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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2 have been examined.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,175,857. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the narrower claims 1,4,7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,175,857would encompass the broader claims 1-2 of the current application.
Current application
U.S. 12,175,857
1
1,4,7
2
1,4,7
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 1 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claim subject matter is indefinite as following:
The claim subject matter “the environment dataset” in line 11 is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The “a dataset” not necessary equivalent to “the environment dataset”.
The claim subject matter “producing a thermal using… based on the one or more elements” in line 10 is indefinite because the phase “producing a thermal” is grammatically improper and lacking a clear noun after “thermal”.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2021/0089097) [hereafter “097”] in view of Smith (US 2015/0101788) [hereafter “788”]
As per claim 1, Smith “097” teaches a system, the system comprising: a peltier matrix, the peltier matrix comprising peltier elements (Smith “097”: a system including multiple thermoelectric (peltier) elements capable of generating thermal effects (Para 10-15; Fig. 1-3); Smith “097” does not explicitly disclose a matrix of Peltier elements arranged for spatially resolved thermal output. Smith “788” teaches applying electrical signals to multiple thermoelectric elements arranged to generate thermal pulses, including sequential or simultaneous actuation of elements for spatial control (Para 91-96,99). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to arrange Smith “097” thermoelectric element in a matrix, as taught by Smith “788”, to provide spatially resolved thermal effects and enhance control over localized heating/cooling.);
a processing unit, the processing unit comprising a processor, a memory, and a set of instructions stored on the memory, wherein when the instructions are executed by the processor cause the system to perform operations (Smith “097”: Para 20-25,72-73; Fig. 4-5) comprising:
obtaining a dataset (Smith “097”: Para 51-52: obtaining a dataset describing the environment, including environmental condition, thermal information, or sensor readings);
converting the environment dataset into an input voltage set (Smith “097”: Para. 51-52, 60: discloses converting an environmental dataset into electrical signals (e.g. voltages or currents) suitable for driving the thermoelectric elements. Smith “788”: Para. 86-88: similarly discloses applying voltages or currents to generate thermal pulse, including conversion of input signals to electrical actuation);
inputting the input voltage set into the peltier matrix to actuate one or more elements of the peltier matrix (Smith “788”: Para 86-87,94: applying electrical signals to one or more thermoelectric elements to generate thermal pulses, including sequential voltages);
producing a thermal using by the peltier matrix based on the one or more elements of the peltier matrix actuated upon inputting the input voltage set (Smith “788”: Para 61-62, 70-75: discloses that applying electrical signals to the thermoelectric elements generates thermal pulses at the surface of the skin or target area).
[Smith “097”: Para 20-25,72-73; Fig. 4-5: a processing unit configured to control electrical signals to the thermoelectric elements based on input data, including applying voltages or currents to produce thermal outputs. Para. 51,52,60: obtaining environmental data and converting it into electrical signals that actuate the thermoelectric element to produce heating or cooling effects]
[Smith “788”: Para 91-96, 94-94 applying electrical signal to one or more thermoelectric elements according to a dataset, including generating thermal pulses of varying magnitude and duration, and monitoring/adjusting the signal using feedback. Para 86-88,94: applying electrical signal to one or more thermoelectric elements to generate thermal pulse with spatial and temporal variation. Para 91-98: controlling the magnitude, duration, and duty cycle of the applied electrical signals to adjust the resulting temperature at the surface.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to combine Smith “097” with Smith “788” to allow a processing unit to control a matrix of peltier elements based on input data, because Smith “788” demonstrates the benefit of spatially and temporally modulating electrical signals to achieve desired thermal effects as well as combining the Peltier matrix of Smith “788” with the processing unit and dataset-to-voltage of Smith “097”, to produce thermal output, as claimed.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify the system of Smith “097”, to apply the teaching of Smith “788” in order to thermal pulses with controlled magnitude and duration. Such a modification would allow Smith “097” system to achieve improved control over the thermal output and to generated a thermal response at the peltier matrix as suggested. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Smith “097” with Smith “788” because Smith “788” teaches improvements in thermal pulse control that enhance the effect of an existing thermoelectric system such as that disclosed in Smith “097”, providing predictable and adjustable thermal output.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combined the teaching of Smith “097” and Smith “788” because Smith “097” provides a system and method for controlling thermoelectric elements based on environmental input and Smith “788” teaches spatially resolved control of multiple thermoelectric elements to enhance thermal effects and generate patterns. Combining these teachings would have been a predictable used of known elements with a reasonable expectation of achieving the desired result of a thermally controlled matrix system capable of producing thermal images.
As per claim 2, it is a method claim corresponds to apparatus claim 1; it is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth.
[Smith “097” teaches a method comprising obtaining an environmental dataset via sensors, converting the dataset into control signals, and actuating a thermoelectric array to produce thermal output (Para 51-52, 60 and rejection for claim 1. Smith “097” does not teach producing a thermal output corresponding to a spatially resolved thermal image using a peltier matrix, nor converting the dataset intro an “input voltage set” that is applied to actuate individual elements of the matrix.
Smith “788” generating a thermal output by applying electrical signals to one or more thermoelectric elements, including varying voltage magnitude, duration, and duty cycle to control the thermal pulse. Smith “788” also teaches producing non-steady-state thermal pulses for enhance user perception. See Para. 86-88,95-96,91-98 and rejection of claim 1 above.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify the method of Smith “097” using the teaching of Smith “788” to achieve a thermal output with controlled temporal and spatial characteristics, thereby producing the thermal image recited. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Smith “097” with Smith “788” because Smith “788” provides techniques for generating thermal pulses with predictable magnitude and timing, which would have been desired to enhance the functionality of Smith “097” thermoelectric control method. Also see motivation to combine in rejection of claim 1 for reference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOI C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-8547. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00Pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571)272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOI C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689