DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/11/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112 rejections, the amendments overcome some of the rejections, but some issues remain, as noted below in the action.
Regarding the prior art, Applicant asserts Courtnage or Knight do not disclose a system configured to specifically identify cancer cells from the scan information. However, this is new matter, as noted below in the 112(a). In addition, Sullivan (US 2002/0198575) shows cancer cells are well-known to be diseased cells which require identification and treatment (Paragraphs 21, 60).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the algorithm identifying energetic disruption levels indicating damaged or diseased cells and energy disruptions indicating physical manifestations of disease. This concept also appears in claim 6 (classifying, identifying, categorizing scan information into particular diagnosis). Although the instant specification mentions these results (Page 7), the specification does not sufficiently describe how to achieve these results of specifically identifying indications of damaged or diseased cells and energy disruptions indicating physical manifestations of disease from the scan information. Disclosure of function alone is little more than a wish for possession. The written description requirement is not satisfied by merely outlining the goals or results one hopes to achieve with the invention. See MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(a)(i)(C)(2). An original claim may lack written description when it merely recites a desired result and the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the result is achieved. See MPEP 2163.03(V). For sake of examination, these results are considered an intended interpretation/use of the scan information.
In addition, claim 1 also recites the algorithm calculating a specific treatment plan/corrections to specifically treat the identified damaged or diseased cells and energy disruptions indicative of physical manifestations of disease or identified energetic disruption levels indicating pathogens, diseased cells, or conditions. This concept also appears in other variations in the claims (e.g. claim 3: treating a particular diagnosis; claim 7: a formulated treatment; claim 8: particular diagnosis). After further consideration, this also raises a similar issue as above, since the instant specification does not sufficiently describe how to achieve the results of having an algorithm automatically determine a particular treatment for a particular condition from the scan information. Disclosure of function alone is little more than a wish for possession. The written description requirement is not satisfied by merely outlining the goals or results one hopes to achieve with the invention. See MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(a)(i)(C)(2). An original claim may lack written description when it merely recites a desired result and the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the result is achieved. See MPEP 2163.03(V). For sake of examination, treating a particular condition is considered an intended result, and the algorithm calculation broadly includes automated parameter settings based on sensor data.
Claim 1: An algorithm that specifically identifies cancer cells from scan information is not sufficiently described in the original disclosure. For sake of examination, treating cancer cells are considered an intended use of the system and does not appear to impart structural limitations on the system.
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 1-6, 8-9 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.
Claim 1: “said corrections information” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6: Unclear what structural limitations are imparted on the system, since collecting is a method step. Storing data is also a method step, and it is unclear what structural limitation are imparted on the system.
Claim 8: Unclear what structural limitations are imparted on the system.
Claim 9: Unclear how pulse pattern protocols relate to recited treatments/modalities. Further reciting one or more treatments for a condition is confusing because claim 1 already seems to be directed to light and sound treatment and is supposed to treat the energetic abnormalities.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courtnage (US 2002/0143373) in view of Knight (US 2017/0080246) and Dantus (US 2009/0216299).
PNG
media_image1.png
326
331
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 5-6, 8, Courtnage discloses substantially the same invention as claimed, including a system for therapeutic treatment (abstract; Figure 4 provided above for example) comprising a light therapy immersion device configured to administer therapeutic treatments comprising generated and pulsed sets of (e.g. Paragraph 21) light wavelengths in the visible and/or infrared spectra of light (Paragraph 35) to the whole body of a user (Figure 4; Paragraph 54), said light therapy immersion device being configured to scan a user emplaced within said device (Figure 4: EMG/thermal sensors 412, 414; Paragraphs 26, 38, 54) to identify energetic conditions (Paragraphs 26, 38, 54-55: e.g. EMG/thermal disruptions) that differ from baseline energy levels and energy fields established for a human body (Paragraph 55: baseline) and store scan information as scan data, the light therapy immersion device collecting and storing said scan data, an algorithm receiving said collected information from said light therapy immersion device and identifying energetic disruption levels within said scan information that indicate damaged or diseased cells and energy disruptions indicating physical manifestations of disease through comparison with baseline energy levels and energy fields established for the human body (in light of the 112(a), this is considered an intended interpretation/use of the scan information and does not impart structural limitations on the algorithm; Paragraph 55: baseline; as noted above in the 112(a), treating cancer cells are considered an intended use of the system and does not appear to impart structural limitations on the system), said light therapy immersion device configured to calculate and identify corrections that match the identified energetic disruption levels indicating pathogens, diseased cells, or conditions (Paragraphs 26, 38, 54-55; in light of the 112(a), calculating and identifying corrections that match identified energetic pathogens or conditions as recited is considered an intended result) and calculating a combination of energy therapy levels required to implement said identified corrections, comprising specialized selections of sets of combined wavelengths, light pulse patterns, and intensities of light in the visible and/or infrared spectrum of light (Paragraphs 21, 35) to stimulate cellular function to treat said identified damaged or diseased cells and energy disruptions that indicate physical manifestations of disease (Paragraphs 26, 38, 54-55; in light of the 112(a), stimulating cellular function to treat damaged or diseased cells and energy disruptions as recited is considered an intended result and does not impart structural limitations on the calculated energy therapy levels), said algorithm directing said light therapy chamber to apply the calculated energy therapy levels to said user (Paragraphs 12, 19-21), where the energy therapy level treatments are designed to treat the entirety of a whole body and/or a specific body portion of a user simultaneously (Figure 4; Paragraph 54).
Further regarding claim 1, Courtnage does not disclose light together with sound treatment. However, Knight teaches light (Paragraph 42) and sound pulse treatment (Paragraphs 11, 48, 82-87), in order to provide better therapy to a patient. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Courtnage as taught by Knight to include light with sound treatment, in order to provide better therapy to a patient.
Further regarding claim 1, Courtnage does not disclose that the chamber simultaneously administers treatment to a whole body of a user, with upper and lower portions as recited. However, Dantus teaches it is common to implement a light therapy device as an immersion device configured as a bed having an upper portion comprising a closeable lid and a lower portion comprising a bed (Figures 1, 4) to enclose a user reclining in the light therapy full body chamber, where a plurality of pulse control elements comprising light generating and emitting fixtures are embedded within the closeable lid and bed and configured to deliver therapeutic treatment to the entirety of the body of a user simultaneously (Figures 4-6; abstract; Paragraphs 34-35: light bars comprised of laser diodes), in order to easily apply light therapy to the whole body simultaneously with a compact structure.
PNG
media_image2.png
346
442
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Courtnage and Knight as taught by Dantus to include the light therapy immersion device with upper and lower portions as recited, in order to easily apply light therapy to the whole body simultaneously with a compact structure. In this combination, the energy therapy level treatments and sound therapeutic treatments would be designed to treat the entirety of a whole body and specific body portion of a user simultaneously (treating the whole body includes treating body portions; claim does not specify separate treatments).
Regarding claim 2, Courtnage discloses at least photobiomodulation which utilizes portions of the EM spectrum comprising light wavelengths of red, green, blue, and infrared light components (Paragraph 35).
Regarding claim 3, Courtnage discloses generating various frequencies forming combinations of therapies (Paragraphs 19-21, 54).
Regarding claim 6, Courtnage discloses treating at least inflammation and stress (Paragraphs 7, 10).
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.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courtnage (US 2002/0143373) and Knight (US 2017/0080246) and Dantus (US 2009/0216299) in view of Marchesi (US 6,409,744).
Regarding claim 4, Courtnage or Knight or Dantus do not disclose a heart monitoring electrode. However, Marchesi teaches a light therapy device further comprising an electrode connected to the user within the light therapy device to monitor and collect heartbeat data (Col. 4, lines 23-35), in order to optimize therapy based on the heartbeat. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Courtnage and Knight and Dantus as taught by Marchesi to include a heartbeat sensor as recited, in order to optimize therapy based on the heartbeat.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courtnage (US 2002/0143373) and Knight (US 2017/0080246) and Dantus (US 2009/0216299) in view of Yamashiro (US 6,520,903).
Regarding claim 9, Courtnage or Knight or Dantus do not explicitly disclose a plasma wave generator. However, Yamashiro teaches pulse patterns created and delivered by a plasma wave generator (Col. 6, lines 59-62), where it is known that light and magnetic energy interact to produce plasma (Col. 2, lines 60-64), in order to more effectively stimulate the patient. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Courtnage and Knight and Dantus as taught by Yamashiro to include a plasma wave generator as recited, in order to more effectively stimulate the patient.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sullivan (US 2002/0198575) shows a phototherapy bed device with LEDs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eugene T Wu whose telephone number is (571)270-5053. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Carl Layno can be reached on 571-272-4949. 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.
/Eugene T Wu/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792