DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to the claims filed on 11/13/2025 Claims 1-7, 9, 11-13 are pending. A final action on the merits of claims 1-7, 9, 11-13 is as follows.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims are acknowledged and entered accordingly.
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 1-7, 9, 11-13 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 1 recites the limitation “applying the light energy in pulsed mode only one time to the target areas of the skin or mucosa … exposing the target areas of the skin or mucosa under the light energy in pulsed mode for 1 second to 2000 seconds only one time …” (emphasis added). It is unclear if these steps (applying and exposing) are distinct steps or if the steps are concurrent such that the light is applied “only one time” as claimed. It can reasonably be interpreted that these steps require two applications of light energy to the target areas, which would contradict the “only one time” limitation, thus making the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. For examination purposes these steps will be interpreted as concurrently occurring such that the light energy is truly only applied one time. Amending the second occurrence of “only one time” to “the only one time” would appear to resolve this deficiency. Claims 2-7, 9, and 11-13 inherit this deficiency.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "wherein the wavelength is selected from a group consisting of 630nm, 660nm, 980nm, 1060nm, or a combination thereof". This claim is indefinite as parent claim 1 recites the wavelength “consisting of 810nm and 1302nm”, yet claim 2 goes on to recite the wavelength is selected from an entirely different set of wavelengths. As such, the scope of the wavelength is unclear. For examination purposes, the wavelength will be interpreted to be consisting of 810nm and 1302nm as recited in claim 1.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the light source is selected from a group consisting of a laser, an incandescent lamp with appropriate filters, a IPL lamp with similar appropriate filters, a laser diode, or a combination of two or more of these sources”, however parent claim 1 explicitly recites “the light source is a LED”. It is unclear how the scope of the light source can change from explicitly an LED in claim 1, to a light source selected from a group of varying light sources. For examination purposes, the light source will be interpreted as an LED as recited in claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 1, 3-7, 9, and 12-13, the Mendes, Siegel, Miskin, Simenhaus, Konig (U.S. PGPub No. 2024/0008745) references fail to teach providing a plurality of light sources which generate light energy having a wavelength consisting of 810nm and 1302nm with a pulse rate of 300 to 10000 Hz for 1 to 2000 seconds only one time as recited in claim 1. The Miskin reference teaches application of a variety of wavelengths for various treatment, but teaches away from a wavelength of 1302 nm stating that “there is no indication that light of a wavelength above [940 ±25nm] would be of any therapeutic use” (see [0006-0007]). The Mendes reference discloses use of a wavelength of approximately 660 nm for treating Herpes. The Konig reference similarly fails to teach use of such claimed wavelengths for the treatment of viral infections. As such, any combination of the references of record to arrive at the method of claim 1 would rely on impermissible hindsight benefit using information solely gleaned from the applicant’s specification. No other pertinent prior art reference were found that would overcome the above deficiencies. Therefore, there is no motivation (either in these references or elsewhere in the art) for making such specific and significant modifications thereto to arrive at claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9, and 12-13.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam Z Minchella whose telephone number is (571)272-8644. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri 7-3 EST.
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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at (571) 272-1213. 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.
/ADAM Z MINCHELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794