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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/21/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on 04/09/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pages 5-7, filed 07/09/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 3-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vergona (WO 2009/148636) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner does not explicitly state that an elastomer/elastomeric material or fabric is considered to be a man-made material under broadest reasonable interpretation, and therefore the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Vergona.
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.
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 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vergona (WO 2009/148636).
Regarding claim 1, Vergona teaches
“a body portion formed of fabric (Fig. 1), wherein the fabric is materials, one or more natural materials, one or more recycled or reworked materials, and/or one or more manmade or artificial materials.")”,
“and a first pocket within the body portion and surrounded by the fabric wherein the first pocket is an enclosed area filled with an insulative material, (p.[0083] "Additionally, in various embodiments of the invention, one or more insulation layers and/or insulating materials may be situated between the first surface 120 and the second surface 130", wherein pockets are considered to be a cavity enclosed by two surfaces under broadest reasonable interpretation)”,
“wherein the blanket is configured to be placed on at least a first thermal pad of a targeted temperature management (TTM) system wherein the first pocket is configured to provide a weight on top of the first thermal pad (Fig. 1, thermal pads 110)”.
Vergona does not explicitly teach the use of a fabric with an elastomer or elastomeric material, but does teach that any suitable man-made material can be used to construct the fabric. An elastomer or elastomer-based fabric constitutes as a man-made material under broadest reasonable interpretation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an elastomeric material as described in Vergona. One of ordinary skill in the art would choose an elastomer or elastomer-based fabric as one of a finite number of suitable materials and produces predictable results of stretching without permanent deformation and therefore it is seen as obvious to try different man made materials.
Note that while Vergona does teach each of these limitations, the limitations are taught across varying embodiments (such as seen in Figure 1 and an alternative embodiment). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a combination of embodiments to arrive at the claimed invention. As stated in Vergona p.[0159], "Many modifications and other embodiments of the inventions set forth herein will come to mind to one skilled in the art to which these inventions pertain having the benefit of the teachings presented in the foregoing descriptions and the associated drawings. Therefore, it is to be understood that the inventions are not to be limited to the specific embodiments disclosed and that modifications and other embodiments are intended to be included within the scope of the appended claims. Although specific terms are employed herein, they are used in a generic and descriptive sense only and not for purposes of limitation."
Regarding claim 3, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Vergona teaches “wherein a length of the first pocket is substantially an entirety of a length of the blanket (Fig. 1, 2 with the pockets along the length of the blanket, and therefore substantially the entirety of a length of the blanket)”. Further note that Vergona states in p.[0154] that "Similarly, the placement of heat pads illustrated therein provides for heat distribution that will provide the suitable thermal comfort yet simultaneously allow for surgical access to a user or patient. Other shapes and sizes are contemplated as within the scope of the invention", suggesting that it would be known to one in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use pockets of varying length and width, and is therefore taught by Vergona.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Vergona teaches “wherein a width of the first pocket is substantially an entirety of a width of the blanket (Fig. 1, 2 with the pockets along the width of the blanket, and therefore substantially the entirety of a width of the blanket)”. Further note that Vergona states in p.[0154] that "Similarly, the placement of heat pads illustrated therein provides for heat distribution that will provide the suitable thermal comfort yet simultaneously allow for surgical access to a user or patient. Other shapes and sizes are contemplated as within the scope of the invention", suggesting that it would be known to one in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use pockets of varying length and width, and is therefore taught by Vergona.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Vergona teaches “further comprising:a plurality of pockets within the body portion, wherein the plurality of pockets includes the first pocket and wherein each of the plurality of pockets is surrounded by the fabric, and is an enclosed area filled with the insulative material (Fig. 1, 2, p.[0083])”.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of claim 5 are taught as described above. Vergona teaches “wherein each of the plurality of pockets has a length that is substantially an entirety of a length of the blanket, and the plurality of pockets are aligned in a side-by-side configuration. (Fig. 1, 2, and with the pockets along the length of the blanket, and therefore substantially the entirety of a length of the blanket)”. Further note that Vergona states in p.[0154] that "Similarly, the placement of heat pads illustrated therein provides for heat distribution that will provide the suitable thermal comfort yet simultaneously allow for surgical access to a user or patient. Other shapes and sizes are contemplated as within the scope of the invention", suggesting that it would be known to one in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use pockets of varying length and width, and is therefore taught by Vergona.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations of claim 5 are taught as described above. Vergona teaches “wherein each of the plurality of pockets has a width that is substantially an entirety of a width of the blanket, and the plurality of pockets are aligned in a side-by-side configuration. (Fig. 1, 2 with the pockets along the width of the blanket, and therefore substantially the entirety of a width of the blanket)”. Further note that Vergona states in p.[0154] that "Similarly, the placement of heat pads illustrated therein provides for heat distribution that will provide the suitable thermal comfort yet simultaneously allow for surgical access to a user or patient. Other shapes and sizes are contemplated as within the scope of the invention", suggesting that it would be known to one in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use pockets of varying length and width, and is therefore taught by Vergona.
Regarding claims 8-10, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Vergona teaches the limitations “wherein the blanket includes a coupling component configured to couple with the first thermal pad” , “wherein the coupling component is one of an adhesive patch, a snap fastener component, a hook and loop fastener component, or a magnetic component”, and “wherein when the coupling component is any of the snap fastener component, the hook and loop fastener component, or the magnetic component, the coupling component is configured to couple with a reciprocal coupling component of the first thermal pad” in p.[0097] "Each of the one or more pockets 110 may be fixedly or removably connected and/or attached to the body 105 of the warming blanket 100 via any suitable connectors, connecting techniques, and/or connection means. For example, a pocket 110 may be connected to the body 105 of the warming blanket 100 via sewing, stitching, bonding, application of an adhesive, threads, ties, use of snaps, use of ultrasonic welding, use of Velcro, use of one or more zippers" and p.[0082] "the components may be fixedly or removably connected and/or attached to one another via any suitable connectors, connecting techniques, and/or connection means. For example, the first surface 120 and the second surface 130 of the body 105 may be connected to one another via sewing, stitching, bonding, application of an adhesive, threads, ties, use of snaps, use of ultrasonic welding, use of Velcro, use of one or more zippers, etc.".
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vergona (WO 2009/148636) in view of Stefan (US 2017/0135855).
Regarding claim 2, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Vergona does not teach that the insulative material is made of an insulative gel, however, Stefan does in an analogous blanket cooling device. Stefan teaches in p.[0030] which states "The insulating pad (255) may, in some embodiments, comprise foam and/or gel." It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use insulative gel, as taught in Stefan, in Vergona. It is known in the art to use insulative gels as an insulative material in order to perform a flexible, conforming insulative layer against the body (p.[0026]), but further, a gel is one of a finite number of suitable materials available that is known in the art and produces predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Abigail M Bock whose telephone number is (571)272-8856. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 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 (617) 320-2637. 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.
/ABIGAIL BOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights