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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 6-14, and 16-17 are currently pending and under examination. As per the amendments filed on 01/27/2026, claims 1, 3, 6-14, and 16-17 are amended and claims 2, 4-5, 15, and 18 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 11-13 (Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)), filed 01/27/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of claims 1, 3, 6-14, and 16-17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1, 3, 6-14, and 16-17 are withdrawn. The Examiner notes the following arguments to address the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
“Claim 1 is amended to specifically recite the ‘computing device’ as a comprised element” – this argument is persuasive and the corresponding rejection of claim 1 is withdrawn
“Applicant amended claims 3-4, 6-7 and 9-14 to recite the related operations as apparatus configuration, and not as actual method steps according to the Examiner's advice” – this argument is persuasive and the corresponding rejections of claims 3-4, 6-7 and 9-14 are withdrawn
“Claim 10 is amended to recite the related operations as apparatus configuration, and not as actual method. Also, claim 10 is amended to specify that the computing device is configured to perform the operation” - this argument is persuasive and the corresponding rejection of claim 10 is withdrawn
“Claim 1, which is the base claim for claim 14, is amended to provide the antecedent basis for the term ‘scanning data’ recited in claim 14” - this argument is persuasive and the corresponding rejection of claim 14 is withdrawn
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 13 (Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d)), filed 01/27/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) rejections of claims 2-4, 15-16, and 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive because claims 2 and 15 have been canceled and claims dependent on claims 2 and 15 have been amended to depend on claim 1. Therefore, the rejections of claims 2-4, 15-16, and 18 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 13-14 (Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101), filed 01/27/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-18 have been fully considered. Claims 2, 4, 15, and 18 are canceled. Applicant argues:
In apparatus claim 1 and its dependents, to overcome §101 rejections, all claims are amended to incorporate the language "configured to" or similar terms to distinguish the claimed device from the user's body region, in accordance with the Examiner.
For claim 17, which is a method claim, Applicant amended the claim to change the term "user's body region" to the "target object" while limiting that the target object is in a shape of a human 's head. Therefore, the method of claim 17 is specified that it is only applicable and usable to human's head or to an object having such shape. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that all issues under §101 are addressed. Withdrawal of rejections under §101 is respectfully requested. (page 14, 01/27/2026 Remarks)
Both of these arguments are persuasive and the rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-18 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 14-16 (Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103), filed 01/27/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-17 have been fully considered. Claims 2, 4, and 15 are canceled. Applicant argues:
The Applicant thanks the Examiner for acknowledging that claim 18 is allowable subject matter. In this response, the limitations of claim 18 are incorporated into independent claim 1 along
with the limitations of claim 4, which is an intervening claim, as will further described. Also, the
claim languages are changed to avoid any issue concerning§§ 101 and 112. Independent claim 17 is also similarly amended. Accordingly, favorable consideration and allowance of this application are respectfully requested.
Independent Claim 1
Claim 1 is amended to incorporate the limitations of claim 18, which the examiner recognized as allowable subject matter, along with its intervening claim 4. As indicated in rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), the limitations of claim 2, which is another intervening claim, are already recited in claim 1. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that claim 1 is allowable.
Independent Claim 17
Claim 17 is amended in a similar manner to claim 1. Specifically, claim 17 is amended to incorporate the specific operations recited in claims 2, 4, and 18. Therefore, claim 17 is also patentable. (pages 15-16, 01/27/2026 Remarks)
These arguments are persuasive. The limitations in canceled claim 18 where no prior art was found that teaches on or renders obvious those limitations have been incorporated into independent claims 1 and 17. Therefore, the prior art rejections of claims 1, 3, 6-14, and 16-17 are withdrawn.
Additional objections or rejections have been identified by the Examiner in claims 1, 9-13, and 16-17 (see below).
Summary: The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), 35 U.S.C. § 112(d), 35 U.S.C. § 101, and 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of 1, 3, 6-14, and 16-17 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 3, 6-8, and 13-14 are considered allowable (claims 1 and 13 are objected to). Claims 9-12 and 16-17 would be deemed allowable but are currently rejected under 35 USC § 112(b).
Claim Interpretation
Claim 17 is directed to a method with multiple contingent limitations (where the apparatus limitations from claim 18 were added to the method in claim 17):
MPEP 2111.04 states:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.
The claim 17 limitations “in response to determining that the operation mode is the basic mode, tilting the base part disposed in the internal space of the body part such that the predetermined axis of the base part becomes parallel to the normal vector of the target object, while retaining the body part fixed to the target object in the fixing position” and “in response to determining that the operation mode is the head top mode, tilting the base part disposed in the internal space of the body such that the predetermined axis of the base part forms a predetermined angle with the normal vector of the target object, while retaining the body part fixed to the target object in the fixing position” are contingent limitations.
The operation mode is determined earlier in the claim 17 method with “determining an operation mode from among multiple predetermined modes, including a basic mode and a head top mode.” However, neither the basic mode nor the head top mode need to be selected and the BRI of claim 17 therefore does not require these contingent limitations. Both of these “in response to determining that the operation mode” statements would need to be amended to remove negative contingencies in order to limit the BRI to the positive contingencies (i.e. the basic mode and head top mode are selected). However, the non-contingent limitations of claim 17 already contain the added limitations from canceled claim 18 which would make instant claim 17 allowable.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
• Claim 1: “a processor, when executing the computer program, is configured to obtain a
normal vector of the user's body region based on the scanning data” would better be stated as “a processor, when executing the computer program, configured to obtain a normal vector of the user's body region based on the scanning data” (note claims 3, 6-8, and 13-14 depend on claim 1)
• Claim 10: “to determine that the contact between the first light irradiator and
the user's body region occurs, if a contact pressure” would better be stated as “to determine that the contact between the first light irradiator and the user's body region occurs if a contact pressure” with no comma
• Claim 11: “by the same first distance in response to” would be clearer by referring to the “first distance” rather than the “same first distance”
• Claim 13: “the light irradiation apparatus is configured to turn off, if it is detected” would better be stated as “the light irradiation apparatus is configured to turn off if it is detected” with no comma
• Claim 17: “internal space capable of containing an target object” should be “internal space capable of containing a target object”
• Claim 17: “adjusting a light irradiator coupled to the base part in position” would more clearly be represented as “adjusting a position of the light irradiator coupled to the base part”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9: The limitation “wherein the light irradiator comprises a first light irradiator” renders the claim indefinite because the light irradiator is comprised of another instance of itself. The light irradiator and first light irradiator terms should be modified so that the “light irradiator” is identified as a larger structure containing a grouping of light irradiators.
Claim 11: The limitation “wherein the light irradiator further comprises a second light irradiator” renders the claim indefinite because the light irradiator is comprised of another instance of itself. The light irradiator and second light irradiator terms should be modified so that the “light irradiator” is identified as a larger structure containing a grouping of light irradiators.
Claim 11: The term “the state where the first light irradiator and the second light irradiator move backward from the user's body region by the first distance” lacks an antecedent basis.
Claim 12: The term “the state of moving backward from the user's body region by the first distance” lacks an antecedent basis.
Claim 16: The use of the term “third actuator” without first defining a “second actuator”(first actuator defined in claim 1, second actuator defined in claim 8) suggests a lack of antecedent basis for the second actuator.
Claim 17: The term “the at least portions of the target object from the light irradiator” lacks an antecedent basis.
Claim 10 is rejected for being dependent on rejected claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
It was previously determined in the 12/05/2025 office action that no prior art references could be found that teach or render obvious the limitations of now canceled claim 18 due to the limitation of the body region to the head. As discussed during the 12/23/2025 interview, the allowable limitations of claim 18 are integrated into independent claims 1 and 17 in the current claims set. These amendments establish claims 1 and 17 as requiring (1) the actuator to be placed inside a device’s body part which contains a user’s head or head-shaped object and (2) the actuator being able to both move the base (containing a light irradiator) towards and away from the user’s head and tilt the base part relative to the user’s head.
The use of Loupis (US 2018/0117355) as prior art was predicated on using an actuator (not contained in a structure) which moves and tilts a light irradiator towards the body. However, the limitation requiring actuators placed inside the body part of the apparatus (capable of containing the user’s body region) rendered Loupis not applicable. The use of Connor (US 2021/0379388 A1) as prior art was previously applicable to the claim language where Connor uses a photoplethysmography device placed over the arm, hand, or fingers with the ability to tilt and change position (via the combination with Wasserbauer - US 2022/0203117 A1). Connor could not be applied to canceled claim 18 because the head was specified as the body region placed in the device.
A further search of prior art (as previously shown in the 12/05/2025 office action) led to the discovery of references with an actuator contained inside a helmet-like structure containing the head: Unger (US 2017/0340897 A1), Kim (KR 1020170093605), and Wasserbauer (US 2022/0203117 A1). Unger teaches a helmet containing light emitter arrays which is placed on the head ([0030]). However, the actuator is used to rotate the array around a pivot point within the same plane as the array parallel to the head ([0125]). Kim teaches an irradiation member attached within a helmet or hat ([0016-0017]) using an actuator ([0018]). However, Kim teaches the actuator is used to swing the tactile stimulation application component to brush the scalp ([0034]). Wasserbauer teaches a dome placed over a body organ that includes an actuator which moves each optical assembly individually from a first position to a second position near the body organ ([0004]). However, these individual optical assemblies do not have a common base part consistent with earlier interpretations of the base part by the Examiner and do not have a tilt function. Potential combinations of the above helmet structures and a larger actuator such as Loupis are physically incompatible (e.g. unable to fit the larger actuator arm inside a helmet).
No combination of prior art references could be found that teach or render obvious the limitations of instant claims 1, 3, 6-14, and 16-17. Claims 1, 3, 6-8, and 13-14 are considered allowable with the understanding that objections are corrected. Claims 9-12 and 16-17 would be deemed allowable but are currently rejected under 35 USC § 112.
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 9:00 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 on 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