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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. This action is responsive to the amendments filed 2/20/2026. Claims 1 and 16 have been amended. No claims were canceled or newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response with respect to the art rejections 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.
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 1-17 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.
Claim 1 (and similarly claim 16) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. Claims 1 (and similarly claim 16) recite the limitation “the current to the array varies based on the frequency of a reference waveform”. It is unclear how this feature is connected to the feature “the controller is further configured to vary the fluency of the photonic energy delivered to the skin and underlying tissue by modulation of the current transmitted to the optical emitters of the array”. Furthermore, it is unclear where “a reference waveform” comes from. Applicant’s instant specification in paragraphs 0035-0036 states that external devices can generate and transmit an audio input signal i.e., reference waveform, but there is no special definition for the term. Thus, the frequency of the current is based on an unknown waveform. For the purposes of examination, the reference waveform will be interpreted as an LED waveform as taught in Jones et al. (US Pub.: US 2014/0067024 A1) that inherently has a frequency that defines its color (see 103 rejection below).
8. Claims 2-15 and 17 are rejected at least because they depend from a claim(s) which is indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-2, 10-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over McDaniel et al. (US Pub.: 2010/0174222 A1, – Previously Cited) and further in view of Lum et al. (US Pub.: 2012/0022618 A1 – Previously Cited) and further in view of Campbell et al. (US Pub.: 2004/0020496 A1, – Previously Cited) and further in view of Jones et al. (US Pub.: US 2014/0067024 A1).
Regarding claim 1, McDaniel teaches a device comprising: an output array that includes a main body having a front surface, a back surface and an interior space (e.g. Fig. 14); a plurality of optical emitters that are positioned along the main body (e.g. Fig. 14; paragraph 0036); wherein said array produces said optical output at a target wavelength that contacts subcutaneous fat deposits of a recipient and reduces the appearance of cellulite and fat on the recipient’s body (e.g. paragraphs 0010, 0038 – this limitation contains functional language (see MPEP 2114) Intended use of the device. The device of the prior art is interpreted to be fully capable of performing this function and therefore meets the scope of the limitation), said optical output comprising light at 529.6nm (e.g. paragraphs 0010, – the target wavelength can be between 300nm and 1400nm. The examiner notes as mentioned in the response to arguments section above that the claim is directed to a range not a point value. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Furthermore, Additionally, it should be noted where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)), wherein the output is measurable at the front surface of the array (e.g. Fig. 14; paragraph 0010).
However, McDaniel does not explicitly teach a controller that is in communication with the plurality of optical emitters, and said optical output at 48,860 Lux as well as the controller includes a volume selector, an exposure time selector, a modulation signal strength indicator, and an hours meter, by which the controller is further configured to vary the fluency of the photonic energy delivered to the skin and underlying tissue by modulation of the current transmitted to the optical emitters of the array, and the current to the array varies based on the frequency of a reference waveform.
Lum, in a same field of endeavor of phototherapy devices, discloses a controller that is in communication with the plurality of optical emitters, the controller configured to instruct an optical output (e.g. Fig. 2; paragraphs 0091-0092).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of McDaniel to include a controller that is in communication with the plurality of optical emitters, the controller configured to instruct an optical output, as taught and suggested by Lum, for the purpose of making it easier for the patient or physician to control the intensity and time duration of treatment as well as operation of the device.
However, McDaniel in view of Lum does not explicitly teach said optical output at 48,860 Lux as well as the controller includes a volume selector, an exposure time selector, a modulation signal strength indicator, and an hours meter, by which the controller is further configured to vary the fluency of the photonic energy delivered to the skin and underlying tissue by modulation of the current transmitted to the optical emitters of the array, and the current to the array varies based on the frequency of a reference waveform.
Campbell, in a same field of endeavor of photic stimulation, discloses said optical output at 48,860 Lux (e.g. paragraphs 0015, 0036 – the lux for stimulation has a range of 15 to 150,000 lux). Both McDaniel and Campbell are concerned with treating circadian rhythm disorders (e.g. McDaniel: paragraphs 0116-117; Campbell: abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDaniel and Lum to include operating the therapy device at a wider illuminance range (15 to 150,000 lux) for a varying length of time, as taught and suggested by Campbell, as these are known/used treatment parameters to effectively treat circadian rhythm disorders. Furthermore, the examiner notes in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Additionally, it should be noted where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
However, McDaniel in view of Lum in view of Campbell does not explicitly teach that the controller includes a volume selector, an exposure time selector, a modulation signal strength indicator, and an hours meter, by which the controller is further configured to vary the fluency of the photonic energy delivered to the skin and underlying tissue by modulation of the current transmitted to the optical emitters of the array, and the current to the array varies based on the frequency of a reference waveform.
Jones, in a same field of endeavor of phototherapy devices, discloses that the controller (e.g. paragraphs 0042, 0082 – user interface to select/adjust parameters)
includes a volume selector (e.g. paragraph 0082, – adjustment of blue and red light intensity),
an exposure time selector (e.g. paragraph 0082, – the illumination time is kept constant and is therefore selected),
a modulation signal strength indicator (e.g. paragraph 0042, 0082, – varying between high and low irradiance),
and an hours meter (e.g. paragraph 0042, 0082, – treatment times of the device is when the device is in operation),
by which the controller is further configured to vary the fluency of the photonic energy delivered to the skin and underlying tissue by modulation of the current transmitted to the optical emitters of the array (e.g. paragraph 0082), and the current to the array varies based on the frequency of a reference waveform (e.g. paragraphs 0081-0082, – the LED waveform of Jones which inherently has a frequency that defines its color is construed as the reference waveform).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDaniel, Lum, and Campbell to include that the controller includes a volume selector, an exposure time selector, a modulation signal strength indicator, and an hours meter, by which the controller is further configured to vary the fluency of the photonic energy delivered to the skin and underlying tissue by modulation of the current transmitted to the optical emitters of the array, and the current to the array varies based on the frequency of a reference waveform, as taught and suggested by Jones, in order to provide the predictable results of increasing the customizability of the therapy to the specific patient’s needs.
Regarding claim 2, McDaniel in view of Lum in view of Campbell in view of Jones teaches the device of claim 1 as discussed above, and McDaniel further teaches wherein each of the plurality of optical emitters comprise, at least one of, a light emitting capacitor, a light emitting diode, and a super–luminous light emitting diode (e.g. paragraph 0036 – light emitting diode (LED)).
Regarding claim 10, McDaniel in view of Lum in view of Campbell in view of Jones teaches the device of claim 1 as discussed above, and Lum further teaches wherein the controller is integrated into the main body of the output array (e.g. Fig. 2 – controls are at the top of the device; paragraphs 0091, 0096). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDaniel, Lum, Campbell, and Jones to integrate the controller into the main body of the output array, as taught and suggested by Lum, for the purpose of making the system more efficient by not having a separate controller which could get misplaced and cause treatment to get delayed.
Regarding claim 11, McDaniel in view of Lum in view of Campbell in view of Jones teaches the device of claim 10 as discussed above, and Lum further teaches wherein the user interface devices of the controller are positioned to allow a recipient to operate the device in a self-service capacity (e.g. Fig. 2 – controls are at the top of the device; paragraphs 0034, 0093).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDaniel, Lum, Campbell, and Jones to include wherein the user interface devices of the controller are positioned to allow a recipient to operate the device in a self-service capacity, as taught and suggested by Lum, for the purpose of making it more convenient for the patient to apply treatment to themselves and to make it easier for the device to be used outside of a clinical setting.
Regarding claim 12, McDaniel in view of Lum in view of Campbell in view of Jones teaches the device of claim 1 as discussed above, and McDaniel further teaches wherein the array produces light at approximately 529.6nm (e.g. paragraphs 0010, 0059).
Additionally, Lum teaches that the array includes functionality for positioning the optical emitters at a distance between 1 and 8 inches from a target area of the recipient, and in an on-position (e.g. paragraph 0113)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDaniel, Lum, Campbell, and Jones to include that the array includes functionality for positioning the optical emitters at a distance between 1 and 8 inches from a target area of the recipient and in an on-position, as taught and suggested by Lum, for the purpose of being able to provide treatment to the patient at a distance which covers more of the treatment area and to not overstimulate a treatment area by being too close to the tissue.
Furthermore, Campbell teaches outputting therapeutic light at about 383 Lux measurable at a subcutaneous location of the target area of the recipient (e.g. paragraph 0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDaniel, Lum, Campbell, and Jones to include outputting therapeutic light at about 383 Lux measurable at a subcutaneous location of the target area of the recipient, as taught and suggested by Campbell, for the purpose of providing the clinician with lower values of illuminance to work with to perform treatments on regions of the body where lower illuminance values are more beneficial as well as reducing power consumption and operating costs.
Regarding claim 14, McDaniel in view of Lum in view of Campbell in view of Jones teaches the device of claim 1 as discussed above, and McDaniel further teaches that the array produces light at approximately 529.6nm (e.g. paragraphs 0010, 0059, – the Examiner interprets the claimed range to overlap with the preferred range of McDaniel. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Additionally, Lum teaches wherein the array includes functionality for positioning the optical emitters against a target area of the recipient, and in an on-position (e.g. paragraph 0113).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDaniel, Lum, Campbell, and Jones to include that the array includes functionality for positioning the optical emitters against a target area of the recipient and in an on-position, as taught and suggested by Lum, for the purpose of allowing for more personalized and accurate treatment to be performed on the patient.
Furthermore, Campbell teaches outputting therapeutic light at about 383 Lux measurable at a subcutaneous location of the target area of the recipient (e.g. paragraph 0015, – The examiner notes that the claim is directed to a range i.e. approximately, not a point value. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDaniel, Lum, Campbell, and Jones to include outputting therapeutic light at about 383 Lux measurable at a subcutaneous location of the target area of the recipient, as taught and suggested by Campbell, for the purpose of providing the clinician with lower values of illuminance to work with to perform treatments on regions of the body where lower illuminance values are more beneficial as well as reducing power consumption and operating costs.
Regarding claim 15, McDaniel in view of Lum in view of Campbell in view of Jones teaches the device of claim 1 as discussed above, and McDaniel further teaches further comprising: a second output array that is also in communication with the controller (e.g. Fig. 14 – left or right panels; paragraph 0050), said second array including a first surface which may be oriented towards a second target area of the recipient to be treated (e.g. Fig. 14 – the panels can be angled in an alternate direction), and producing an optical output of light at approximately 529.6nm (e.g. paragraph 0010).
Additionally, Campbell teaches that the optical output light at approximately 48,860 Lux (e.g. paragraphs 0015, 0036 – the lux for stimulation has a range of 15 to 150,000 lux. The examiner notes that the claim is directed to a range i.e. approximately, not a point value. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDaniel, Lum, Campbell, and Jones to include operating the therapy device at a wider illuminance range (15 to 150,000 lux) for a varying length of time, as taught and suggested by Campbell, for the purpose of allowing the patient or clinician to control/adjust the light intensity and length of treatment in order to optimize treatment.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over McDaniel and further in view of Lum and further in view of Campbell and further in view of Jones and further in view of Shanks et al. (US Patent No.: 8,813,756 B1 – Previously Cited).
Regarding claim 3, McDaniel in view of Lum in view of Campbell in view of Jones teaches the device of claim 1 as discussed above, and Lum further teaches wherein the controller of the array includes functionality for outputting optical emissions (e.g. paragraphs 0091-0093).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDaniel, Lum, Campbell, and Jones to include a controller that includes functionality for outputting optical emissions, as taught and suggested by Lum, for the purpose of being able to program/operate the device such that treatment can be administered more easily/conveniently while the patient is outside of a clinical setting.
However, McDaniel in view of Lum in view of Campbell in view of Jones does not explicitly teach outputting optical emissions totaling 8.8 Joules of energy to a target area of a recipient to reduce an appearance of visible cellulite and to expel a lipid content of the subcutaneous adipocytes.
Shanks, in a same field of endeavor of non-invasive light therapy systems, discloses outputting optical emissions totaling 8.8 Joules of energy to a target area of a recipient to reduce an appearance of visible cellulite and to expel a lipid content of the subcutaneous adipocytes (e.g. Fig. 1 – element 12; column 3, lines 14-29, – depending on the size of the target area, e.g. 293 cm2, an optical emission output of 8.8 Joules can be delivered to the target area).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDaniel, Lum, Campbell, and Jones to include outputting optical emissions totaling 8.8 Joules of energy to a target area of a recipient to reduce an appearance of visible cellulite and to expel a lipid content of the subcutaneous adipocytes, as taught and suggested by Shanks, for the purpose of being able to slim larger portions of the fattier regions of a patient’s body so that the number of follow-up treatments is reduced.
Regarding claim 4, McDaniel in view of Lum in view of Campbell in view of Jones in view of Shanks teaches the device of claim 3 as discussed above, and McDaniel further teaches wherein said optical emissions comprise light at the wavelength of approximately 529.6nm (e.g. paragraphs 0010, 0059) for a time of between 15 and 25 minutes (e.g. paragraph 0039).
Additionally, Campbell teaches outputting therapeutic light at approximately 383 Lux (e.g. paragraph 0015 – The examiner notes that the claim is directed to a range i.e. approximately, not a point value. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDaniel, Lum, Campbell, Jones, and Shanks to include outputting therapeutic light at approximately 383 Lux, as taught and suggested by Campbell, for the purpose of providing the clinician with lower values of illuminance to work with to perform treatments on regions of the body where lower illuminance values are more beneficial as well as reducing power consumption and operating costs.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over McDaniel and further in view of Lum and further in view of Campbell and further in view of Jones and further in view of Pederson et al. (European Publication No.: EP1602391A1, – Previously Cited).
Regarding claim 5, McDaniel in view of Lum in view of Campbell in view of Jones teaches the device of claim 1 as discussed above, and McDaniel further teaches wherein the plurality of optical emitters include LEDs (e.g. paragraphs 0036, 0154, – the device can have more than one LED) having an output spectrum of approximately 529.6nm (e.g. paragraph 0010, – the target wavelength can be between 300nm and 1400nm).
Additionally, Lum teaches using LEDs between 1 and 10 watts which includes using 2-Watt LEDs (e.g. paragraph 0035). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDaniel, Lum, Campbell, and Jones to include using 2-Watt LEDs, as taught and suggested by Lum, in order to provide sufficient power level to trigger the desired therapeutic effect while avoiding possible tissue damage (Lum, paragraph 0035).
However, McDaniel in view of Lum in view of Campbell in view of Jones does not explicitly teach the use of 150 LEDs.
Pederson, in a same field of endeavor of light therapy devices, discloses adjusting the number of LEDs used for light therapy depending on the efficiency of an LED and using 10 to 150 LEDs for treatment (e.g. paragraph 0014).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDaniel, Lum, Campbell, and Jones to include adjusting the number of LEDs used for light therapy depending on the efficiency of an LED as well as using 150 LEDs, as taught and suggested by Pederson, for the purpose of being able to generate a higher level of illuminance to use for therapy (Pederson, paragraph 0014). Additionally, it has been held that the mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B)).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over McDaniel and further in view of Lum and further in view of Campbell and further in view of Jones and further in view of Thomas et al. (US Pub.: 2014/0052222 A1, – Previously Cited) and further in view of Wells et al. (US Patent No.: 8,614,632 B1 – Previously Cited).
Regarding Claim 6, McDaniel in view of Lum in view of Campbell in view of Jones teaches the device of claim 1 as discussed above, and Lum further teaches wherein the controller further includes a power input module (e.g. paragraphs 0090-0091, 0093).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDaniel, Lum, Campbell, and Jones to include a power input module, as taught and suggested by Lum, in order to provide the predictable results of making the device operational/useable by a person.
However, McDaniel in view of Lum in view of Campbell in view of Jones does not explicitly teach a key switch access control device, an input jack for receiving a reference waveform from an external device, a rectifier and a solid state relay, said rectifier and relay functioning to provide a modulated power output to the array based on the received reference waveform.
Thomas, in a same field of endeavor of light therapy devices, discloses a key switch access control device (e.g. paragraph 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDaniel, Lum, Campbell, and Jones to include a key switch access control device, as taught and suggested by Thomas, for the purpose of improving safety by preventing inadvertent usage of the device (e.g. paragraph 0022).
However, McDaniel in view of Lum in view of Campbell in view of Jones in view of Thomas does not explicitly teach an input jack for receiving a reference waveform from an external device, a rectifier and a solid state relay, said rectifier and relay functioning to provide a modulated power output to the array based on the received reference waveform.
Wells, in a same field of endeavor of light emitting devices, discloses an input jack for receiving a reference waveform from an external device (e.g. column 3, lines 29-35), a rectifier (e.g. column 3, lines 18-30) and a solid state relay (e.g. column 6, lines 35-42), said rectifier and relay functioning to provide a modulated power output to the array based on the received reference waveform (e.g. column 3, lines 18-30; column 5, lines 24-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDaniel, Lum, Campbell, Jones, and Thomas to include an input jack and a rectifier and a solid state relay, as taught and suggested by Wells, for the purpose of reliably receiving input from an external device and not consuming excessive amounts of power as well as regulating power to electronics more safely and efficiently.
Regarding Claim 7, McDaniel in view of Lum in view of Campbell in view of Jones in view of Thomas in view of Wells teaches the device of claim 6 as discussed above, and Wells further teaches wherein the rectifier and relay function to provide the power output to the array only during a positive portion of the received reference waveform (e.g. column 3, lines 18-38; column 5, lines 24-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDaniel, Lum, Campbell, Jones, Thomas, and Wells to include wherein the rectifier and relay function to provide the power output to the array only during a positive portion of the received reference waveform, as taught and suggested by Wells, for the purpose of being able to more efficiently provide power to the device.
Regarding Claim 8, McDaniel in view of Lum in view of Campbell in view of Jones teaches the device of claim 1 as discussed above, and Lum further teaches wherein the controller further includes a power input module (e.g. paragraphs 0090-0091, 0093).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDaniel, Lum, Campbell, and Jones to include a power input module, as taught and suggested by Lum, in order to provide the predictable results of making the device operational/useable by a person.
However, McDaniel in view of Lum in view of Campbell in view of Jones does not explicitly teach a key switch access control, an internal signal generator for creating a reference waveform, a rectifier and a solid state relay, said rectifier and relay functioning to provide a modulated power output to the array based on the created reference waveform.
Thomas, in a same field of endeavor of light therapy devices, discloses a key switch access control device (e.g. paragraph 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDaniel, Lum, Campbell, and Jones to include a key switch access control device, as taught and suggested by Thomas, for the purpose of improving safety by preventing inadvertent usage of the device (e.g. paragraph 0022).
However, McDaniel in view of Lum in view of Campbell in view of Jones in view of Thomas does not explicitly teach an internal signal generator for creating a reference waveform, a rectifier and a solid state relay, said rectifier and relay functioning to provide a modulated power output to the array based on the created reference waveform.
Wells, in a same field of endeavor of light emitting devices, discloses an internal signal generator for creating a reference waveform (e.g. column 3, lines 18-26), a rectifier and a solid state relay (e.g. column 6, lines 35-42), said rectifier and relay functioning to provide a modulated power output to the array based on the created reference waveform (e.g. column 3, lines 18-38; column 5, lines 24-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDaniel, Lum, Campbell, Jones, and Thomas to include an internal signal generator, a rectifier and a solid state relay, as taught and suggested by Wells, for the purpose of producing different types of signals and frequencies without input from an external device as well as not consuming excessive amounts of power.
Regarding Claim 9, McDaniel in view of Lum in view of Campbell in view of Jones in view of Thomas in view of Wells teaches the device of claim 8 as discussed above, and Wells further teaches wherein the rectifier and relay function to provide the power output to the array only during a positive portion of the created reference waveform (e.g. column 3, lines 18-38; column 5, lines 24-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDaniel, Lum, Campbell, Jones, Thomas, and Wells to include wherein the rectifier and relay function to provide the power output to the array only during a positive portion of the created reference waveform, as taught and suggested by Wells, for the purpose of being able to more efficiently provide power to the device.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over McDaniel and further in view of Lum and further in view of Campbell and further in view of Jones and further in view of Sullivan et al. (US Patent No.: 6,602,275 B1 – Previously Cited).
Regarding claim 13, McDaniel in view of Lum in view of Campbell in view of Jones as applied to the device of claim 1 as discussed above, does not explicitly teach wherein the array target area includes a dimension of about 12 inches by 12 inches measurable on the recipient.
Sullivan, in a same field of endeavor of light therapy systems, discloses wherein the array target area includes a dimension of about 12 inches by 12 inches measurable on the recipient (e.g. column 3, lines 25-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDaniel, Lum, Campbell, and Jones to include that the array target area includes a dimension of about 12 inches by 12 inches measurable on the recipient, as taught and suggested by Sullivan, for the purpose of providing treatment to the patient at a greater distance to cover more of the treatment area so that a larger amount of tissue can be treated.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over McDaniel and further in view of Lum and further in view of Campbell and further in view of Wells and further in view of Jones.
Regarding claim 16, McDaniel teaches a device that reduces the appearance of cellulite and fat on a recipients body, said device comprising: an output array that includes a main body having a first surface which may be oriented toward and positioned a first distance from, a target area of a recipient to be treated (e.g. Fig. 14-15; paragraph 0036), a plurality of optical emitters disposed within the main body such that an optical emission from each of the emitters is directed outward from the first surface (e.g. Fig. 14-15; paragraph 0036), wherein in the on-position, the array produces said optical output of light at a target wavelength of 529.6nm (e.g. paragraphs 0010, – the target wavelength can be between 300nm and 1400nm. The examiner notes as mentioned in the response to arguments section above that the claim is directed to a range, not a point value. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Furthermore, Additionally, it should be noted where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985); paragraph 0059), said output is measurable at the first surface of the array (e.g. Fig. 14-15, paragraph 0010), and said device optical output contacts subcutaneous fat deposits of the recipient and reduces the appearance of cellulite and fat on the recipient's body (e.g. paragraphs 0010, 0038 – this limitation contains functional language (see MPEP 2114) Intended use of the device. The device of the prior art is interpreted to be fully capable of performing this function and therefore meets the scope of the limitation).
However, McDaniel does not explicitly teach and a controller that is in communication with the array, said controller including a plurality of user interface devices instructing an operation of the array and for transitioning the array between an on-position and an off-position, an input jack that receives a reference waveform from an external device, a power input module, a rectifier, a solid state relay, said rectifier and solid state relay provide a modulated power output to the array based on the received reference waveform, the controller is configured to instruct an optical output and wherein the array produces said optical output of light at 48,860 Lux as well as the controller includes a volume selector, an exposure time selector, a modulation signal strength indicator, and an hours meter, by which the controller is further configured to vary the fluency of the photonic energy delivered to the skin and underlying tissue by modulation of the current transmitted to the optical emitters of the array, and the current to the array varies based on the frequency of a reference waveform.
Lum, in a same field of endeavor of phototherapy devices, discloses and a controller that is in communication with the array (e.g. Fig. 2; paragraphs 0091-0092), said controller including a plurality of user interface devices instructing an operation of the array and for transitioning the array between an on-position and an off-position (e.g. paragraphs 0090-0093, 0113), a power input module (e.g. paragraphs 0090-0093, 0113), the controller is configured to instruct an optical output (e.g. Fig. 2; paragraphs 0091-0092).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of McDaniel to include a controller and power input module, as taught and suggested by Lum, in order to provide the predictable results of making operating/using the device more efficient and convenient for the user.
However, McDaniel in view of Lum does not explicitly teach that an input jack that receives a reference waveform from an external device, a rectifier, a solid state relay, said rectifier and solid state relay provide a modulated power output to the array based on the received reference waveform, and said optical output of light is at 48,860 Lux as well as the controller includes a volume selector, an exposure time selector, a modulation signal strength indicator, and an hours meter, by which the controller is further configured to vary the fluency of the photonic energy delivered to the skin and underlying tissue by modulation of the current transmitted to the optical emitters of the array, and the current to the array varies based on the frequency of a reference waveform.
Campbell, in a same field of endeavor of photic stimulation, discloses that the optical output of light at 48,860 Lux (e.g. paragraphs 0015, 0036 – the lux for stimulation has a range of 15 to 150,000 lux). Both McDaniel and Campbell are concerned with treating circadian rhythm disorders (e.g. McDaniel: paragraphs 0116-117; Campbell: abstract). Examiner notes that if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction; see MPEP 2111.04.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDaniel and Lum to include operating the therapy device at a wider illuminance range (15 to 150,000 lux) for a varying length of time, as taught and suggested by Campbell, as these are known/used treatment parameters to effectively treat circadian rhythm disorders.
However, McDaniel in view of Lum in view of Campbell does not explicitly teach an input jack that receives a reference waveform from an external device, a rectifier, a solid state relay, said rectifier and solid state relay provide a modulated power output to the array based on the received reference waveform as well as the controller includes a volume selector, an exposure time selector, a modulation signal strength indicator, and an hours meter, by which the controller is further configured to vary the fluency of the photonic energy delivered to the skin and underlying tissue by modulation of the current transmitted to the optical emitters of the array, and the current to the array varies based on the frequency of a reference waveform.
Wells, in a same field of endeavor of light emitting devices, discloses an input jack that receives a reference waveform from an external device (e.g. column 3, lines 29-35, – Additionally, this limitation contains functional language (see MPEP 2114) and is the intended use of the device. The device of the prior art is interpreted to be fully capable of performing this function and therefore meets the scope of the limitation), a rectifier (e.g. column 3, lines 18-30), a solid state relay (e.g. column 6, lines 35-42), said rectifier and solid state relay provide a modulated power output to the array based on the received reference waveform (e.g. column 3, lines 18-38; column 5, lines 24-47, – additionally this limitation contains functional language (see MPEP 2114) and is intended use of the device. The device of the prior art is interpreted to be fully capable of performing this function and therefore meets the scope of the limitation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDaniel, Lum, and Campbell to include an input jack and a solid state relay, as taught and suggested by Wells, for the purpose of reliably receiving input from an external device and not consuming excessive amounts of power.
However, McDaniel in view of Lum in view of Campbell in view of Wells does not explicitly teach that the controller includes a volume selector, an exposure time selector, a modulation signal strength indicator, and an hours meter, by which the controller is further configured to vary the fluency of the photonic energy delivered to the skin and underlying tissue by modulation of the current transmitted to the optical emitters of the array, and the current to the array varies based on the frequency of a reference waveform.
Jones, in a same field of endeavor of phototherapy devices, discloses that the controller (e.g. paragraphs 0042, 0082 – user interface to select/adjust parameters)
includes a volume selector (e.g. paragraph 0082, – adjustment of blue and red light intensity),
an exposure time selector (e.g. paragraphs 0042, 0082, – the illumination time is kept constant and is therefore selected),
a modulation signal strength indicator (e.g. paragraph 0082, – varying between high and low irradiance),
and an hours meter (e.g. paragraph 0042, 0082, – treatment times of the device is when the device is in operation),
by which the controller is further configured to vary the fluency of the photonic energy delivered to the skin and underlying tissue by modulation of the current transmitted to the optical emitters of the array (e.g. paragraph 0082), and the current to the array varies based on the frequency of a reference waveform (e.g. paragraphs 0081-0082, – the LED waveform of Jones which inherently has a frequency that defines its color is construed as the reference waveform).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDaniel, Lum, Campbell, and Wells to include that the controller includes a volume selector, an exposure time selector, a modulation signal strength indicator, and an hours meter, by which the controller is further configured to vary the fluency of the photonic energy delivered to the skin and underlying tissue by modulation of the current transmitted to the optical emitters of the array, and the current to the array varies based on the frequency of a reference waveform, as taught and suggested by Jones, in order to provide the predictable results of increasing the customizability of the therapy to the specific patient’s needs.
Regarding Claim 17, McDaniel in view of Lum in view of Campbell in view of Wells in view of Jones teaches the device of claim 16 as discussed above, and Wells further teaches wherein the optical output of the array is produced only during a positive portion of the received reference waveform (e.g. column 3, lines 18-38; column 5, lines 24-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of McDaniel, Lum, Campbell, Wells, and Jones to include wherein the optical output of the array is produced only during a positive portion of the received reference waveform, as taught and suggested by Wells, for the purpose of being able to power and operate the device more efficiently during treatment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL TEHRANI whose telephone number is (571)270-0697. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792