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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 9 and 12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the term “essentially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This term renders claim 9 indefinite because it is unclear what “wherein the first solution consists essentially of glycol” is. Thus, as used to qualify the composition of the first solution, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Regarding claim 12, the term “essentially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This term renders claim 12 indefinite because it is unclear what “wherein the third solution consists essentially of glycol” is. Thus, as used to qualify the composition of the third solution, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 13, 15, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grim et al. (US 4964402, herein after referred to as Grim) in view of Hartmann et al. (US 20080233368 A1, herein after referred to as Hartmann).
Regarding claim 1, Grim teaches a thermal transfer apparatus (gel pad 20 Fig. 16) comprising: a first container (the container formed by sheets 106 and 108 Fig. 16 and Col. 14 lines 17-31) comprising: a first wall (sheet 108 Fig. 16), and a second wall (sheet 106 Fig. 16) connected to the first wall at ends of each wall (Fig. 16 and Col. 14 lines 17-31), thereby defining a first enclosed cavity (the cavity that accommodates gel material 21 Fig. 16); at least two protrusions (capsules 110 Fig. 16) extending from the first wall into the first enclosed cavity towards the second wall (Fig. 16) and each protrusion (each capsule 110 Fig. 16) comprising a third wall (spherical wall forming capsule 110 Fig. 16) defining a second enclosed cavity (cavities accommodating phase change materials 112 and 113 Fig. 16); a first thermal transfer media (gel material 21 Fig. 16) positioned within the first enclosed cavity (Fig. 16), and a second thermal transfer media (phase change materials 112 and 113 Fig. 16) positioned within each second enclosed cavity (Fig. 16), wherein the first thermal transfer media has a first freezing point (freezing point of gel material 21 Col. 10 lines 44-54) lower than a second freezing point of the second thermal transfer media (freezing point of phase change materials 112 and 113 Col. 10 lines 44-54).
Grim teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein the first thermal transfer media comprises a first superabsorbent polymer and a first solution at least partially absorbed by the first superabsorbent polymer; wherein the second thermal transfer media comprises a second superabsorbent polymer and a second solution at least partially absorbed by the second superabsorbent polymer”.
However, Hartmann teaches wherein a first thermal transfer media (region 132 Fig. 4 corresponds to the first thermal transfer media of Grim) comprises a first superabsorbent polymer (paragraphs [0038] and [0056]) and a first solution (disclosed “liquid” form of the phase change material in paragraph [0039]) at least partially absorbed by the first superabsorbent polymer (paragraphs [0038] and [0039], where a person skilled in the art would recognize that a superabsorbent polymer encapsulates a liquid phase change material); wherein a second thermal transfer media (region 134 Fig. 4 corresponds to the second thermal transfer media of Grim) comprises a second superabsorbent polymer (paragraphs [0038] and [0056] where it is understood that regions 132 and 134 are different) and a second solution (disclosed “liquid” form of the phase change material in paragraph [0039]) at least partially absorbed by the second superabsorbent polymer (paragraphs [0038] and [0039], where a person skilled in the art would recognize that a superabsorbent polymer encapsulates a liquid phase change material) to effect a phased response to rapid changes in temperature (paragraph [0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Grim to include “wherein the first thermal transfer media comprises a first superabsorbent polymer and a first solution at least partially absorbed by the first superabsorbent polymer; wherein the second thermal transfer media comprises a second superabsorbent polymer and a second solution at least partially absorbed by the second superabsorbent polymer” in view of the teachings of Hartmann to effect a phased response to rapid changes in temperature.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach wherein: the first thermal transfer media comprises first beads (regions 132 Fig. 4 of Hartmann) comprising the first superabsorbent polymer and the first solution absorbed by the first superabsorbent polymer (paragraphs [0038] and [0039] of Hartmann), and the second thermal transfer media comprises second beads (regions 134 Fig. 4 of Hartmann) comprising the second superabsorbent polymer and the second solution absorbed by the second superabsorbent polymer (paragraphs [0038] and [0039] of Hartmann).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach wherein the first solution comprises a glycol solution (Table 2 of Hartmann).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach wherein the second solution comprises a saline solution (paragraph [0044] of Hartmann where it is disclosed that “one or more additives” such as water and metal salt can be added to the coating).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the first thermal transfer media further comprises a third superabsorbent polymer and a third solution at least partially absorbed by the third superabsorbent polymer”.
However, a different embodiment of Hartmann teaches wherein a first thermal transfer media (region 322 Fig. 8) further comprises a third superabsorbent polymer (paragraphs [0038] and [0060], Fig. 8 where region 322 is comprised of 3 different encapsulated phase materials) and a third solution (disclosed “liquid” form of the phase change material in paragraph [0039] and Fig. 8 where region 322 is comprised of 3 different encapsulated phase materials) at least partially absorbed by the third superabsorbent polymer (paragraphs [0038] and [0039], where a person skilled in the art would recognize that a superabsorbent polymer encapsulates a liquid phase change material) to provide a phase response to rapid temperature changes (paragraph [0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the first thermal transfer media further comprises a third superabsorbent polymer and a third solution at least partially absorbed by the third superabsorbent polymer” in view of the teachings of a different embodiment of Hartmann to provide a phase response to rapid temperature changes.
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach wherein the first thermal transfer media further comprises third beads (region that encapsulates phase change material 326 Fig. 8 of Hartmann) comprising the third superabsorbent polymer and the third solution absorbed by the third superabsorbent polymer (paragraphs [0038] and [0039] of Hartmann).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach wherein the third solution comprises a water solution (paragraph [0044] of Hartmann).
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teach wherein the first superabsorbent polymer and the second superabsorbent polymer, individually, comprises polyacrylate (paragraph [0020] of Hartmann), polyacrylamide (paragraph [0042] of Hartmann), or a copolymer (paragraph [0041] of Hartmann) thereof.
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach wherein the at least two protrusions comprise at least four protrusions (Fig. 16 of Grim) are arranged in a grid (Fig. 16 of Grim).
Regarding claim 21, the combined teachings teach wherein the first freezing point is lower than the second freezing point by at least 3 degrees Celsius (Col. 10 lines 45-57 of Grim).
Regarding claim 22, the combined teachings teach wherein the second freezing point is in a range of -5 degrees Celsius to 5 degrees Celsius (Col. 10 lines 45-57 of Grim).
Regarding claim 23, the combined teachings teach wherein the first wall, the second wall, and the third wall, each comprise plastic (Col. 14 lines 17-31 of Grim).
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grim and Hartmann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Loudin et al. (US 20150238754 A1, herein after referred to as Loudin).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the first solution comprises at least 30% glycol by volume”.
However, Loudin teaches wherein a first solution (the disclosed “hydrating mixtures” in paragraph [0078] corresponds to the first solution of Hartmann) comprises at least 30% glycol by volume (paragraph [0078]) to reduce the drying out rate of the polymer (paragraph [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the first solution comprises at least 30% glycol by volume” in view of the teachings of Loudin to reduce the drying out rate of the polymer.
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach wherein the first solution consists essentially of glycol (disclosed “85 percent by volume propylene glycol” in paragraph [0078] of Loudin).
Regarding claim 10 the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the second solution comprises no greater than 5% salt on a mass-to-volume basis”.
However, Loudin teaches wherein a second solution (the disclosed “saline” in paragraph [0127] corresponds to the second solution of Hartmann) comprises no greater than 5% salt on a mass-to-volume basis (disclosed “0.9%” in paragraph [0127]) to remove unreacted impurities from the polymer and also allows it to undergo hydration (paragraph [0127]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the second solution comprises no greater than 5% salt on a mass-to-volume basis” in view of the teachings of Loudin to remove unreacted impurities from the polymer and also allows it to undergo hydration.
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach wherein the second solution comprises no greater than 2% salt on a mass-to-volume basis (disclosed “0.9%” in paragraph [0127] of Loudin).
Regarding claim 12 the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the third solution consists essentially of water”.
However, Loudin teaches wherein a third solution (the disclosed “hydrating mixtures” in paragraph [0077] correspond to the third solution of Hartmann) consists essentially of water (paragraph [0077]) to reduce the drying out rate of the polymer (paragraph [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the third solution consists essentially of water” in view of the teachings of Loudin to reduce the drying out rate of the polymer.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grim and Hartmann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sevenler et al. (US 20230270103 A1, herein after referred to as Sevenler).
Regarding claim 14 the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein each of the first beads, prior to absorbing the first solution, and each of the second beads, prior to absorbing the second solution, comprises a diameter in a range of 0.25 mm to 5 mm”.
However, Sevenler teaches wherein each of the first beads (the disclosed “plurality of hydrogel beads” disclosed in paragraph [0017] corresponds to the first beads of Hartmann), prior to absorbing a first solution (the disclosed “isotonic solution” in paragraph [0017] corresponds to the first solution of Hartmann), and each of the second beads (the disclosed “plurality of hydrogel beads” disclosed in paragraph [0017] corresponds to the second beads of Hartmann), prior to absorbing a second solution (paragraph [0017] where the disclosed “isotonic solution” corresponds to the second solution of Hartmann), comprises a diameter (paragraph [0090]) in a range of 0.25 mm to 5 mm (paragraph [0090]) to provide beads having different uptake and release rates (paragraph [0090]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein each of the first beads, prior to absorbing the first solution, and each of the second beads, prior to absorbing the second solution, comprises a diameter in a range of 0.25 mm to 5 mm” in view of the teachings of Sevenler to provide beads having different uptake and release rates.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grim and Hartmann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kelly (US 4344303).
Regarding claim 16 the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further comprising sixteen protrusions including the at least two protrusions, wherein the sixteen protrusions are arranged in four rows and four columns to form a first module”.
However, Kelly teaches further comprising sixteen protrusions (cavities 84a Fig. 9 and Col. 3 lines 49-55) including at least two protrusions (any two adjacent cavities 84a located in the top row correspond to the two protrusions of Grim), wherein the sixteen protrusions are arranged in four rows (Fig. 9) and four columns (Fig. 9 and Col. 3 lines 49-55) to form a first module (section 80a Fig. 9) to provide the appropriate size for the use intended (Col. 3 lines 49-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “further comprising sixteen protrusions including the at least two protrusions, wherein the sixteen protrusions are arranged in four rows and four columns to form a first module” in view of the teachings of Kelly to provide the appropriate size for the use intended.
Regarding claim 17 the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further comprising at least two modules, including the first module, coupled together”.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having “further comprising at least two modules, including the first module, coupled together” does anything more than produce the predictable result of providing an additional cooling pad. Since it has been held that a duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings and meet the claimed limitations in order to arrive to the predictable results of providing an additional cooling pad.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grim and Hartmann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Walters et al. (US 5505720, herein after referred to as Walters).
Regarding claim 18 the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein: the at least two protrusions comprise at least two short protrusions and at least two long protrusions, the short protrusions extend a first distance from the first wall into the first enclosed cavity towards the second wall, and the long protrusions extend a second distance from the first wall into the first enclosed cavity towards the second wall, the second distance is greater than the first distance”.
However, Walters teaches wherein: at least two protrusions (projections 110 Fig. 9 correspond to the at least two protrusions of Grim) comprise at least two short protrusions (Fig. 9) and at least two long protrusions (Fig. 9), the short protrusions extend a first distance (Fig. 9) from a first wall (Fig. 9 where absorbent backing layer 106 corresponds to the first wall of Grim) into a first enclosed cavity (Fig. 9 where the cavity formed between absorbent backing layer 106 and polymer cover 112 corresponds to the first cavity of Grim) towards a second wall Fig. 9 where polymer cover 112 corresponds to the second wall of Grim), and the long protrusions extend a second distance (Fig. 9) from the first wall into the first enclosed cavity towards the second wall (Fig. 9), the second distance is greater than the first distance (Fig. 9) to provide a more comfortable and conformal surface (Col. 4 lines 29-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein: the at least two protrusions comprise at least two short protrusions and at least two long protrusions, the short protrusions extend a first distance from the first wall into the first enclosed cavity towards the second wall, and the long protrusions extend a second distance from the first wall into the first enclosed cavity towards the second wall, the second distance is greater than the first distance” in view of the teachings of Walters to provide a more comfortable and conformal surface.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the short protrusions are positioned intermediate two or more of the long protrusions”.
However, Walters does teach providing a vast number of surface configurations by varying the projection height both longitudinally and laterally (Col. 4 lines 29-45).
Therefore, the positioning of the short protrusions relative to the long protrusions is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is “the short protrusions are positioned intermediate two or more of the long protrusions”.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. short and long protrusions, was disclosed in the prior art by Walters, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide “the short protrusions are positioned intermediate two or more of the long protrusions”.
Regarding claim 19, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance by at least 0.05 inches”.
However, Walters does teach providing a vast number of surface configurations by varying the projection height both longitudinally and laterally (Col. 4 lines 29-45).
Therefore, the difference between the first and second distance is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is “wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance by at least 0.05 inches”.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. short and long protrusions with different heights, was disclosed in the prior art by Walters, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide “wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance by at least 0.05 inches”.
Regarding claim 20, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance by at least 0.1 inches”.
However, Walters does teach providing a vast number of surface configurations by varying the projection height both longitudinally and laterally (Col. 4 lines 29-45).
Therefore, the difference between the first and second distance is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is “wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance by at least 0.1 inches”.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. short and long protrusions with different heights, was disclosed in the prior art by Walters, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide “wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance by at least 0.1 inches”.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grim and Hartmann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brown et al. (US 5603729, herein after referred to as Brown).
Regarding claim 24 the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the first wall and the second wall, each comprise a thickness in a range of 0.5 mm to 5 mm”.
However, Brown teaches wherein a first wall (wall 14 Fig. 2 corresponds to the first wall of Grim) and a second wall (wall 16 Fig. 2 corresponds to the second wall of Grim), each comprise a thickness (Col. 5 lines 13-21) in a range of 0.5 mm to 5 mm (Col. 5 lines 13-21) to provide strength and puncture resistance (Col. 5 lines 13-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the first wall and the second wall, each comprise a thickness in a range of 0.5 mm to 5 mm” in view of the teachings of Brown to provide strength and puncture resistance.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the third wall comprise a thickness in a range of 0.5 mm to 5 mm”.
However, Brown does teach providing a third and fourth wall where the thickness range of each wall can be adjusted based on the user’s need (Col. 6 lines 48-63).
Therefore, the thickness of the third wall is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is “wherein the third wall comprise a thickness in a range of 0.5 mm to 5 mm”.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. a third wall with a thickness within a range, was disclosed in the prior art by Brown, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide “wherein the third wall comprise a thickness in a range of 0.5 mm to 5 mm”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
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, Jerry -Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights