claim 9, line 1; claim 16, line 2; claim 17, line 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “circuity” should be - - circuitry - -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8; line 3-4; claim 16, line 3-4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “from electrical components” should be - - from the one or more electrical components - -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19; line 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “dental material” should be - -the dental material- -. Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “heat generating component” in claim 1, 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-3, 5, 11, 12, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BioClear (HeatSync)
PNG
media_image1.png
690
935
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure of BioClear
Regarding claim 1, BioClear discloses a warming device (The HeatSync Composite Warmer 208500) for a dental material (The compules), the warming device comprising:
a housing (The housing of the HeatSync Composite Warmer 208500 which includes Annotated Figure; labeled top wall) comprising a top wall (Annotated Figure; labeled top wall);
a warming cavity (The compule oven) defined by an inclined wall (The bottom wall of the compule oven which is horizontal. This wall is inclined with respect to the top wall), a backwall (Annotated Figure; labeled back wall) and one or more sidewalls (The left and right sidewalls of the compule oven which are vertical) formed within the top wall;
a heat generating component (The heat generating component of the HeatSync Composite Warmer 208500) arranged such that it is in thermal communication with the warming cavity (Functional Language, the heat generating component is in thermal communication with the compule oven); and
a shield (The lid of the compule oven) movable between a first position (The open position of the lid) in which the dental material can be deposited into the warming cavity and a second position (The closed position of the lid) in which the shield at least partially covers the warming cavity, wherein the shield is formed of a material (The material of the lid) that at least substantially blocks transmission of visible blue light through the shield (Functional Language, The lid is opaque enough to block out visible light which comprises blue light).
Regarding claim 2, BioClear discloses the invention as claimed.
BioClear further discloses wherein an angle α (The angle defined by an intersection of a plane containing the inclined wall and a plane generally parallel to a plane of the top wall) defined by an intersection of a plane of the inclined wall and a plane that is generally parallel to a plane of the top wall is at least 10 degrees (The angle looks around 20 degrees which is at least 10 degrees).
Regarding claim 3, BioClear discloses the invention as claimed.
BioClear further discloses wherein an angle β (The angle defined by an intersection of a plane containing the inclined wall and a plane of the back wall) defined by an intersection of a plane of the inclined wall and of a plane of the backwall is between 50 and 160 degrees (The angle is about 90 degrees).
Regarding claim 5, BioClear discloses the invention as claimed.
BioClear further discloses wherein the shield comprises an orange filter (Functional Language, The lid is opaque enough to filter out visible light which comprises orange light).
Regarding claim 11, BioClear discloses a warming device (The HeatSync Composite Warmer 208500) for a dental material (The compules), the warming device comprising:
a housing (The housing of the HeatSync Composite Warmer 208500 which includes Annotated Figure; labeled top wall) comprising a top wall (Annotated Figure; labeled top wall);
a warming cavity (The compule oven) defined by an inclined wall (The bottom wall of the compule oven which is horizontal. This wall is inclined with respect to the top wall), a backwall (Annotated Figure; labeled back wall) and one or more sidewalls (The left and right sidewalls of the compule oven which are vertical) formed within the top wall;
a heat generating component (The heat generating component of the HeatSync Composite Warmer 208500) arranged such that it is in thermal communication with the warming cavity (Functional Language, the heat generating component is in thermal communication with the compule oven); and
wherein an angle α (The angle defined by an intersection of a plane containing the inclined wall and a plane generally parallel to a plane of the top wall) defined by an intersection of the plane of the inclined wall and a plane that is generally parallel to the plane of the top wall is at least 10 degrees (The angle looks around 20 degrees which is at least 10 degrees).
Regarding claim 12, BioClear discloses the invention as claimed.
BioClear further discloses wherein an angle β (The angle defined by an intersection of a plane containing the inclined wall and a plane of the back wall) defined by an intersection of the plane of the inclined wall and a plane of the backwall is between 50 and 160 degrees (The angle is about 90 degrees).
Regarding claim 19, BioClear discloses the invention as claimed.
BioClear further discloses a system (The HeatSync Composite Warmer 208500 and Annotated Figure; labeled compule), comprising the warming device of claim 11 and a quantity (The quantity of the dental material) of the dental material borne on a surface (The surface of the inclined wall) of the inclined wall.
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) 4, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BioClear in view of Clark (US 20210145542)
Regarding claim 4, BioClear discloses the invention as claimed.
BioClear further discloses wherein the inclined wall has a longest dimension (The longest dimension of the inclined wall) and an area (The area of the inclined wall).
BioClear does not disclose a longest dimension of no more than 50 mm and an area of no more than 1000 mm2.
However, Clark teaches in Paragraph 0053 that the compartment holds up to six compules and allows space for other components, so that the size (including the longest dimension and area) of the inclined wall is a results-effective variable that controls the number of compules that can be held and controls the amount of space of other components. A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977). Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that the size (including the longest dimension and area) of the inclined wall is a results-effective variable that controls the number of compules that can be held and controls the amount of space of other components. Thus, the claimed limitation of wherein a longest dimension of no more than 50 mm and an area of no more than 1000 mm2 is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the inclined wall of BioClear to have the required longest dimension and area, as it involves only adjusting a dimension of the longest dimension of BioClear disclosed to require adjustment.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See KSR; MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of BioClear to have a longest dimension of no more than 50 mm and an area of no more than 1000 mm2 in order to optimize the number of compules that can be held and controls the amount of space of other components (The modification has the inclined wall having a longest dimension of no more than 50 mm and an area of no more than 1000 mm2).
Regarding claim 13, BioClear discloses the invention as claimed.
BioClear further discloses wherein the inclined wall has a longest dimension (The longest dimension of the inclined wall) and an area (The area of the inclined wall).
BioClear does not disclose a longest dimension of no more than 50 mm and an area of no more than 1000 mm2.
However, Clark teaches in Paragraph 0053 that the compartment holds up to six compules and allows space for other components, so that the size (including the longest dimension and area) of the inclined wall is a results-effective variable that controls the number of compules that can be held and controls the amount of space of other components. A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977). Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that the size (including the longest dimension and area) of the inclined wall is a results-effective variable that controls the number of compules that can be held and controls the amount of space of other components. Thus, the claimed limitation of wherein a longest dimension of no more than 50 mm and an area of no more than 1000 mm2 is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the inclined wall of BioClear to have the required longest dimension and area, as it involves only adjusting a dimension of the longest dimension of BioClear disclosed to require adjustment.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See KSR; MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of BioClear to have a longest dimension of no more than 50 mm and an area of no more than 1000 mm2 in order to optimize the number of compules that can be held and controls the amount of space of other components (The modification has the inclined wall having a longest dimension of no more than 50 mm and an area of no more than 1000 mm2).
Claim(s) 6, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BioClear in view of Pitz et al (US 20050170313)
Regarding claim 6, BioClear discloses the invention as claimed.
BioClear does not disclose wherein the heat generating component comprises a heating foil.
However, Pitz teaches a warming device (The delivery system of with the fourth instance of Paragraph 0014) wherein a heat generating component comprises a heating foil (The heating foil of Paragraph 0014).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of BioClear wherein the heat generating component comprises a heating foil as taught by and suggested by Pitz because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Pitz’s use of a heating foil according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, BioClear’s warming device, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case to be able to heating dental material, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (The modification has the heat generating component being a heating foil).
Regarding claim 14, BioClear discloses the invention as claimed.
BioClear does not disclose wherein the heat generating component comprises a heating foil.
However, Pitz teaches a warming device (The delivery system of with the fourth instance of Paragraph 0014) wherein a heat generating component comprises a heating foil (The heating foil of Paragraph 0014).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of BioClear wherein the heat generating component comprises a heating foil as taught by and suggested by Pitz because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Pitz’s use of a heating foil according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, BioClear’s warming device, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case to be able to heating dental material, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (The modification has the heat generating component being a heating foil).
Claim(s) 7-9, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BioClear in view of Richter et al (US 20230301750), hereafter Richter ‘750.
Regarding claim 7, BioClear discloses the invention as claimed.
BioClear does not disclose wherein the heat generating component comprises one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs) situated such that the one or more LEDs are in thermal communication with the warming cavity, wherein the one or more LEDs are configured for emitting light within a wavelength range of 780 nm to 1400 nm.
However, Richter ‘750 teaches a warming device (Figure 1; 10) wherein a heat generating component (Figure 2; 42) comprises one or more light emitting diodes (Figure 2; 42 are LEDs) (LEDs) situated such that the one or more LEDs are in thermal communication with a warming cavity (Figure 1; 22, 24), wherein the one or more LEDs are configured for emitting light within a wavelength range of 780 nm to 1400 nm (Functional Language, the LEDs emit a wavelength of substantially 950nm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of BioClear wherein the heat generating component comprises one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs) situated such that the one or more LEDs are in thermal communication with the warming cavity, wherein the one or more LEDs are configured for emitting light within a wavelength range of 780 nm to 1400 nm as taught by and suggested by Richter ‘750 because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Richter ‘750’s use of a heating foil according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, BioClear’s warming device, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case to be able to heating dental material, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (The modification has the heat generating component being LEDs).
Regarding claim 8, BioClear discloses the invention as claimed.
BioClear does not disclose control circuitry operatively coupled to one or more electrical components of the warming device such that the control circuitry can send and receive signals from the one or more electrical components of the warming device.
However, Richter ‘750 teaches a warming device (Figure 1; 10) comprising control circuitry (Figure 2; 49) operatively coupled to one or more electrical components (Figure 2; 48, 42) of a warming device (Figure 2; 42, 46, 48 form a warming device) such that the control circuitry can send and receive signals from the one or more electrical components of the warming device (Functional Language, Paragraph 0249, 250).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of BioClear to include control circuitry operatively coupled to one or more electrical components of the warming device such that the control circuitry can send and receive signals from the one or more electrical components of the warming device as taught by and suggested by Richter ‘750 in order to provide an automated system that provides dental material with the desired properties (Paragraph 0038, 0039, The modification adds a temperature sensor and control circuitry).
Regarding claim 9, BioClear in view of Richter ‘750 teaches the invention as claimed.
BioClear further discloses a signal from an actuator (The signal from the power switch of the HeatSync Composite Warmer 208500).
BioClear does not disclose wherein the control circuitry is adapted to initiate a heating operation following receipt of a signal from an actuator, and to interrupt the heating operation after a predetermined time period or after a predetermined temperature is achieved within the warming cavity.
However, Richter ‘750 teaches wherein the control circuitry is adapted to initiate a heating operation (The heating operation) following receipt of a signal from an actuator (The signal from Figure 1; 14, 16 that turns on the heating process), and to interrupt the heating operation after a predetermined time period or after a predetermined temperature (The predetermined temperature of Paragraph 0039) is achieved within a warming cavity (Figure 1; 22 or 24. Functional Language, Paragraph 0039, 0250).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of BioClear wherein the control circuitry is adapted to initiate a heating operation following receipt of a signal from an actuator, and to interrupt the heating operation after a predetermined time period or after a predetermined temperature is achieved within the warming cavity as taught by and suggested by Richter ‘750 in order to provide an automated system that provides dental material with the desired properties (Paragraph 0038, 0039, This is the same modification as claim 8).
Regarding claim 15, BioClear discloses the invention as claimed.
BioClear does not disclose wherein the heat generating component comprises one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs) situated such that the one or more LEDs are in thermal communication with the warming cavity, wherein the one or more LEDs are configured for emitting light within a wavelength range of 780 nm to 1400 nm.
However, Richter ‘750 teaches a warming device (Figure 1; 10) wherein a heat generating component (Figure 2; 42) comprises one or more light emitting diodes (Figure 2; 42 are LEDs) (LEDs) situated such that the one or more LEDs are in thermal communication with a warming cavity (Figure 1; 22, 24), wherein the one or more LEDs are configured for emitting light within a wavelength range of 780 nm to 1400 nm (Functional Language, the LEDs emit a wavelength of substantially 950nm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of BioClear wherein the heat generating component comprises one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs) situated such that the one or more LEDs are in thermal communication with the warming cavity, wherein the one or more LEDs are configured for emitting light within a wavelength range of 780 nm to 1400 nm as taught by and suggested by Richter ‘750 because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Richter ‘750’s use of a heating foil according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, BioClear’s warming device, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case to be able to heating dental material, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (The modification has the heat generating component being LEDs).
Regarding claim 16, BioClear discloses the invention as claimed.
BioClear does not disclose control circuitry operatively coupled to one or more electrical components of the warming device such that the control circuitry can send and receive signals from the one or more electrical components of the warming device.
However, Richter ‘750 teaches a warming device (Figure 1; 10) comprising control circuitry (Figure 2; 49) operatively coupled to one or more electrical components (Figure 2; 48, 42) of a warming device (Figure 2; 42, 46, 48 form a warming device) such that the control circuitry can send and receive signals from the one or more electrical components of the warming device (Functional Language, Paragraph 0249, 250).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of BioClear to include control circuitry operatively coupled to one or more electrical components of the warming device such that the control circuitry can send and receive signals from the one or more electrical components of the warming device as taught by and suggested by Richter ‘750 in order to provide an automated system that provides dental material with the desired properties (Paragraph 0038, 0039, The modification adds a temperature sensor and control circuitry).
Regarding claim 17, BioClear in view of Richter ‘750 teaches the invention as claimed.
BioClear further discloses a signal from an actuator (The signal from the power switch of the HeatSync Composite Warmer 208500).
BioClear does not disclose wherein the control circuitry is adapted to initiate a heating operation following receipt of a signal from an actuator, and to interrupt the heating operation after a predetermined time period or after a predetermined temperature is achieved within the warming cavity.
However, Richter ‘750 teaches wherein the control circuitry is adapted to initiate a heating operation (The heating operation) following receipt of a signal from an actuator (The signal from Figure 1; 14, 16 that turns on the heating process), and to interrupt the heating operation after a predetermined time period or after a predetermined temperature (The predetermined temperature of Paragraph 0039) is achieved within a warming cavity (Figure 1; 22 or 24. Functional Language, Paragraph 0039, 0250).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of BioClear wherein the control circuitry is adapted to initiate a heating operation following receipt of a signal from an actuator, and to interrupt the heating operation after a predetermined time period or after a predetermined temperature is achieved within the warming cavity as taught by and suggested by Richter ‘750 in order to provide an automated system that provides dental material with the desired properties (Paragraph 0038, 0039, This is the same modification as claim 16).
Claim(s) 10, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BioClear in view of Richter et al (US 20220287800), hereafter Richter ‘800.
Regarding claim 10, BioClear in discloses the invention as claimed.
BioClear does not disclose a rechargeable battery for powering at least the heat generating component.
However, Richter ‘800 teaches a warming device (Figure 1; 1) comprising a rechargeable battery (Paragraph 0030) for powering at least a heat generating component (Figure 5; 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of BioClear to include a rechargeable battery for powering at least the heat generating component as taught by and suggested by Richter ‘800 in order to operate the warming device in a wireless manner (Paragraph 0030, The modification uses a rechargeable battery).
Regarding claim 18, BioClear in discloses the invention as claimed.
BioClear does not disclose a rechargeable battery for powering at least the heat generating component.
However, Richter ‘800 teaches a warming device (Figure 1; 1) comprising a rechargeable battery (Paragraph 0030) for powering at least a heat generating component (Figure 5; 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of BioClear to include a rechargeable battery for powering at least the heat generating component as taught by and suggested by Richter ‘800 in order to operate the warming device in a wireless manner (Paragraph 0030, The modification uses a rechargeable battery).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN G KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-9814. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/EDWIN KANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights