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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/16/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed 9/17/2025 merit new grounds for rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for claims 41, 48-49, and 51-54 as obvious in light of Bok (KR 2021/0113781 A) in view of Gross (WO 2020/263258 A1), Saup (KR 2014/0057796 A), and Park et al. (hereinafter “Park”) (KR 20160076143 A, IDS Reference 1 from IDS Dated 09/29/2025). New grounds for rejection for claims 50 and 55 further in view of Jo (KR 101735703 B1, IDS Reference 7 from IDS Dated 10/07/2022) are presented below.
Applicant’s remarks directed to the Yoon reference, alleging Yoon fails to disclose or suggest the features of the eye patch unit configured to allow the light to be radiated only to the infraorbital periphery of the user while not being directly radiated to the user's eyes, thus not improving the infraorbital margin remedy unlike in the present application, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Yoon as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s remaining remarks dated 9/17/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive:
Applicant further contends that Gross, Bok and Saup, including the cited portions of these references, do not teach or suggest the features of newly amended claim 41, where Gross does not teach the light source blocking portion not being in contact with the user's skin, where Bok does not teach a feeling of openness nor the outer circumferential portion comprising the infraorbital irradiator, and where Saup does not teach allowing the user to comfortably see the outside nor a feeling of openness. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding Gross, Gross teaches the light source blocking portion not being in contact with the user's skin since the transparent silicon sheet is near the eyes area of the user. Near the eyes of the user is equivalent to not being in contact with the user’s skin since near means that the transparent silicon sheet is a short distance away from the skin not in contact with the skin. Therefore, the transparent silicon material sheet is not in contact with the user’s skin since it is near to the user’s eye area and consequently the user’s skin (Figure 1, transparent silicon material sheet 130, ¶[0018], where “the outer edges of the transparent silicon material sheet near the eyes area of the user are made opaque through painting or through any other suitable method so as to prevent the illumination of light on the user’s eyes”).
Regarding Bok, a feeling of openness is a functional result of the outward incline such that the structure teaches the desired function. Therefore, since Bok teaches the outward incline, it also teaches an open feeling around the eyes. Additionally, regarding the outer circumferential portion comprising the infraorbital irradiator, Examiner takes the position that Bok teaches this limitation since the light irradiator applies light to the infraorbital portion of the skin as the LEDs are positioned to do so (See Figure 1, which shows that the device covers the user's eyes, Figure 1, light irradiator 300, Figure 2, which shows an eye blocking portion that only surrounds the eye with LEDs that irradiate the infraorbital skin of the user).
Regarding Saup, allowing the user to comfortably see the outside and a feeling of openness are functional results of the outward incline such that the structure of an outward incline teaches the desired function. Therefore, since Bok teaches the outward incline, it also teaches an open feeling around the eyes as well as allowing a user to comfortably see the outside.
Claim Objections
Claim 41 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, the claim reads “An eye patch unit configured to have any one of following structures” but seems to be missing “the”. The claim should read “An eye patch unit configured to have any one of the following structures”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 41, 48-49, and 51-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bok (KR 2021/0113781 A) in view of Gross (WO 2020/263258 A1), Saup (KR 2014/0057796 A), and Park et al. (hereinafter “Park”) (KR 20160076143 A, IDS Reference 1 from IDS Dated 09/29/2025).
Regarding claim 41, Bok teaches an eye patch unit (Figure 1, which shows the unit being placed over the user’s eyes) configured to have any one of following structures:
two doughnut structures corresponding to a left eye and a right eye (Figure 2, Page 4, ¶ 1, where “in the reflective panel 310, a through hole 311 is formed at a position opposite to the eyes of the wearer who wears the wearing unit 200 in order to secure the view of the wearer”),
wherein light from a light source unit is radiated only to an infraorbital periphery of a user (Figure 1, light irradiator 300, Figure 2, which shows an eye blocking portion that only surrounds the eyes with LEDs that irradiate the infraorbital skin of the user) while not being directly radiated to the eyes of the user (Page 5, ¶ 6, where “The blocking body 410 is formed in a plate shape having a predetermined thickness, and is formed in a shape having an area corresponding to the front surface of the reflective panel 310 . In addition, the blocking body 410 is preferably formed of a light-opaque material to block the light generated by the light emitting member 320,” Page 5, ¶ 8, where “protective member 420 penetrates the reflective panel 310 through the through hole 311 and extends rearwardly from the blocking body 410,” Page 5, ¶ 9, where “the protective member 420 is preferably formed of a light-opaque material in order to prevent the light generated by the light emitting member 320 from being irradiated to the wearer's eyes”),
wherein the eye patch unit further comprises:
a light source blocking portion located in a middle of the doughnut structure (Figure 2, protective member 420, which has a portion in the middle of the doughnut structure), the light source blocking portion being configured to block the light from the light source unit from being directly radiated to the user's eyes (Page 5, ¶ 9, where “the protective member 420 is preferably formed of a light-opaque material in order to prevent the light generated by the light emitting member 320 from being irradiated to the wearer's eyes”); and
an outer circumferential portion continuously connected to the light source blocking portion (Figure 2, protective member 420 and light irradiator 300), the outer circumferential portion comprising an infraorbital irradiator configured to irradiate the light from the light source unit to at least a part of an infraorbital skin of the user (Figure 1, which shows that the device covers the user's eyes, Figure 1, light irradiator 300, Figure 2, which shows an eye blocking portion that only surrounds the eye with LEDs that irradiate the infraorbital skin of the user),
wherein an inside or an outside of the light source blocking portion comprises a material configured to prevent transmission of light therethrough (Page 5, ¶ 9, where “the protective member 420 is preferably formed of a light-opaque material in order to prevent the light generated by the light emitting member 320 from being irradiated to the wearer's eyes”),
wherein the infraorbital irradiator is configured to irradiate the light from the light source unit in a state of directly contacting the infraorbital skin of the user or in a state of not contacting the infraorbital skin of the user (Page 3, ¶ 8, where “the inside of the temple 220 is provided with a battery capable of supplying power to the light irradiation unit 300 or a control module capable of automatically controlling the light irradiation unit 300 by the wearer's operation.” Examiner interprets that since the control module controls the irradiation that it includes a mechanism to turn the device on and off, where turning the device on and off will either irradiate light to contact the skin of the user or not irradiate light to contact the skin of the user.),
wherein the light source blocking portion is not disposed perpendicular to the skin but is disposed inclined outwards so as to have open feeling around the eyes (Figure 2, where protective member 420 has sealing member 421 that is inclined outwards, Page 6, ¶ 1, where “sealing member 421 extends to form an annular shape along the rear end edge of the protective member 420.” Examiner takes the position that an open feeling around the eyes is a functional result of the outward incline such that the structure teaches the desired function. Therefore, since Bok teaches the outward incline, it also teaches an open feeling around the eyes.).
Bok does not teach that the light source blocking portion is not in contact with the user's skin, an optical fiber configured to provide light to the infraorbital irradiator or a resin configured to transmit light is disposed in the eye patch unit, nor that the middle of the doughnut structure is configured to be open to an outside.
Gross teaches a therapeutic face mask having a plurality of light emitting diodes, where the therapeutic face mask substantially accommodates a user's face (Abstract), and further teaches that the light source blocking portion is not in contact with the user's skin (Figure 1, transparent silicon material sheet 130, ¶[0018], where “the outer edges of the transparent silicon material sheet near the eyes area of the user are made opaque through painting or through any other suitable method so as to prevent the illumination of light on the user’s eyes.” Examiner interprets that the transparent silicon material sheet as referenced in ¶[0018] is the same as that in figure 1, transparent silicon material sheet 130, and that by making the transparent silicon material sheet opaque to block light from reaching the user’s eyes, that this is equivalent to a light source blocking portion. Furthermore, Examiner takes the position that near the eyes of the user is equivalent to not being in contact with the user’s skin since the transparent silicon material sheet is a short distance away from the skin not in contact with the skin. Therefore, the transparent silicon material sheet is not in contact with the user’s skin since it is near to the user’s eye area and consequently the user’s skin.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the above-described teachings of Gross, which teaches that the light source blocking portion is not in contact with the user's skin, into the invention of Bok in order to prevent any possible effect on the normal vision of the user and allowing the user to perform his/her normal tasks when undergoing the therapy (Gross ¶[0018]).
Neither Bok nor Gross teach an optical fiber configured to provide light to the infraorbital irradiator or a resin configured to transmit light is disposed in the eye patch unit, nor that the middle of the doughnut structure is configured to be open to an outside.
Saup teaches an optical mask device for skin care, where the mask includes a face mask capable of being worn on the face of a user and a light-emitting unit which is arranged in the face mask so as to emit light onto the face of the user wearing the face mask (Abstract), and further teaches (Page 2, ¶ 17, where “the first light emitting unit includes an eyeball peripheral region around the eyes of the wearer wearing the face mask by guiding the light emitted from the first light source,” Page 3, ¶ 1, where “the first group optical fiber is externally exposed at an installation position of the inner surface of the face mask so as to emit light to the eyeball peripheral region”) or a resin configured to transmit light is disposed in the eye patch unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the above-described teachings of Saup, which teaches an optical fiber configured to provide light to the infraorbital irradiator, into the modified invention of Bok in order to irradiate light on the face of the user (Saup Abstract).
None of Bok, Gross, nor Saup teaches that the middle of the doughnut structure is configured to be open to an outside.
Park teaches therapies for a skin care effect by utilizing the LED lamp and a light emitting unit for irradiating light to the face direction in the inner space of the main frame to provide a therapy to the face while avoiding the eye (Abstract), and further teaches that the middle of the doughnut structure is configured to be open to an outside (Figure 2, where the middle portion of main frame 200 is open).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the above-described teachings of Park, which teaches that the middle of the doughnut structure is configured to be open to an outside, into the modified invention of Bok since an open shape can improve the comfort in the use of therapies glass (Park Page 4, ¶ 9).
Regarding claim 48, Bok in combination with Gross, Saup, and Park teaches all limitations of claim 41 as described in the rejection above.
Bok teaches that the infraorbital irradiator is further configured to be disposed adjacent to the infraorbital skin of the user (Figure 1, light irradiator 300, Figure 2, which shows an eye blocking portion that only surrounds the eye with LEDs that irradiate the infraorbital skin of the user. Examiner interprets that the infraorbital irradiator is disposed adjacent to the infraorbital skin of the user since the light irradiator is next to the user’s infraorbital skin.).
Regarding claim 49, Bok in combination with Gross, Saup, and Park teaches all limitations of claim 41 as described in the rejection above.
Bok teaches that the light source blocking portion comprises an elastic material (Page 6, ¶ 1, where “sealing member 421 extends to form an annular shape along the rear end edge of the protective member 420, and is formed of an elastic material such as rubber or silicone having a predetermined elasticity”).
Although Bok teaches the infraorbital irradiator and that the base substrate of the infraorbital irradiator that houses the LEDs is a flexible material (Page 5, ¶ 3, where “base substrate 321 is formed of a flexible material to be curved to correspond to the curvature of the front surface of the reflective panel 310”), Bok does not explicitly teach that the infraorbital irradiator comprises an elastic material.
Gross teaches that the irradiator comprises an elastic material (¶[0037], where “LEDs are embedded in a clear and transparent sheet of silicon material using thermoplastic rubber (TPR), or in thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) or in a thermoplastic elastomer (TPE)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the above-described teachings of Gross, which teaches that the irradiator comprises an elastic material, into the modified invention of Bok in order to protect the flexible printed circuit board (PCB) and light emitting diodes (LEDs) while providing extreme clarity to deliver multi -wavelength light spectra to the skin surface of the user (Gross ¶[0037]) and to avoid direct contact of LEDs with the user's facial skin (Gross Abstract).
Regarding claim 51, see the rejection of claim 41 above. However, claim 51 adds “a doughnut structure extending in a leftward-rightward direction such that both eyes are located therein.”
None of Bok, Gross, nor Saup teaches a doughnut structure extending in a leftward-rightward direction such that both eyes are located therein.
Park teaches a doughnut structure extending in a leftward-rightward direction such that both eyes are located therein (Figure 2, where the middle portion of main frame 200 is open).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the above-described teachings of Park, which teaches a doughnut structure extending in a leftward-rightward direction such that both eyes are located therein, into the modified invention of Bok since an open shape can improve the comfort in the use of therapies glass (Park Page 4, ¶ 9).
Regarding claim 52, Bok in combination with Gross, Saup, and Park teaches all limitations of claim 51 as described in the rejection above.
Park teaches that the middle of the doughnut structure is configured to be open to an outside (Figure 2, where the middle portion of main frame 200 is open) or hidden by a separate unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the above-described teachings of Park, which teaches that the middle of the doughnut structure is configured to be open to an outside, into the modified invention of Bok since an open shape can improve the comfort in the use of therapies glass (Park Page 4, ¶ 9).
Regarding claim 53, Bok in combination with Gross, Saup, and Park teaches all limitations of claim 51 as described in the rejection above. Furthermore, regarding claim 53, see the rejection of claim 48 above.
Regarding claim 54, Bok in combination with Gross, Saup, and Park teaches all limitations of claim 51 as described in the rejection above. Furthermore, regarding claim 54, see the rejection of claim 49 above.
Claims 50 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bok, Gross, Saup, and Park as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Jo (KR 101735703 B1, IDS Reference 7 from IDS Dated 10/07/2022).
Regarding claim 50, Bok in combination with Gross, Saup, and Park teaches all limitations of claim 41 as described in the rejection above.
Bok teaches that the light blocking portion is an opaque material that faces the user’s eyes (Figure 2, protective member 420, sealing member 421, which faces the user’s eyes, Page 5, ¶ 9, where “protective member 420 is preferably formed of a light-opaque material in order to prevent the light generated by the light emitting member 320 from being irradiated to the wearer's eyes”).
None of Bok, Gross, Saup, nor Park teach that the light source blocking portion is further configured to add metal foil so as to be opaque.
Jo teaches an LED mask device for complexly managing a face and a scalp by using a combination of a visible light LED element and a near-infrared light LED element so as to complexly manage skin suitably for the face and the scalp (Abstract), and further teaches that the light source blocking portion is further configured to add metal foil so as to be opaque (Page 4, ¶ 15, where “the eye-exposed projection 31 is provided with masking means for performing a light-shielding treatment with a light-shielding material made of a metal material or a fiber material on the outer surface of the eye-exposed projection 31 so as to prevent light emitted from the LED unit 40 from flowing into the eye”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the above-described teachings of Jo, which teaches that the light source blocking portion is further configured to add metal foil so as to be opaque, into the modified invention of Bok in order to prevent emitted light from flowing into the eye (Jo Page 4, ¶ 15).
Regarding claim 55, Bok in combination with Gross, Saup, and Park teaches all limitations of claim 51 as described in the rejection above. Furthermore, regarding claim 55, see the rejection of claim 50 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEFRA D. MANOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 AM - 3:30 PM ET.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/SEFRA D. MANOS/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/AMANDA L STEINBERG/Examiner, Art Unit 3792