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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 9 January 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
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, 2, 4, 6 – 8, 13, 15, 18, and 37 – 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinojosa, Jr. (US PGPUB 2006/0002105 – in IDS) in view of Sullivan (USPN 6,602,275 – in IDS).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 4, Hinojosa discloses a system for water immersion, the system comprising: a shell (e.g. 12) comprising an interior wall (e.g. 14) defining a receptacle sized and shaped to hold water (e.g. ¶ 16), the shell comprising a seat between a floor of the shell and an upper edge of the shell (e.g. Fig. 1); and a therapeutic light assembly (e.g. ¶ 19 and 22) positioned in the interior wall of the shell and between the seat and the upper edge of the shell (e.g. Fig. 1), the therapeutic light assembly comprising: a lens that allows the transmission of light (e.g. ¶ 23);a housing recessed in the interior wall of the shell (e.g. Fig. 1); and at least one LED positioned between the lens and the housing (e.g. ¶ 23); wherein in use, the therapeutic light assembly is positioned below a water line during normal use (e.g. Fig. 1), but fails to teach that the LED is an infrared LED.
Sullivan teaches it is known to use a therapeutic treatment light assembly (e.g. 1), wherein the therapeutic light assembly includes a plurality of infrared LEDs and a plurality of visible red light LEDs in alternating order(e.g. col 5, line 35 – col 6 line 7 and Figs. 1A, 3A, and 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the LEDs as taught by Hinojosa with the infrared LEDs as taught by Sullivan, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of decreasing inflammation of the patient.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Hinojosa discloses the LED is recessed in a bore in the housing and a wall at least partially surrounding the bore (e.g. Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Hinojosa discloses the claimed invention, as previously described, but fails to explicitly recite a remote device for adjusting an intensity and/or duration of light emitted.
Sullivan teaches it is known to use a remote box (e.g. 20) to adjust the time and treatment. Furthermore, user interfaces that use software modules or apps in order to adjust therapy are well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device as taught by Hinojosa with a remote control unit as taught by Sullivan and is known int art, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of allowing a user to easily optimize the therapy.
Regarding claim 13, Hinojosa discloses the plurality of infrared LEDs and the plurality of visible light LEDs are positioned substantially along a plurality of concentric rings (e.g. Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 15 and 41, Hinojosa discloses the claimed invention, as described above, but does not explicitly recite an alarm system configured to emit an alarm indicative of an operational status of the therapeutic light assembly, wherein the operational status of the therapeutic light assembly comprises an active status, an inactive status, or an intensity level.
Sullivan teaches it is known to have a visible alarm (i.e. display) indicative of an operation status (e.g. col 8, lines 46 – 50). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device as taught by Hinojosa with the alarm system as taught by Sullivan, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of alerting a user to the status of the device, so the user can optimize the therapy.
Regarding claim 18, Hinojosa discloses the therapeutic light assembly comprises a reflector plate comprising a plurality of reflector hubs, each reflector hub surrounding each one of the plurality of infrared LEDs and each of the plurality of visible light LEDs (e.g. ¶ 23).
Regarding claims 37 – 40, Hinojosa in view of Sullivan discloses using specific wavelengths and having a plurality of infrared and visible wavelengths, as described above. However, Hinojosa in view of Sullivan does not explicitly recite using light wavelengths of 660nm or 850nm or having twenty infrared LEDs and twenty visible light LEDs.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the wavelengths and number of LEDs as taught by Hinojosa in view of Sullivan, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art [In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233] and/or since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ (Please see MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M DIETRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1895. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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.
/JOSEPH M DIETRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796