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 .
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements filed April 25, 2024, August 20, 2025 and April 6, 2026 have been entered and the references cited therein have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group 1 (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on June 3, 2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 2, it should read “a controller” rather than just “controller.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
In claim 8, the recitation of “and/or” is vague and indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0280191) in view of Dabrowiak et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0330263).
In regard to claims 1-5, 9 and 11-13, Taylor et al. teach a thermal control system 20 comprised of a thermal control unit 22 coupled to one or more thermal therapy devices 24 that can be a plurality of thermal pads 24 that attach to first and second body regions of a patient (see Fig. 1). Thermal control unit 22 is coupled to the thermal pads 24 via a plurality of hoses 26 and each hose 26 includes a fluid supply line 28a and a fluid return line 28b and thermal control unit 22 supplies and receives temperature-controlled fluid to/from the thermal pads 24 via the fluid supply line 28a and fluid return line 28b (see Fig. 1 and para. 0031). Thermal control unit 22 includes a pump 46 for circulating fluid through a circulation channel 48 through a first cooling unit 52, a second cooling unit 54 and a heating unit 56 (see Fig. 3 and para. 0039). The first cooling unit 52 includes a refrigerant circulation channel 80, a compressor 84, a condenser 86 and a fan 88 (see Fig. 4 and para. 0047). Thermal control unit 22 also includes a controller 64 that includes one or more microcontrollers, microprocessors and/or other programmable electronics that are programs to carry out the functions (see para. 0044). Compressor 84 is a variable speed compressor whose speed is controlled by controller 64 to adjust the level of heat removal that takes place as the fluid of circulation channel 48 passes through evaporator/heat exchanger 96 (see para. 0049). Controller 64 reduces the speed of compressor 84 if any one or more of the following conditions occur: 1) the patient’s measured temperature is below the patient’s target temperature; 2) the patient’s temperature is dropping faster than a desired cooling rate; 3) the fluid temperature is colder than the patient’s temperature by more than a threshold difference; and 4) the fluid temperature is colder than an absolute threshold (see para. 0050). Taylor et al. are silent as to a detection circuit to determine coupling of first and second power supplies or that the controller 64 instructs the compressor speed at a particular setpoint value based upon the first or second power supply. However, Dabrowiak et al. teach a similar thermal therapy system 10 that operates in a high power mode using a source of alternating current and a lower power mode using a battery (see paras. 0194-0195). The system detects which power source is connected and determines whether the system operates in the high power mode or the low power mode (see paras. 0194-0195). Dabrowiak et al. thus demonstrate that thermal therapy systems that can operate using either conventional alternating current or a battery are well know in the art and furthermore, that the controller of the therapy system can determine which one is connected and can adjust the power output accordingly, as a means of conserving power. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Taylor et al. with the dual power modes of alternating current and battery power and to have the controller 64 determine which one is connected and can adjust the power output to the compressor 84 accordingly, as a means of conserving power, in the manner disclose by Dabrowiak et al. In regard to claim 6, controller 64 is also programmed to control the speed of the fan 88 such that the amount of cooling power delivered by first cooling unit 52 can be varied beyond the limits of the variable speed range of the compressor 84 (see para. 0054). In regard to claim 7, see paras. 0050-0053 of Taylor et al. In regard to claim 8, see para. 0052 of Taylor et al. In regard to claim 10, see para. 0051 of Taylor et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEVERLY MEINDL FLANAGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4766. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at (303) 297-4276. 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.
/BEVERLY M FLANAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights