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 Statements (IDS) filed on 02/17/2023, 09/27/2023, 10/09/2024, and 11/07/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 11/07/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-21 under 35 USC 102 and/or 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Moffat (US 20180056088 A1) in view of Burrows et al (US 20100331929 A1), Khan et al (US 20150087685 A1), Brunelle et al (US 20100030013 A1), Johnson et al (US 20110037002 A1), or Moffat (US 20130172963 A1). New grounds of rejection detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moffat (US 20180056088 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Moffat teaches a home phototherapy system (3300) for producing vitamin D via skin exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation (see [0029]; phototherapy device that provides UV exposure and promotes vitamin D production in the skin), the home phototherapy system comprising:
a portable UV-emitting device (3300) that includes:
a housing (columns 3330) with an active surface (see Fig. 33, [0074]; radiation assemblies 3310 facing outward from the active side of columns 3330);
a UV light assembly (3310) carried by the housing and positioned to emit phototherapeutic UV radiation having a peak wavelength between 293nm and 299nm (see [0074]; radiation assemblies 3310 that emit energy with a predetermined wavelength range e.g. about 298-307) away from the active surface (see [0074]; radiation assemblies 3310 directed generally inward toward a central portion 3334 of base 3332 where the columns 3330 and base 3332 define an irradiation zone);
an optical component (3336) disposed on the UV light assembly, and
configured to collimate the phototherapeutic UV radiation to improve an average distribution of the phototherapeutic UV radiation exiting the UV-emitting device (see [0078]; reflector 3336 is curved around the radiation source 3312 such that the light emitted by the radiation source 3312 at least substantially collimates upon contact with the reflector 3336, the collimated beam of light can then travel forward toward the filter 3338, and pass through the filter 3338 at the same angle of incidence, e.g., about 0°, to provide substantially uniform filtering of the light); and
an application (3560) executable on an electronic device (3500), the application configured to use the electronic device to communicate with the electronics controller (3450) to provide a dosing protocol (3564) to the electronics controller (see [0091-0094]; phototherapy program 3564 can include one or more algorithms for determining the parameters of a phototherapy system to provide proper dosage to a patient),
wherein the dosing protocol (3564) defines a dosage of the phototherapeutic UV radiation for a user (see [0069]; the UV dose for treatment of dermatologic disorders can be selected such that it produces significant efficacy without side effects); and
a dose controller (3564) communicatively coupled to the application,
wherein the dose controller is configured to execute a dose-defining protocol to define the dosing protocol and communicate the dosing protocol to the application (see [0094]; phototherapy program 3564 can include one or more algorithms for determining the parameters of a phototherapy session to provide proper dosage for a patient via controller 3450 which may be device 3500).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 13, and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moffat (US 20180056088 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Moffat teaches a home phototherapy system (3300) for producing vitamin D via skin exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation (see [0029]; phototherapy device that provides UV exposure and promotes vitamin D production in the skin), the home phototherapy system comprising:
a portable UV-emitting device (3300) that includes:
a housing (columns 3330) having an active side (see Fig. 33, [0074]; radiation assemblies 3310 facing outward from the active side of columns 3330);
a UV light assembly (3310) within the housing, the UV light assembly including-
an array of UV light emitters positioned to emit phototherapeutic UV radiation toward the active side (see [0074]; radiation assemblies 3310 directed generally inward toward a central portion 3334 of base 3332 where the columns 3330 and base 3332 define an irradiation zone), the UV light emitters having a peak wavelength between 293nm and 299nm (see [0074]; radiation assemblies 3310 that emit energy with a predetermined wavelength range e.g. about 298-307);
an optical component (3336) disposed on the UV light emitters, and
configured to direct the phototherapeutic UV radiation outwardly from the housing to a phototherapy zone a distance of at least three inches away from the active side of the housing (see [0074]; radiation assemblies 3310 directed generally inward toward a central portion 3334 of base 3332 where the columns 3330 and base 3332 define an irradiation zone); and
wherein the optical component is configured to collimate the phototherapeutic UV radiation such that the phototherapeutic UV radiation has an average irradiance varying less than 10% within the phototherapy zone (see [0078]; reflector 3336 is curved around the radiation source 3312 such that the light emitted by the radiation source 3312 at least substantially collimates upon contact with the reflector 3336, the collimated beam of light can then travel forward toward the filter 3338, and pass through the filter 3338 at the same angle of incidence, e.g., about 0°, to provide substantially uniform filtering of the light); and
a dose controller (3500) communicably coupled to the UV light assembly, wherein the dose controller is configured to execute a dose-defining protocol to determine a dosage of the phototherapeutic UV radiation to promote vitamin D production via skin of a user (see Fig. 35, [0091-0094]; controller 3500 comprising memory 3550 can include a phototherapy program 3564 to provide proper dosage for a patient).
Moffat is silent regarding the average irradiance varying less than 10% within the phototherapy zone as a result of the collimation of the radiation from the optical component. However, Moffat teaches where the optical component 3336 collimates the light so that it may pass through the filter 3338 at the same angle of incidence, where the filter 3338 then uniformly distributes the energy that is emitted to the user (Moffat [0078]). It has been held that 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 this case the optimum value of irradiation variance. See MPEP 2144.05(II), In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2, Moffat teaches the home phototherapy system of claim 1, further comprising an electronic device communicably (3500) coupled between the portable UV-emitting device and the dose controller (see [0091]; device 3500 may be a controller that operates the phototherapy system for selecting parameters for phototherapy sessions that may affect phototherapy dosage),
wherein the electronic device is configured to receive inputs related to the dose- defining protocol and communicate the inputs to the dose controller (see [0091]; device 3500 can include one or more input devices 3520 for providing input to CPU 3510).
Regarding claim 3, Moffat teaches the home phototherapy system of claim 1, further comprising a cloud server (3630) communicably coupled to the portable UV-emitting device, wherein the dose controller is implemented on the cloud server (see Fig. 36, [0096-0099]; client computing devices 3605 which can include device 3500 operate in a networked environment through network 3630 and may connect to servers 3610/3620 and/or databases 3625 for information such as algorithms for deriving phototherapy parameters for specific dosages).
Regarding claim 4, Moffat teaches the home phototherapy system of claim 1 wherein the array of light emitters is an array of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) configured to emit UV radiation (see [0055]; the radiation source can be a light emitting diode and may be assembled in tightly-packed arrays).
Regarding claim 9, Moffat teaches the home phototherapy system of claim 1 wherein defining the dosing protocol includes:
determining, based on inputs from the user, a skin type associated with the user (see [0067]; skin type can be determined by answering a series of questions related to the Fitzpatrick Skin Type scale e.g. on an automated user interface or manually provided); and
determining, based on the skin type associated with the user, an initial dosage of the phototherapeutic UV radiation (see [0067-0069]; skin type is used to calculate 1 MED which is used to inform dosage parameters) is configured to limit UV exposure to 0.5-0.7 MED based on the skin type associated with the user (see [0069]; in certain embodiments the dosage can be selected to have an equal balance of UV exposure and efficacy, which would be about 0.55 MED).
Regarding claim 13, Moffat teaches the phototherapy system of claim 1, wherein the phototherapy zone (base 3334) is between a first distance from the housing and a second distance from the housing larger than the first distance (see annotated Fig. 33 below), and wherein the optical component (3336) is configured to direct the phototherapeutic UV radiation outwardly such that the phototherapeutic UV radiation has an irradiance that diverges by less than 10% between the first distance and the second distance (see [0078]; reflector 3336 is curved around the radiation source 3312 such that the light emitted by the radiation source 3312 at least substantially collimates upon contact with the reflector 3336, the collimated beam of light can then travel forward toward the filter 3338, and pass through the filter 3338 at the same angle of incidence, e.g., about 0°, to provide substantially uniform filtering of the light).
Moffat is silent regarding the average irradiance varying less than 10% within the phototherapy zone as a result of the collimation of the radiation from the optical component. However, Moffat teaches where the optical component 3336 collimates the light so that it may pass through the filter 3338 at the same angle of incidence, where the filter 3338 then uniformly distributes the energy that is emitted to the user (Moffat [0078]). It has been held that 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 this case the optimum value of irradiation variance. See MPEP 2144.05(II), In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
PNG
media_image1.png
632
389
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Moffat teaches the phototherapy system of claim 14 wherein the UV-emitting device (3310) is configured to emit the phototherapeutic UV radiation to a phototherapy zone (3334) spaced at least three inches from the active surface (see [0074]; radiation assemblies 3310 directed generally inward toward a central portion 3334 of base 3332 where the columns 3330 and base 3332 define an irradiation zone); and
wherein the optical component is configured to direct the phototherapeutic UV radiation such that the phototherapeutic UV radiation varies less than 10% from an average irradiance at a target distance from an active side of the housing (see [0078]; reflector 3336 is curved around the radiation source 3312 such that the light emitted by the radiation source 3312 at least substantially collimates upon contact with the reflector 3336, the collimated beam of light can then travel forward toward the filter 3338, and pass through the filter 3338 at the same angle of incidence, e.g., about 0°, to provide substantially uniform filtering of the light).
Moffat is silent regarding the average irradiance varying less than 10% within the phototherapy zone as a result of the collimation of the radiation from the optical component. However, Moffat teaches where the optical component 3336 collimates the light so that it may pass through the filter 3338 at the same angle of incidence, where the filter 3338 then uniformly distributes the energy that is emitted to the user (Moffat [0078]). It has been held that 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 this case the optimum value of irradiation variance. See MPEP 2144.05(II), In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 23, Moffat teaches the phototherapy system of claim 14 wherein the optical component (3336) comprises a body having a reflective interior surface, wherein the reflective interior surface is positioned at an angle relative to the UV light assembly (3310) such that the phototherapeutic UV radiation is directed out of the body generally orthogonal to an active side of the housing (see [0078]; reflector 3336 which may comprise a mirrored substrate or coating is curved around the radiation source 3312 to collimate the light so it may travel forward toward the filter at the same angle of incidence, e.g. about 0 degrees).
Regarding claim 24, Moffat teaches a home phototherapy system (3300) comprising:
a portable UV-emitting device (3300) comprising:
a housing (columns 3330) having an active surface (see Fig. 33, [0074]; radiation assemblies 3310 facing outward from the active side of columns 3330);
a UV light assembly (3310) within the housing, the UV light assembly including-
an array of UV light emitters positioned to emit phototherapeutic UV radiation toward the active surface (see [0074]; radiation assemblies 3310 directed generally inward toward a central portion 3334 of base 3332 where the columns 3330 and base 3332 define an irradiation zone), the UV light emitters having a peak wavelength between 293nm and 299nm (see [0074]; radiation assemblies 3310 that emit energy with a predetermined wavelength range e.g. about 298-307); and
an optical component (3336) disposed on the UV light emitters and configured to direct the phototherapeutic UV radiation outwardly from the housing to a phototherapy zone at least a first distance away from the active surface to treat a user positioned in the phototherapy zone, (see [0074]; radiation assemblies 3310 directed generally inward toward a central portion 3334 of base 3332 where the columns 3330 and base 3332 define an irradiation zone); and
wherein the UV light emitters (3312), the optical component (3336), and the active surface (3338) are aligned sequentially along an axis (see Fig. 33, [0078]; the light emitter 3312 can emit energy which can contact reflector 3336 before exiting the radiation assembly 3310 through filer 3338) and the active surface extends in a plane orthogonal to the axis (see Fig. 33 where active surfaces represented by filer 3338 extend orthogonally to the axis of the radiation assemblies),
wherein the optical component is configured to collimate the phototherapeutic UV radiation such that the phototherapeutic UV radiation has an average irradiance varying less than 10% within the phototherapy zone (see [0078]; reflector 3336 is curved around the radiation source 3312 such that the light emitted by the radiation source 3312 at least substantially collimates upon contact with the reflector 3336, the collimated beam of light can then travel forward toward the filter 3338, and pass through the filter 3338 at the same angle of incidence, e.g., about 0°, to provide substantially uniform filtering of the light); and
a dose controller (3500) communicably coupled to the UV light assembly, wherein the dose controller is configured to execute a dose-defining protocol to determine a dosage of the phototherapeutic UV radiation to promote vitamin D production via skin of a user (see Fig. 35, [0091-0094]; controller 3500 comprising memory 3550 can include a phototherapy program 3564 to provide proper dosage for a patient).
Moffat is silent regarding the average irradiance varying less than 10% within the phototherapy zone as a result of the collimation of the radiation from the optical component. However, Moffat teaches where the optical component 3336 collimates the light so that it may pass through the filter 3338 at the same angle of incidence, where the filter 3338 then uniformly distributes the energy that is emitted to the user (Moffat [0078]). It has been held that 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 this case the optimum value of irradiation variance. See MPEP 2144.05(II), In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moffat (US 20180056088 A1) in view of Burrows et al (US 20100331929 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Moffat teaches the home phototherapy device of claim 4. Moffat is silent regarding the optical component comprising an array of total internal reflection (TIR) lenses positioned to improve the uniformity of UV radiation emitted from the LEDs towards the phototherapy zone, and
wherein each individual TIR lens generally corresponds to an individual LED in the array of LEDs.
Burrows teaches a light therapy device (200) comprising an array of light emitters (12) and an optical component (light collimation apparatus 10), wherein the optical component (10) comprises an array of total internal reflection (TIR) lenses (14) positioned to improve the uniformity of UV radiation emitted from the LEDs towards the phototherapy zone (see Burrows [0028]; light collimation apparatus 10 includes solid optical elements that internally reflect light before emitting the light, [0031]; as the light is reflected by a side wall 14 it is substantially collimated), and
wherein each individual TIR lens generally corresponds to an individual LED in the array of LEDs (see Figs. 1-2 where the assembly for each light pipe 12 having a light source 40 which may be an LED 42, comprises reflective lenses 14).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical component configured to collimate the emitted light as taught by Moffat with individual reflective lenses corresponding to each light emitter in an array of light emitters as taught by Burrows. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide substantially uniform illumination with multiple sources of light by substantially eliminating visible boundaries between the multiple sources of light (Burrows [0001]).
Regarding claim 6, Moffat teaches the home phototherapy system of claim 4. Moffat is silent regarding the optical component includes an array of optical lenses positioned to collimate UV radiation emitted from the LEDs, and
wherein each individual optical lens in the array of optical lenses generally corresponds to an individual LED in the array of LEDs.
Burrows teaches wherein the optical component (10) includes an array of optical lenses (14) positioned to collimate UV radiation emitted from the LEDs (see [0031]; as the light is reflected by a side wall 14 it is substantially collimated), and
wherein each individual optical lens in the array of optical lenses generally corresponds to an individual LED in the array of LEDs (see Figs. 1-2 where the assembly for each light pipe 12 having a light source 40 which may be an LED 42, comprises reflective lenses 14).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical component configured to collimate the emitted light as taught by Moffat with individual reflective lenses corresponding to each light emitter in an array of light emitters as taught by Burrows. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide substantially uniform illumination with multiple sources of light by substantially eliminating visible boundaries between the multiple sources of light (Burrows [0001]).
Regarding claim 7, Moffat teaches the home phototherapy system of claim 4. Moffat is silent regarding the optical component comprising an array of reflectors positioned to improve the uniformity of UV radiation emitted from the LEDs in the phototherapy zone, and
wherein each individual reflector generally corresponds to an individual LED in the array of LEDs.
Burrows teaches wherein the optical component comprises an array of reflectors (14) positioned to improve the uniformity of UV radiation emitted (see [0031]; as the light is reflected by a side wall 14 it is substantially collimated) from the LEDs (42) in the phototherapy zone, and
wherein each individual reflector generally corresponds to an individual LED in the array of LEDs (see Figs. 1-2 where the assembly for each light pipe 12 having a light source 40 which may be an LED 42, comprises reflective lenses 14).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical component configured to collimate the emitted light as taught by Moffat with individual reflective lenses corresponding to each light emitter in an array of light emitters as taught by Burrows. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide substantially uniform illumination with multiple sources of light by substantially eliminating visible boundaries between the multiple sources of light (Burrows [0001]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moffat (US 20180056088 A1) in view of Khan et al (US 20150087685 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Moffat teaches the home phototherapy system of claim 1. Moffat is silent regarding wherein the array of UV light emitters comprises a microplasma film having an array of microcavities configured to emit UV radiation.
Khan teaches a light emitting device for phototherapy wherein the array of UV light emitters (20) comprises a microplasma film (40) having an array of microcavities configured to emit UV radiation (see Khan [0125]; a capping layer was deposited to enhance light output by micro cavity effect).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Estes’ home phototherapy device with the microplasma film as taught by Khan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the emission of light by the OLED device for phototherapeutic applications (Khan [0058]).
Claim(s) 10, 11, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moffat (US 20180056088 A1), hereinafter referred to as Moffat 2018, in view of Moffat (US 20130172963 A1), hereinafter referred to as Moffat 2013.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Moffat 2018 teaches the home phototherapy system of claim 1 and claim 14. Moffat 2018 is silent regarding wherein defining the dosing protocol includes:
receiving inputs from the user to obtain information related to a reaction of the user to a first dosage of the phototherapeutic UV radiation; and
determining whether the user experienced erythema, wherein:
if the user experienced erythema, determining an updated dose protocol to deliver a second dosage of the phototherapeutic UV radiation smaller than the first dosage, and
if the user did not experience erythema, determining the updated dose protocol to deliver a third dosage of the phototherapeutic UV radiation equal to or greater than the first dosage.
Moffat 2013 teaches a phototherapeutic apparatus (100) wherein the dosing protocol includes: receiving inputs from the user to obtain information related to a reaction of the user to a first dosage of the phototherapeutic UV radiation (see Moffat 2013 [0038]; user interface configured to receive feedback related to previous phototherapy sessions); and
determining whether the user experienced erythema (see Moffat 2013 [0038]; the user can indicate whether thy experienced any redness caused by a previous phototherapy session), wherein:
if the user experienced erythema, determining an updated dose protocol to deliver a second dosage of the phototherapeutic UV radiation smaller than the first dosage (see Moffat 2013 [0038]; apparatus 100 can adjust the parameters of subsequent phototherapy sessions to reduce or prevent future redness), and
if the user did not experience erythema, determining the updated dose protocol to deliver a third dosage of the phototherapeutic UV radiation equal to or greater than the first dosage (see [0032]; the apparatus 100 can be configured to provide larger or smaller daily vitamin D doses).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the phototherapy dosing protocol of Moffat 2018 with the dynamic dosing protocol as taught by Moffat 2013. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide safe, sufficient levels of UV-radiation for vitamin D production while reducing the likelihood of skin redness from overexposure (Moffat 2013 [0035]).
Regarding claims 11, 15 and 16, Moffat 2018 teaches the home phototherapy device of claim 1 and claim 14. Moffat 2018 is silent regarding wherein the dose controller is further configured to execute an authentication protocol, the authentication protocol including-
receiving input credentials from the user;
authenticating the user using a registered user system;
determining, based at least partially on a result of the user authentication, whether to communicate with the portable UV-emitting device to power the UV light assembly on;
determining, based at least partially on a last access from the user, whether to communicate with the portable UV-emitting device to power the UV light assembly on; and
indicating to the user whether the UV light assembly will be powered on.
Moffat 2013 teaches wherein the dose controller is further configured to execute an authentication protocol (see Moffat 2013 Figs, 3A-3C), the authentication protocol including-
receiving input credentials from the user (352 and/or 364);
authenticating the user using a registered user system (see Moffat 2013 [0041]; apparatus 100 can store this information locally or remotely on a database to allow the user to log into his or her user account during subsequent phototherapy sessions via fingerprint identification);
determining, based at least partially on the result of the user authentication, whether to communicate with the UV-emitting device to power the UV light assembly on (see Moffat 2013 [0042]; where the user interface 120 navigates to screen 350c having an option to power on the apparatus, after user has logged into their account);
determining, based at least partially on a last access from the user, whether to communicate with the UV-emitting device to power the UV light assembly on (see Moffat 2013 [0043]; activation button 370 may navigate the display page 350c to a display that requests the user to add information that may affect the parameters of the phototherapy session); and
indicating to the user whether the UV light assembly will be powered on (see Moffat 2013 [0043]; activation button may begin a countdown to the beginning of the phototherapy session).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the home phototherapy system of Estes with the user authentication protocol as taught by Moffat. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to store and remember the radiation parameters associated with each individual user for ease and safety of use.
Claim(s) 18 and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moffat (US 20180056088 A1) in view of Johnson et al (US 20110037002 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Moffat teaches the phototherapy system of claim 14. Moffat is silent regarding the UV-emitting device further comprising a proximity sensor positioned to detect a distance of the user away from the active surface while the UV light assembly is powered on, and
wherein the electronics controller is operably coupled to the proximity sensor to power the UV light assembly off if the distance of the user is below a predetermined threshold for a predetermined period.
Johnson teaches a radiant energy emitting treatment device (10) which may be used for targeted UV phototherapy (Johnson Figs. 11-12, [0111]), wherein the UV-emitting device further comprises a proximity sensor (16) positioned to detect a distance of the user away from the active surface while the UV light assembly is powered on (see Johnson [0110-0111]; as the device 10 is directed toward the target lesion 70, the sensor means 16 suitably detects the spatial relationship between the sensor means 16 and the target lesion 70 at a desired or preset region), and
wherein the electronics controller is operably coupled to the proximity sensor to power the UV light assembly off if the distance of the user is below a predetermined threshold for a predetermined period (see Johnson [0110-0111]; if the sensor 16 is too far from the target lesion 70 then the sensor 16 provides an open circuit disabling any manual trigger 52 activation of the LED light source 18).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moffat’s UV emitting device with a proximity sensor to determine the distance between the user and the light source as taught by Johnson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide the light emitting device with a safety feature for guarding against undesired activation of the light source outside of a predetermined proximity which also protects against exposing non-target surfaces (Johnson [0090]).
Regarding claims 26 and 27, Moffat teaches the home phototherapy system of claim 24. Moffat is silent regarding a proximity sensor carried by the housing and operably coupled to the UV light assembly via an electronic component,
wherein the proximity sensor is configured to detect a distance between the portable UV-emitting device and the user and,
when the proximity sensor detects the user less than the first distance away from the portable UV-emitting device, the electronic component terminates emissions from the UV light emitters.
Johnson teaches a proximity sensor (16) carried by the housing (12) and operably coupled to the UV light assembly via an electronic component (see Johnson [0089]; sensor 16 is provided as a printed circuit board with a conductive layer and required electronics, [0105]; sensor 16 can send a signal to another electrical sensor in an electronic device controller of the device 10 to activate the light source),
wherein the proximity sensor is configured to detect a distance between the portable UV-emitting device and the user and (see Johnson [0110-0111]; as the device 10 is directed toward the target lesion 70, the sensor means 16 suitably detects the spatial relationship between the sensor means 16 and the target lesion 70 at a desired or preset region),
when the proximity sensor detects the user less than the first distance away from the portable UV-emitting device, the electronic component terminates emissions from the UV light emitters (see Johnson [0111]; the device is configured to emit UV light out through the aperture once the device is within an active zone as shown in Fig. 12, up to direct contact with the target lesion, activation of the device 10 without making actual contact with the target lesion may be desirable); and/or
when the proximity sensor detects the user is too close to the portable UV-emitting device, the electronic component provides feedback to the user to adjust position within the phototherapy zone (see Johnson [0106]; device 10 may be fitted with a bulb or like indicator to inform a user as to when the device 10 is in a position or otherwise set to emit radiant energy).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moffat’s UV emitting device with a proximity sensor to determine the distance between the user and the light source as taught by Johnson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide the light emitting device with a safety feature for guarding against undesired activation of the light source outside of a predetermined proximity which also protects against exposing non-target surfaces (Johnson [0090]).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moffat (US 20180056088 A1) in view of Brunelle et al (US 20100030013 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Moffat teaches the home phototherapy system of claim 24. Moffat teaches wherein the housing is a rigid structure (columns 3330). Moffat is silent regarding the housing having a width of at least 20 inches and a length of at least 20 inches, and wherein the housing is waterproof to seal the UV light assembly therein.
Brunelle teaches a wall integrated multisensory device (10) which may include a light source (22) for providing therapeutic light, where the light sources are mounted in a waterproof housing (24).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moffat’s housing with the waterproof housing as taught by Brunelle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to protect the electrical components of the therapeutic device and allow the device to be incorporated in a wall adjacent to a shower or bathing area (Brunelle [0010]).
Moffat and Brunelle are silent regarding the dimensions of the housing having a width of at least 20 inches and a length of at least 20 inches, however it can be appreciated that the columns disclosed by Moffat are configured to irradiate a person in the irradiation zone, so it can be assumed that the height (length) of the columns is greater than 20 inches. The housing disclosed by Brunelle is secured between the confines of frame 9 which is meant to define a panel of substantial size on a wall. The device as disclosed in the prior art discloses the claimed invention except for the housing having a length of at least 20 inches and a width of at least 20 inches. The housing having a length of at least 20 inches and a width of at least 20 inches would have been an obvious matter of design choice to fit the desired therapeutic zone, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A), In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISHA J SIRCAR whose telephone number is (571)272-0450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9-6:30, Friday 9-5:30 CT.
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.
/A.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792