This is a real search run to completion: eight government patent offices and the academic literature, scored against the invention's claimable elements. Your own report is built the same way, from your idea.
Broad claims to any single element will face strong prior art and are unlikely to survive. But no reference combines your three elements, and the combination is not an obvious pairing an examiner could assemble from two references without hindsight. Narrow the independent claim to the integrated system — independently controllable pneumatic zones plus closed-loop resistive heating in a wrist-rest form factor — and there is a credible path forward.
No single reference discloses all three of your core claimable elements together. Each element, alone, has meaningful prior art: heated wrist rests are well established (Fellowes, Sunbeam), independently adjustable air bladders exist in ergonomic supports (Kensington, IMAK), and sensor-driven thermal control appears in a European rest and the wearable-heating literature. The Logitech EP reference is the most dangerous, disclosing two of your three elements in one document. Your novelty therefore rests on the specific combination no reference shows: dual-zone independent pneumatic pressure control integrated with a closed-loop resistive heating system in a wrist-rest form factor.
Your strategy laid out a sequence. This is that plan, executed step by step, with what each step returned.
Each of your core claimable elements, tinted by how many results touch it. Green is open space; brass is contested; brick means a document already covers it.
The patents that surfaced, sorted into clusters for your invention. Combination references — those that pair more than one of your core elements — carry the most risk.
Documents that pair more than one of your core elements — heating with pressure control, or either with a controller. These are the closest art and carry the most risk.
Warmed wrist rests and pads that fix firmness — they read on your heating element only.
Inflatable or pneumatic ergonomic supports with no thermal function — they read on your pressure element only.
Related mechanisms surfaced for background — neither element pairing, but useful landscape.
How the closest references stack up against each of your claimable elements — the same element-by-element view an attorney or examiner builds.
| Reference | E1 | E2 | E3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| EP3120731A1 — Ergonomic rest w/ temp regulationTwo of three elements in one document — the reference to design around. | ○ | ● | ● |
| US10101771B2 — Heated cushioned supportHeat plus single-knob firmness; combinable toward obviousness. | ◐ | ● | ○ |
| US20180132600A1 — Inflatable firmness zonesOwns the zoned-pressure element outright; no thermal function. | ● | ○ | ○ |
| US9668556B2 — Heated wrist support (Fellowes)Owns the heating element alone; no pressure or control. | ○ | ● | ○ |
| US9538801B2 — Wearable heating controllerOwns the closed-loop control element in an adjacent field. | ○ | ◐ | ● |
For the closest US applications with an examination record, the real verdict a government examiner reached — not our analysis. When examiners reject inventions like yours on the same grounds we flag, that is the strongest signal in this report.
Of the 4 closest US applications with an examination record, 2 drew a prior-art rejection from a USPTO examiner — 2 on obviousness (§103), 1 on novelty (§102). When applications this close to your idea are being rejected on the same grounds our analysis flags, treat it as a strong real-world signal, not a coincidence.
Non-patent prior art. Examiners cite published research in a large share of rejections, so a real search covers it too.
Following the citations around your closest matches — the earlier work they build on, and the later work that builds on them.