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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/3/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 18, the claim recited “the remote device” and should be amended to recite “the remote-controlled device”. 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:
“at least one control unit” in claims 1 and 9;
“a remoted-controlled device” in claim 17;
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.
After reviewing the specification, the control unit appears to be drawn to a thermoelectric control unit, per paragraph [00126]), or known equivalents, and the remote-controlled device appears to be drawn to a smartphone or tablet, or known equivalents (per paragraph [0110]).
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 1-4, 6-12, 14-20 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.
The term “flexible” in claims 1 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “flexible” 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. Clarification is requested on what defines the metes and bounds of what is considered flexible.
Claims 2-4, 6-8 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 1.
Claims 10-12, 14-20 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 9.
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 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vrzalik (US 6,371,976 – provided by Applicant in the IDS, previously cited) in view of Woods (US 2010/0199687 – provided by Applicant in the IDS, previously cited), further in view of Wu (US 5,448,788).
Regarding claim 1, Vrzalik teaches an article for temperature-conditioning a surface (see Title, Abstract), the article comprising:
the surface (see Fig. 14);
a first layer (150, Fig. 14, col. 13, lines 1-25);
a second layer (180, Fig. 14, col. 13, lines 1-25) );
a flexible elongate internal tube disposed between the first layer and the second layer (152, Fig. 14, col. 13, lines 1-25);
a fluid supply line in fluid communication with the internal tube (28b, Fig. 1, see col. 5, lines 30-40);
a fluid return line in fluid communication with the internal tube (29b, Fig. 1, see col. 5, lines 30-40).
Vrazlik does not teach:
the internal tube arranged in a meandering layout having a plurality of bends;
a control unit that includes a housing containing a fluid reservoir, a heat exchanger, and a pump forming a fluid circuit, such that, when fluidly coupled to the fluid supply line and the fluid return line to heat or cool and circulate that fluid through the fluid supply line, the internal tube, the fluid return line, and back to the control unit.
Woods teaches a temperature control device (Woods, Title) which can be used to cool a bed (Woods, paragraph [0032]), wherein the bed is connected to a control unit which cools fluid (Woods, 22-, Fig. 4, paragraph [0034]), wherein the control unit is connected via the supply and return lines (Woods, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Vrzalik with a control unit to cool or heat fluid, as taught by Woods, in order to provide greater control over the temperature provided via the system thereby allowing the user greater usability of the system.
Vrzalik as modified does not teach that the control unit that includes a housing containing a fluid reservoir, a heat exchanger, and a pump forming a fluid circuit, and that the internal tube arranged in a meandering layout having a plurality of bends.
Wu teaches a thermoelectric mattress (Wu, Title) wherein the control unit (Wu, 100, Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 53-68) that includes a housing (Wu, see Fig. 1) containing a fluid reservoir (Wu, 102, Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 53-68), a heat exchanger (Wu, 104, Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 53-68), and a pump (Wu, 106, Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 53-68) forming a fluid circuit (Wu, Fig.1), and that the mattress (the Examiner notes the mattress is analogous to the claimed article) includes an internal tube arranged in a meandering layout having a plurality of bends (Wu, 114, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Vrzalik as modified with the control unit that including a housing containing a fluid reservoir, a heat exchanger, and a pump forming a fluid circuit, and that the internal tube arranged in a meandering layout having a plurality of bends, as taught by Wu, in order to increase the heat transfer efficiency in the control unit through the use of the reservoir, pump, and heat exchanger while also allowing for greater contact surface area by using an internal tube that meanders and bends which also increases the heat transfer efficiency in the article.
Vrzalik as modified teaches a fluid circuit, such that, when fluidly coupled to the fluid supply line and the fluid return line to heat or cool and circulate that fluid through the fluid supply line, the internal tube, the fluid return line, and back to the control unit (via at least Wu, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Vrzalik as modified teaches the article of claim 1, wherein a periphery of the first layer is affixed to a periphery of the second layer (Vrzalik, col. 3, lines 5-10 note the two sheets are welded).
Regarding claim 4, Vrzalik as modified teaches the article of claim 1, but does not teach that the internal tube includes a silicon tube. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide a silicon tube as the internal tube, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 6, Vrzalik as modified teaches the article of claim 1, wherein the fluid includes water (Vrzalik, col. 4, lines 58-65).
Regarding claim 7, Vrzalik as modified teaches the article of claim 1, wherein an exterior surface of the first layer and/or an interior surface of the second layer include a thermally reflective and/or insulating material (Vrzalik, col. 9, lines 10-30 which notes the exterior layer 20 is made of insulating material)
Regarding claim 8, Vrzalik as modified teaches the article of claim 1, wherein the fluid supply line and the fluid return line are contained within a flexible conduit (the tube of Vrzalik is capable of being flexible as it inherently has a Young’s Modulus).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vrzalik in view of Woods and Wu, further in view of Mikesell (US 2014/0208508 – provided by Applicant in the IDS, previously cited).
Regarding claim 3, Vrzalik as modified teaches the article of claim 2, but does not teach that the first layer and/or second layer are waterproof.
Mikesell teaches a mattress with a covering made of waterproof material (Mikesell, paragraph [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Vrzalik as modified with a waterproof material in the interior layers of the article, as taught by Mikesell, in order to provide greater functionality to the article as Mikesell teaches using waterproof material makes the article appropriate use in hospital beds, kids beds, and/or elder care facilities (Mikesell, paragraph [0031]).
Claims 9-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vrzalik (US 6,371,976 – provided by Applicant in the IDS, previously cited) in view of Brykalski (US 2010/0011502 – provided by Applicant in the IDS, previously cited), further in view of Wu (US 5,448,788).
Regarding claim 9, Vrzalik teaches a sleep system comprising:
an article for adjusting a temperature of a surface (Fig. 3) comprising:
the surface (see Fig. 14);
a first layer (150, Fig. 14, col. 13, lines 1-25);
a second layer (180, Fig. 14, col. 13, lines 1-25);
a flexible elongate internal tube disposed between the first layer and the second layer (152, Fig. 14, col. 13, lines 1-25);
a fluid supply line in fluid communication with the internal tube (28b, Fig. 1, see col. 5, lines 30-40);
a fluid return line in fluid communication with the internal tube (29b, Fig. 1, see col. 5, lines 30-40).
Vrzalik does not teach:
a control unit attachable to the one fluid supply line and the fluid return line, the control unit the includes a housing containing a fluid reservoir, a heat exchanger, and a pump forming a fluid circuit, such that, when fluidly coupled to the fluid supply line and the fluid return line, the control unit is operative to heat or cool a fluid and circulate that fluid through the fluid supply line, the internal tube, the fluid return line, and back to the control unit.
Brykalski teaches a climate controlled bed (Brykalski, Title) with a remote sensor (Brykalski 862, 864, 2562, 2564, [0203], [0254]) and a thermoelectric device to heat or cool fluid transferred by a fluid transfer device (Brykalski, paragraph [0010]), and a control unit which has at least one processor (Brykalski, paragraph [0203]) and provides real time communication (Brykalski, paragraphs [0254]-[0258]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filng date, to provide Vrzalik as modified with a control unit that has at least one processor and the at least one remote device and the at least one control unit have real-time two-way communication, as taught by Brykalski, in order to allow for smooth communication for the user which allows for greater ease of use.
Vrzalik as modified does not teach that the control unit that includes a housing containing a fluid reservoir, a heat exchanger, and a pump forming a fluid circuit, and that the internal tube arranged in a meandering layout having a plurality of bends.
Wu teaches a thermoelectric mattress (Wu, Title) wherein the control unit (Wu, 100, Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 53-68) that includes a housing (Wu, see Fig. 1) containing a fluid reservoir (Wu, 102, Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 53-68), a heat exchanger (Wu, 104, Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 53-68), and a pump (Wu, 106, Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 53-68) forming a fluid circuit (Wu, Fig.1), and that the mattress (the Examiner notes the mattress is analogous to the claimed article) includes an internal tube arranged in a meandering layout having a plurality of bends (Wu, 114, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Vrzalik as modified with the control unit that including a housing containing a fluid reservoir, a heat exchanger, and a pump forming a fluid circuit, and that the internal tube arranged in a meandering layout having a plurality of bends, as taught by Wu, in order to increase the heat transfer efficiency in the control unit through the use of the reservoir, pump, and heat exchanger while also allowing for greater contact surface area by using an internal tube that meanders and bends which also increases the heat transfer efficiency in the article.
Vrzalik as modified teaches a fluid circuit, such that, when fluidly coupled to the fluid supply line and the fluid return line to heat or cool and circulate that fluid through the fluid supply line, the internal tube, the fluid return line, and back to the control unit (via at least Wu, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Vrzalik as modified teaches the sleep system of claim 9, wherein a periphery of the first layer is affixed to a periphery of the second layer (Vrzalik, col. 3, lines 5-10 note the two sheets are welded).
Regarding claim 12, Vrzalik as modified teaches the sleep system of claim 9, but does not teach that the internal tube includes a silicon tube. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide a silicon tube as the internal tube, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 14, Vrzalik as modified teaches the sleep system of claim 9, wherein the fluid includes water (Vrzalik, col. 4, lines 58-65).
Regarding claim 15, Vrzalik as modified teaches the sleep system of claim 9, wherein an exterior surface of the first layer and/or an interior surface of the second layer include a thermally reflective and/or insulating material (Vrzalik, col. 9, lines 10-30 which notes the exterior layer 20 is made of insulating material).
Regarding claim 16, Vrzalik as modified teaches the sleep system of claim 9, wherein the fluid supply line and the fluid return line are contained within a flexible conduit (the tube of Vrzalik is capable of being flexible as it inherently has a Young’s Modulus).
Regarding claim 17, Vrzalik as modified teaches the sleep system of claim 9, further including a remote-control device, and the control unit is operative to receive operating parameters from the remote device to cause the control unit to modify the temperature of the surface (Brykalski, paragraph [0241]).
Regarding claim 18, Vrzalik as modified teaches the sleep system of claim 9, wherein the remote device and the control unit are operative to engage in real-time two-way communication (Brykalski, paragraph [0259]).
Regarding claim 19, Vrzalik as modified teaches the sleep system of claim 9, the sleep system further comprising at least one body sensor (Brykalski, paragraph [0241]).
Regarding claim 20, Vrzalik as modified teaches the sleep system of claim 19, wherein the at least one body sensor includes a respiration sensor, a heart rate sensor, a movement sensor, a brain wave sensor, a body temperature sensor, a blood glucose sensor, a blood pressure sensor, and/or a pulse oximeter sensor (Brykalski, paragraph [0241]-[0242]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vrzalik in view of Brykalski nad Wu, further in view of Mikesell (US 2014/0208508 – provided by Applicant in the IDS).
Regarding claim 11, Vrzalik as modified teaches the sleep system of claim 10, but does not teach the first layer and/or second layer are waterproof.
Mikesell teaches a mattress with a covering made of waterproof material (Mikesell, paragraph [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Vrzalik as modified with a waterproof material in the interior layers of the article, as taught by Mikesell, in order to provide greater functionality to the article as Mikesell teaches using waterproof material makes the article appropriate use in hospital beds, kids beds, and/or elder care facilities (Mikesell, paragraph [0031]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments begin by addressing the 35 USC 112 rejections made in the previous office action by asserting that the term “flexible” is a definite term that is known in the art. Applicant provides dictionary definitions to support that the term “flexible” is definite by noting how the term is defined to be capable of being bent…easily bent.” Applicant further provides context from the specification to support how the term is definite to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Examiner appreciates Applicants comments, but respectfully disagrees as the provided definitions support the Examiner’s indefinite rejection as what is considered “easily” bent varies significantly and does not have a clearly defined Young’s Modulus to define the metes and bounds of what is considered easily bendable. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAEL N BABAA whose telephone number is (571)270-3272. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached on (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.
/NAEL N BABAA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763