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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/16/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are currently pending and under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks page 2-5 (Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103), filed
02/11/2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 103 rejections of Claims 1-16 have been fully considered. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues:
In the outstanding Office Action, Claim 1 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0016435, to Pfiffner, in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0065642, to Liu. The Office Action at the middle of page 7 admits:
"However, Pfiffner does not disclose the first and second light therapy devices are
communicatively isolated from each other." Applicant agrees.
Next the Office Action asserts:
"Liu, in the same field of endeavor of controlling light devices ([0009-0010]), teaches multiple separate light devices controlled via separate communication channels from a single wireless remote control (Figure 4, [0043-0044]). This arrangement is interpreted as completely separate devices (shown as separate models of devices in Figure 4) excluding the individual communication channels with the common remote"
The Office then continues with the assertion that:
" ... it would have been obvious to try a dedicated independent mode arrangement, such as that seen with the control of separate devices on independent channels in Liu ... ". Thus it appears that the Office confuses the interpreted "a dedicated independent mode arrangement" with the required limitations of the instant claim 1, namely: “wherein in the cumulative mode the first light therapy device and the second light therapy device are simultaneously controlled by the remote-control device, and are communicatively isolated from each other."
However, as the Office well knows: "a dedicated independent mode arrangement" ≠ light therapy devices that are communicatively isolated. Claim 1 requires, in addition to all of the other recited limitations and element arrangements, the following: "... and are communicatively isolated from each other."
Applicants' original specification explains at least in paragraph [0048]:
" ... Moreover, because each of the light therapy devices are communicatively isolated from each other- e.g., no individual light therapy device is connected to, controls or otherwise communicates with another light therapy device- the system advantageously ensures that a failure by any one light therapy device will have no effect on any of the other light therapy devices in the system." (emphasis added). As the Office has already admitted, Pfiffner provides no light therapy devices that are communicatively isolated.” (02/11/2026 Remarks, pages 2-4)
This argument regarding Pfiffner is persuasive based on the analysis in paragraph 8 of the 01/16/2026 office action: “ While independently controllable light devices would suggest the devices are communicatively isolated, Applicant appears to argue that communicative isolation should be interpreted as completely separate devices controlled by the same remote control where no communication should be possible between devices (i.e. not having a physical or wireless connection). With this new interpretation, the rejection of claim 1 is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Liu (US PG Pub 2013/0065642 A1), see “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103” section.”
Applicant additionally argues:
Liu likewise says nothing at all about light therapy devices that are communicatively isolated. In fact, Liu says nothing about any type of isolation, let alone "light therapy devices that are communicatively isolated." Liu does not even teach a "cumulative mode", as is required by the instant claim 1.
Neither Pfiffner nor Liu, whether singly or in combination, teach" ... light therapy devices that are communicatively isolated.", as understood in the instant disclosure in paragraph [0048]: " ... communicatively isolated from each other- e.g., no individual light therapy device is connected to, controls or otherwise communicates with another light therapy device- ... ". Since neither Pfiffner nor Liu disclose, at least, the limitations of claim I:
" ... wherein in the cumulative mode the first light therapy device and the second light therapy device are simultaneously controlled by the remote-control device, and are communicatively isolated from each other."
Therefore, the Office has not established a prima facie case of obviousness. Claim 1 is thus allowable over Pfiffner in view of Liu. Further Nelson also fails to cure the deficiencies above of Pfiffner nor Liu, as Nelson likewise lacks each of the features of the instant claim 1 as explained above. (02/11/2026 Remarks, pages 4-5)
This argument is not persuasive. The arguments present the claimed invention as essentially separate devices which communicate with a common remote control but not with each other. Liu Figures 3 and 4 and [0043-0044] depict the ability to separately control different lighting devices (seen as different models of devices in Figure 4) via a common remote control. A generic luminaire device is described in a self-contained manner in Liu [0007] with an embedded circuit board and external control features on the device housing. Connecting different self-contained luminaire devices to a common remote would establish mechanical and electrical separation in the same manner as the instant application.
Pfiffner teaches two light therapy devices can operate in an independent mode or lead/follow mode ([0030], [0032]). Switching between modes in Pfiffner is a matter of versatility for the user and communication between devices is necessary in the lead/follow mode. However, devices in a dedicated independent mode in Pfiffner could obviously be arranged in the same manner as the independent operation of the devices in Liu.
The cumulative mode is represented in instant claim 1 as “wherein in the cumulative mode, the first light therapy device and the second light therapy device are simultaneously controlled by the remote-control device.” Liu [0044] describes a feature which matches this claim language for the cumulative mode: “The related remote control application also generates a user interface provided for users to manipulate operations to the multiple devices 401, 402, 403. For example, the screen of the remote control 42 is divided into three split portions which are corresponding to the lighting device 401, 402 and 403, individually.” Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 in maintained.
Regarding the dependent claims, Applicant argues:
As claims 2-16 depend either directly or indirectly on claim 1, claims 2-16 are also allowable over Pfiffner/Liu, and Nelson for at least the reasons as stated above. Since Applicant has not amended the claims in response to any substantive rejection on the merits, a further rejection of these claims based on newly cited prior art in the next communication cannot properly be considered a Final Office Action. (02/11/2026 Remarks, page 5)
This argument is not persuasive. The arguments for claim 1 were not overall persuasive and the prior art rejection of claim 1 was maintained. Therefore, the rejections of dependent claims 2-16 are similarly maintained.
Summary: The prior art rejections of claims 1-16 are maintained.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-8, 10-11, and 13-16 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Pfiffner (US PG Pub 2022/0016435 A1, see previously cited) in view of Liu (US PG Pub 2013/0065642 A1, see previously cited).
Regarding Claim 1, Pfiffner discloses a light therapy system ([0019]), comprising:
•a remote-control device (136: “remote computing device”; [0027] – “the controller board communicatively coupled to a mobile application on a remote computing device, the mobile application arranged and configured to operate the light therapy device by sending at least one command to the controller board”)
•a first light therapy device ([0030]) having a main body ([0030] – “a first housing, a first printed circuit board assembly coupled to the first housing”), a plurality of optical emitters ([0030] – “a first plurality of LEDs electrically coupled to the first printed circuit board assembly”), a first system controller ([0030] - “first printed circuit board assembly”, [0021] – the assembly contains a control board) and a first user interface device ([0030] – “the first control panel comprising a first plurality of buttons, wherein the first light therapy device is configured to receive a first user input via the first control panel”),
•said first light therapy device including functionality for receiving operating instructions from the first user interface device to operate in a standalone mode ([0026] – a control panel, coupled to the printed circuit board and the housing can be adjusted by the user with a series of buttons on the control panel), and for receiving operating instructions from the remote-control device to operate in a cumulative mode ([0027] – the printed circuit board - “the controller board” - can be adjusted directly from the remote computing device); and
•a second light therapy device ([0032]) having a main body ([0032] - a second housing), a plurality of optical emitters ([0032] - a second plurality of LEDs electrically coupled to the second printed circuit board assembly), a second system controller ([0032] – a second printed circuit board assembly coupled to the second housing, [0021] – the assembly contains a control board)), and a second user interface device ([0032] – the second control panel coupled to the second housing),
•said second light therapy device including functionality for receiving operating instructions from the second user interface device to operate in a standalone mode ([0032] – a control panel, coupled to the printed circuit board and the housing can be adjusted by the user with a series of buttons on the control panel), and for receiving operating instructions from the remote-control device to operate in a cumulative mode ([0027] – the “remote computing device” was disclosed as a mobile app from which the controller circuit board could be controlled directly, [0287] – establishes a mobile app can be used for any number of light therapy devices)
•wherein in the cumulative mode, the first light therapy device and the second light therapy device are simultaneously controlled by the remote-control device ([0287] – multiple light devices able to be controlled with independent settings from a remote computing device in the same instance), and are controlled independently (both first [0030] and second [0032] light therapy devices have an “independent mode” where settings are controlled at the level of each device in a manner distinct from the communicative “follow” and “lead” modes).
However, Pfiffner does not disclose the first and second light therapy devices are communicatively isolated from each other.
Liu, in the same field of endeavor of controlling light devices ([0009-0010]), teaches multiple separate light devices controlled via separate communication channels from a single wireless remote control (Figure 4, [0043-0044]). This arrangement is interpreted as completely separate devices (shown as separate models of devices in Figure 4) excluding the individual communication channels with the common remote.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remotely controlled light devices in Pfiffner with isolated devices on separate communication channels in Pfiffner. Given different variants of communication between light therapy devices in Pfiffner (independent and lead/follow modes), it would have been obvious to try a dedicated independent mode arrangement, such as that seen with the control of separate devices on independent channels in Liu. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully using the independent arrangement and control of light devices in Liu with Pfiffner’s device.
Therefore, Claim 1 is obvious over Pfiffner in view of Liu.
Regarding Claim 2, the light therapy system according to Claim 1 is obvious over Pfiffner in view of Liu, as indicated hereinabove. Pfiffner further discloses the remote-control device is configured to simultaneously send individualized operating instructions to each of the first light therapy device and the second light therapy device ([0287] – multiple light devices able to be controlled with independent settings from a remote computing device in the same instance). This “remote computing device” works be wirelessly connecting to the circuit board controller ([0185]).
Therefore, Claim 2 is obvious over Pfiffner in view of Liu.
Regarding Claim 3, the light therapy system according to Claim 1 is obvious over Pfiffner in view of Liu, as indicated hereinabove. Pfiffner further discloses when operating in a cumulative mode, an instruction input by the first user interface device will affect the operation of the first light therapy device and will not affect the operation of the second light therapy device ([0287] – multiple light devices able to be controlled with independent settings from a remote computing device in the same instance). One of the operational modes is an independent mode, which is present in both the first ([0030]) and second ([0032]) light therapy devices, where settings are controlled at each device via their respective control panels, which can be further controlled via the remote computing device ([0027]). Note: Cumulative mode is interpreted as control by the remote device (Specification, [0013]).
Therefore, Claim 3 is obvious over Pfiffner in view of Liu.
Regarding Claim 4, the light therapy system according to Claim 1 is obvious over Pfiffner in view of Liu, as indicated hereinabove. Pfiffner further discloses when operating in a cumulative mode, an instruction input by the second user interface device will affect the operation of the second light therapy device and will not affect the operation of the first light therapy device ([0287] – multiple light devices able to be controlled with independent settings from a remote computing device in the same instance). One of the operational modes is an independent mode, which is present in both the first ([0030]) and second ([0032]) light therapy devices, where settings are controlled at each device via their respective control panels, which can be further controlled via the remote computing device ([0027]). Note: Cumulative mode is interpreted as control by the remote device (Specification, [0013]).
Therefore, Claim 4 is obvious over Pfiffner in view of Liu.
Regarding Claim 5, the light therapy system according to Claim 1 is obvious over Pfiffner in view of Liu, as indicated hereinabove. Pfiffner further discloses when operating in a cumulative mode, an operating instruction received from the remote-control device will override an input by the first user interface device affecting the operation of the first light therapy device ([0027] – “the control panel comprises a controller board arranged and configured to operate the control panel, the controller board communicatively coupled to a mobile application on a remote computing device, the mobile application arranged and configured to operate the light therapy device by sending at least one command to the controller board”). The previous statement suggests the controller board operates the control panel, where the controller in turn is operated by the remote computing device. This establishes that the remote computing device settings take precedence over the control panel settings. Note: Cumulative mode is interpreted as control by the remote device (Specification, [0013]).
Therefore, Claim 5 is obvious over Pfiffner in view of Liu.
Regarding Claim 6, the light therapy system according to Claim 1 is obvious over Pfiffner in view of Liu, as indicated hereinabove. Pfiffner further discloses when operating in a cumulative mode, an operating instruction received from the remote-control device will override an input by the second user interface device affecting the operation of the second light therapy device ([0027] – “the control panel comprises a controller board arranged and configured to operate the control panel, the controller board communicatively coupled to a mobile application on a remote computing device, the mobile application arranged and configured to operate the light therapy device by sending at least one command to the controller board”). The previous statement suggests the controller board operates the control panel, where the controller in turn is operated by the remote computing device. This establishes that the remote computing device settings take precedence over the control panel settings. Cumulative mode is interpreted as control by the remote device (Specification, [0013]).
While [0027] applies to the first light therapy device, the same configuration can be applied to the second light therapy device or any number of additional light therapy devices ([0287] – “The system 200 may also include a software application, such as a mobile application loaded on a user's smartphone, tablet, laptop, or similar computing device, configured to allow the user to select operational mode(s) for light therapy device(s), as well as start/stop treatment, select a treatment time period, etc.”).
Therefore, Claim 6 is obvious over Pfiffner in view of Liu.
Regarding Claim 7, the light therapy system according to Claim 1 is obvious over Pfiffner in view of Liu, as indicated hereinabove. Pfiffner further discloses the plurality of optical emitters of the first light device comprise light emitting diodes ([0030] – the “first light therapy device” contains a “plurality of LED’s” as the light emitters).
Therefore, Claim 7 is obvious over Pfiffner in view of Liu.
Regarding Claim 8, the light therapy system according to Claim 7 is obvious over Pfiffner in view of Liu, as indicated hereinabove. Pfiffner further discloses the plurality of optical emitters of the first light therapy device are configured to output light in at least one of a visible, near-infrared, infrared, or far-infrared spectrum ([0030] – “the first plurality of LEDs is arranged and configured to emit at least one of red light and near-infrared light through at least one aperture of the first housing”). Note that the LED’s are described as a mixture of red and infrared (which could generally refer to light emission within the infrared wavelengths) ([0020]). Additionally, an assortment of visible light color LED’s other than red can be used for treatment ([0188]).
Therefore, Claim 8 is obvious over Pfiffner in view of Liu.
Regarding Claim 10, the light therapy system according to Claim 1 is obvious over Pfiffner in view of Liu, as indicated hereinabove. Pfiffner further discloses the plurality of optical emitters of the second light device comprise light emitting diodes ([0032] – the “second light therapy device” contains a “plurality of LED’s” as the light emitters).
Therefore, Claim 10 is obvious over Pfiffner in view of Liu.
Regarding Claim 11, the light therapy system according to Claim 10 is obvious over Pfiffner in view of Liu, as indicated hereinabove. Pfiffner further discloses the plurality of optical emitters of the second light therapy device are configured to output light in at least one of a visible, near-infrared, infrared, or far-infrared spectrum ([0032] – “the second plurality of LEDs is arranged and configured to emit at least one of red light and near-infrared light through at least one aperture of the second housing”). Note that the LED’s are described as a mixture of red and infrared (which could generally refer to light emission within the infrared wavelengths) ([0020]). Additionally, an assortment of visible light color LED’s other than red can be used for treatment ([0188]).
Therefore, Claim 11 is obvious over Pfiffner in view of Liu.
Regarding Claim 13, the light therapy system according to Claim 1 is obvious over Pfiffner in view of Liu, as indicated hereinabove. Pfiffner discloses in the cumulative mode the first light therapy device and the second light therapy device are simultaneously controlled by the remote-control device
([0287]). Both devices are controlled from the same application on a remote computing device, meaning both light devices could be independently controlled with different settings at the same time. However, Pfiffner does not disclose the light devices are electrically isolated from each other.
Liu, in the same field of endeavor of controlling light devices ([0009-0010]), teaches multiple separate light devices (interpreted as not electrically connected) controlled via separate communication channels from a single wireless remote control (Figure 4, [0043-0044]). This arrangement is interpreted as completely separate devices (shown as separate models of devices in Figure 4) excluding the individual communication channels with the common remote.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remotely controlled light devices in Pfiffner with isolated devices on separate communication channels in Pfiffner. Given different variants of communication between light therapy devices in Pfiffner (independent and lead/follow modes), it would have been obvious to try a dedicated independent mode arrangement, such as that seen with the control of separate devices on independent channels in Liu. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully using the independent arrangement and control of light devices in Liu with Pfiffner’s device.
Therefore, Claim 13 is obvious over Pfiffner in view of Liu.
Regarding Claim 14, the light therapy system according to Claim 1 is obvious over Pfiffner in view of Liu, as indicated hereinabove. Pfiffner discloses in the cumulative mode the first light therapy device and the second light therapy device are simultaneously controlled by the remote-control device ([0287]). Both devices are controlled from the same application on a remote computing device, meaning both light devices could be independently controlled with different settings at the same time. However, Pfiffner does not disclose the light devices are mechanically isolated from each other.
Liu, in the same field of endeavor of controlling light devices ([0009-0010]), teaches multiple separate light devices (interpreted as not mechanically connected) controlled via separate communication channels from a single wireless remote control (Figure 4, [0043-0044]). This arrangement is interpreted as completely separate devices (shown as separate models of devices in Figure 4) excluding the individual communication channels with the common remote.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remotely controlled light devices in Pfiffner with isolated devices on separate communication channels in Pfiffner. Given different variants of communication between light therapy devices in Pfiffner (independent and lead/follow modes), it would have been obvious to try a dedicated independent mode arrangement, such as that seen with the control of separate devices on independent channels in Liu. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully using the independent arrangement and control of light devices in Liu with Pfiffner’s device.
Therefore, Claim 14 is obvious over Pfiffner in view of Liu.
Regarding Claim 15, the light therapy system according to Claim 1 is obvious over Pfiffner in view of Liu, as indicated hereinabove. Pfiffner discloses in the cumulative mode the first light therapy device and the second light therapy device are simultaneously controlled by the remote-control device ([0287]). Both devices are controlled from the same application on a remote computing device, meaning both light devices could be independently controlled with different settings at the same time. However, Pfiffner does not disclose the light devices are electrically and mechanically isolated from each other.
Liu, in the same field of endeavor of controlling light devices ([0009-0010]), teaches multiple separate light devices (interpreted as not electrically or mechanically connected) controlled via separate communication channels from a single wireless remote control (Figure 4, [0043-0044]). This arrangement is interpreted as completely separate devices (shown as separate models of devices in Figure 4) excluding the individual communication channels with the common remote.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remotely controlled light devices in Pfiffner with isolated devices on separate communication channels in Pfiffner. Given different variants of communication between light therapy devices in Pfiffner (independent and lead/follow modes), it would have been obvious to try a dedicated independent mode arrangement, such as that seen with the control of separate devices on independent channels in Liu. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully using the independent arrangement and control of light devices in Liu with Pfiffner’s device.
Therefore, Claim 15 is obvious over Pfiffner in view of Liu.
Regarding Claim 16, the light therapy system according to Claim 1 is obvious over Pfiffner in view of Liu, as indicated hereinabove. Pfiffner discloses both devices are controlled from the same application on a remote computing device, meaning both light devices could be independently controlled with different settings at the same time ([0287]). However, Pfiffner does not disclose in the cumulative mode a failure in an operation of the first light therapy device does not affect an operation of the second light therapy device.
Liu, in the same field of endeavor of controlling light devices ([0009-0010]), teaches multiple separate light devices controlled via separate communication channels from a single wireless remote control (Figure 4, [0043-0044]). This arrangement is interpreted as completely separate devices (shown as separate models of devices in Figure 4) excluding the individual communication channels with the common remote.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remotely controlled light devices in Pfiffner with isolated devices on separate communication channels in Pfiffner. Given different variants of communication between light therapy devices in Pfiffner (independent and lead/follow modes), it would have been obvious to try a dedicated independent mode arrangement, such as that seen with the control of separate devices on independent channels in Liu. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully using the independent arrangement and control of light devices in Liu with Pfiffner’s device.
Therefore, Claim 16 is obvious over Pfiffner in view of Liu.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Pfiffner (US PG Pub 2022/0016435 A1, see previously cited) in view of Liu (US PG Pub 2013/0065642 A1, see previously cited) and Nelson (US 10,478,635 B1, see IDS filed on 10/06/2022).
Regarding Claim 9, the light therapy system according to Claim 8 is obvious over Pfiffner in view of Liu, as indicated hereinabove. Pfiffner further discloses the plurality of optical emitters of the first light therapy device are configured to output light in at least two of the visible, near- infrared, infrared, or far-infrared spectrums ([0030] – “the first plurality of LEDs is arranged and configured to emit at least one of red light and near-infrared light through at least one aperture of the first housing”). Note that the LED’s are described as a mixture of red and infrared (which could generally refer to light emission within the infrared wavelengths) ([0020]). Additionally, an assortment of visible light color LED’s other than red can be used for treatment ([0188]).
Pfiffner discloses the use of visible or infrared light ([0017], [0186]). Pfiffner does not explicitly disclose the simultaneous output of light in at least two of the visible, near-infrared, infrared, or far-infrared spectrums.
Nelson, in the same field of endeavor of light therapy using arrays of lights (Col 1, Lines 48-61), teaches a combination of red and near infrared light can be emitted during the treatment time (Col 9, Lines 24-39).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Pfiffner’s system to independently and remotely control light devices by incorporating the capability of a light therapy device to emit a combination of multiple wavelengths during treatment in Nelson. This would have been obvious because both Pfiffner and Nelson discuss light therapy devices and Nelson provides a solution/improvement by allowing a combination of multiple wavelengths during treatment where different wavelengths of light may have unique effects on tissue during photobiomodulation. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Pfiffner by incorporating the capability of a light device to emit a combination of multiple wavelengths during treatment in Nelson
Therefore, Claim 9 is obvious over Pfiffner in view of Liu and Nelson.
Regarding Claim 12, the light therapy system according to Claim 11 is obvious over Pfiffner in view of Liu, as indicated hereinabove. Pfiffner further discloses the plurality of optical emitters of the second light therapy device are configured to output light in at least two of the visible, near-infrared, infrared, or far-infrared spectrums ([0032] – “the second plurality of LEDs is arranged and configured to emit at least one of red light and near-infrared light through at least one aperture of the second housing”). Note that the LED’s are described as a mixture of red and infrared (which could generally refer to light emission within the infrared wavelengths) ([0020]). Additionally, an assortment of visible light color LED’s other than red can be used for treatment ([0188]).
Pfiffner discloses the use of visible or infrared light ([0017], [0186]). Pfiffner does not explicitly disclose the simultaneous output of light in at least two of the visible, near-infrared, infrared, or far-infrared spectrums.
Nelson, in the same field of endeavor of light therapy using arrays of lights (Col 1, Lines 48-61), teaches a combination of red and near infrared light can be emitted during the treatment time (Col 9, Lines 24-39).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Pfiffner’s system to independently and remotely control light devices by incorporating the capability of a light therapy device to emit a combination of multiple wavelengths during treatment in Nelson. This would have been obvious because both Pfiffner and Nelson discuss light therapy devices and Nelson provides a solution/improvement by allowing a combination of multiple wavelengths during treatment where different wavelengths of light may have unique effects on tissue during photobiomodulation. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Pfiffner by incorporating the capability of a light device to emit a combination of multiple wavelengths during treatment in Nelson
Therefore, Claim 12 is obvious over Pfiffner in view of Liu and Nelson.
Conclusions
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is 703-756-1345. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/Benjamin A. Schmitt/
Examiner
Art Unit 3796
/William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights