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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claim 11-20) in the reply filed on 05/29/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noel (US 20090076574) in view of Hartmann et al. (US 2008/0233368).
Regarding claim 11, Noel discloses a method comprising: disposing a thermal transfer apparatus (fig.4; device 32) in a freezer [0107], wherein the thermal transfer apparatus comprises: a first container comprising: a first wall (fig.4; floor 46), and a second wall (fig.4; outer wall 33) connected to the first wall at ends of each wall (fig.4), thereby defining a first enclosed cavity (inner space 36); at least two protrusions extending from the first wall into the first enclosed cavity towards the second wall (fig.4) and each protrusion comprising a third wall defining a second enclosed cavity ([0106]: “Containers 34, 35 are mounted on a floor 46 that extends across and bifurcates inner space 36 into two separate chambers or spaces”); a first thermal transfer media positioned within the first enclosed cavity [0107], a second thermal transfer media positioned within each second enclosed cavity [0107], wherein the first thermal transfer media has a first freezing point lower than a second freezing point of the second thermal transfer media; cooling the thermal transfer apparatus to a temperature of less than or equal to the second freezing point ([0107]-[0108]), thereby forming a cooled thermal transfer apparatus; and disposing the cooled thermal transfer apparatus against a portion of a body of a patient and conforming the cooled thermal transfer apparatus against the portion of the body of the patient to absorb heat [0107]-[0108].
Noel 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".
Hartmann teaches wherein a first thermal transfer media (region 132 fig. 4) comprises a first superabsorbent polymer ( [0038] and [0056]) and a first solution (disclosed "liquid" form of the phase change material in [0039]) at least partially absorbed by the first superabsorbent polymer ([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 in fig. 4) comprises a second superabsorbent polymer ([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 [0039]) at least partially absorbed by the second superabsorbent polymer ([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 [0057]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Noel 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 as taught by Hartmann to effect a phased response to rapid changes in temperature
Regarding claim 12, Noel/ Hartmann teaches the method of claim 11, wherein: the first thermal transfer media comprises first beads (fig.4; regions 132 of Hartmann) comprising the first superabsorbent polymer and the first solution absorbed by the first superabsorbent polymer ([0038]-[0039] of Hartmann), and the second thermal transfer media comprises second beads (fig.4, regions 134 of Hartmann) comprising the second superabsorbent polymer and the second solution absorbed by the second superabsorbent polymer ([0038]-[0039] of Hartmann).
Regarding claim 13, Noel/Hartmann teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the first solution comprises a glycol solution (table 2 of Hartmann).
Regarding claim 14, Noel/Hartmann teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the second solution comprises a saline solution ([0044] of Hartmann).
Regarding claim 15-16, Noel does not disclose 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 and wherein the first thermal transfer media further comprises third beads comprising the third superabsorbent polymer and the third solution 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 ([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 [0039] and Fig. 8 where region 322 is comprised of 3 different encapsulated phase materials) at least partially absorbed by the third superabsorbent polymer [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 [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 17, Noel/Hartmann teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the third solution comprises a water solution ([0044] of Hartmann).
Regarding claim 19, Noel/Hartmann teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the first superabsorbent polymer and the second superabsorbent polymer, individually, comprises polyacrylate, polyacrylamide, or a copolymer thereof ([0038] of Hartmann).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noel (US 2009/0076574) in view of Hartmann et al. (US 2008/0233368) in further in view of Loudin et al. (US 2015/0238754).
Regarding claim 18, Noel/Hartmann does not teach the method of claim 17, wherein the first solution comprises at least 30% glycol by volume, wherein the second solution comprises no greater than 5% salt on a mass-to- volume basis, wherein the third solution consists essentially of water.
Loudin teaches wherein a first solution (the disclosed "hydrating mixtures" in [0078] corresponds to the first solution of Hartmann) comprises at least 30% glycol by volume [0078] to reduce the drying out rate of the polymer [0075]. wherein a second solution (the disclosed "saline" in [0127] corresponds to the second solution of Hartmann) comprises no greater than 5% salt on a mass-to-volume basis (disclosed "0.9%" in [0127]) to remove unreacted impurities from the polymer and also allows it to undergo hydration 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 and wherein the second solution comprises no greater than 5% salt on a mass-to-volume basis as taught by Loudin to reduce the drying out rate of the polymer and to remove unreacted impurities from the polymer and also allows it to undergo hydration
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noel (US 2009/0076574) in view of Hartmann et al. (US 2008/0233368) in further in view in further in view of Walters et al. (US 5,505,720).
Regarding claim 20, Noel/Hartmann does not 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.
Walters teaches wherein: at least two protrusions (projections 110 fig. 9) 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) into a first enclosed cavity (fig. 9 where the cavity formed between absorbent backing layer 106 and polymer cover 112) towards a second wall fig. 9 where polymer cover 112), 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. 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".
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIGIST S DEMIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5Pm.
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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at 571-2721213. 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.
/TIGIST S DEMIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights