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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 1 recites “the parameter” in line 13. Examiner recommends amending to –the at least one parameter—
-Claim 7 recites “the wavelength range” in lines 1-2. Examiner recommends amending to –the predetermined wavelength range—
-Claim 15 recites “the wavelength range” in line 8. Examiner recommends amending to –the predetermined wavelength range—
-Claim 15 recites “the wavelength range” in line 11. Examiner recommends amending to –the predetermined wavelength range—
-Claim 15 recites “the wavelength range” in lines 12-13. Examiner recommends amending to –the predetermined wavelength range—
-Claim 15 recites “the wavelength range” in line 17. Examiner recommends amending to –the predetermined wavelength range—
-Claim 15 recites “the wavelength range” in line 20. Examiner recommends amending to –the predetermined wavelength range—
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
-Claim 1 recites “controller” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to control lighting. Based on the specification, there is no disclosure provided to disclose the corresponding structure.
-Claim 1 recites “input unit” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to input a set irradiation dose. Based on the specification, there is no disclosure provided to disclose the corresponding structure.
-Claim 1 recites “storage unit” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is for storing at least one parameter for modifying the set irradiation dose. Based on the specification, there is no disclosure provided to disclose the corresponding structure.
-Claim 1 recites “modifier” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to modify the set irradiation dose input by the input unit. Based on the specification, there is no disclosure provided to disclose the corresponding structure.
-Claim 1 recites “lighting controller” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to cause the LED light source to provide the modified set irradiation dose of the ultraviolet light obtained by the modifier. Based on the specification, there is no disclosure provided to disclose the corresponding structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-15 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 assumption” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 1 recites “the basis” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 1 recites “the ultraviolet light output” in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 3 recites “spectral spectrum” in line 2. It is unclear what a spectral spectrum embodies according to the limitation. Further clarification should be provided to explain the use of duplicate wording here and what this imparts on the claim limitation.
-Claim 3 recites “the basis of a product of a relative irradiation intensity” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 3 recites “the basis of a product of the spectral spectrum” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The terms “relative irradiation intensity” and “relative effectiveness” in claims 3, 6, 15 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relative irradiation intensity” and “relative effectiveness” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While Figs. 2 and 3 show values representing the products of relative irradiation intensities, it is still unclear what irradiation intensities and relative effectiveness are being referred to in this limitation.
-Claim 6 recites “spectral spectrum” in line 5. It is unclear what a spectral spectrum embodies according to the limitation. Further clarification should be provided to explain the use of duplicate wording here and what this imparts on the claim limitation.
-Claim 13 recites “an LED light source” in line 2. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from “LED light source” originally recited in claim 1, line 2.
-Claim 14 recites “the assumption” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 14 recites “the ultraviolet light output” in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 15 recites “spectral spectrum” in line 3. It is unclear what a spectral spectrum embodies according to the limitation. Further clarification should be provided to explain the use of duplicate wording here and what this imparts on the claim limitation.
The term “relative erythemal ultraviolet irradiance” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relative erythemal ultraviolet irradiance” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While the specification references this term, it is still unclear what relative erythemal ultraviolet irradiance encompasses per this limitation.
Claim limitations “controller”, “input unit”, “storage unit”, “modifier”, “lighting controller” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While these terms are referenced in the specification, there is no corresponding structure provided for these limitations. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Livingston (U.S. 20160175610).
Regarding Claim 1, Livingston teaches an ultraviolet therapy apparatus [0038; “UV light therapy session in the present light emitting device”], comprising: a light source part having an LED light source [Fig. 6, elements 11-14 (light source)] that emits light including ultraviolet light and a light-outputting surface through which the light from the LED light source is output [Fig. 6, elements 1, 3, 5, 7, 19 (lamp/diode panels)]; a controller configured to control lighting of the LED light source [Fig. 19, element 9 (input box)]; an input unit configured to input a set irradiation dose [Fig. 19, element 22 (touch screen)], which is an irradiation amount of a therapeutic light to be applied to a patient on the assumption that a reference light emitted from a reference light source is used for the therapeutic light [0065; “These inputs are then…to receive light (13) energy output value, …to calculate patient (38) UV absorbed dosage.”]; and a storage unit for storing at least one parameter for modifying the set irradiation dose [Fig. 19 , element 21 (SDHD memory)], the controller including: a modifier configured to modify the set irradiation dose input by the input unit on the basis of the parameter stored in the storage unit to obtain a modified set irradiation dose of the ultraviolet light [Fig. 19, element 65 (microprocessor)], and a lighting controller configured to cause the LED light source to provide the modified set irradiation dose of the ultraviolet light obtained by the modifier [Fig 19, element 10 (power switch)], wherein the modified set irradiation dose is derived from a degree of effect of the reference light on a human body and a degree of effect on the human body caused by the ultraviolet light output from the light-outputting surface [0011]—operator controlling light emitting device in real time to optimize proper dose and [0128-0129]—refers to exposure calculated as a total for the session.
Regarding Claim 2, Livingston teaches wherein the storage unit stores, as the at least one parameter, a modification factor [0097], which is a value obtained by dividing the degree of effect of the reference light on the human body by the degree of effect on the human body caused by the ultraviolet light output from the light- outputting surface [0095-0099]—see reference equation and reference to light reflected by the patient’s body, and wherein the modifier is configured to calculate the modified set irradiation dose by multiplying the set irradiation dose input by the input unit by the modification factor stored in the storage unit [0100]—see referenced Fitzpatrick number equation.
Regarding Claim 4, Livingston teaches wherein the storage unit stores an irradiance of the ultraviolet light output from the light-outputting surface, and wherein the lighting controller is configured to calculate an irradiation time of the ultraviolet light from the LED light source by dividing the modified set irradiation dose by the irradiance of the ultraviolet light output from the light-outputting surface [0121]—reference to elapsed time to create an exposure for the current period, [Fig. 15, element 88 (exposure time)], and to cause the LED light source to emit the ultraviolet light for the irradiation time[0013]—reference to determining exposure time protocol for future treatment.
Regarding Claim 5, Livingston teaches wherein the lighting controller is configured to calculate an irradiance of the ultraviolet light to be output from the light-outputting surface by dividing the modified set irradiation dose by a predetermined irradiation time, and to cause the LED light source to emit the ultraviolet light at the irradiance for the predetermined irradiation time [0067]—describes microprocessor under normal conditions, programmed to function with an exposure time and safety mechanisms in place that limit the system if function failure occurs to turn off electrical current to the light sources to prevent injury to the patient.
Regarding Claim 14, Livingston teaches a method for applying ultraviolet light using an ultraviolet therapy apparatus having a light-outputting surface through which light including ultraviolet light emitted from an LED light source is output [0038], [Fig. 6, elements 11-14 (light source)] and [Fig. 6, elements 1, 3, 5, 7, 19 (lamp/diode panels)], comprising: a first step of inputting a set irradiation dose, which is an irradiation amount of a therapeutic light to be applied to a patient on the assumption that a reference light emitted from a reference light source is used for the therapeutic light [0065]; a second step of modifying the set irradiation dose by comparing a degree of effect on a human body by the reference light with a degree of effect on the human body by the ultraviolet light output from the light-outputting surface to obtain a modified set irradiation dose of the ultraviolet light [0011]—operator controlling light emitting device in real time to optimize proper dose and [0128-0129]; and a third step of causing the LED light source to provide the modified set irradiation dose [0038]—providing safety mechanisms that limit the dosage.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 7, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livingston (U.S. 20160175610) in view of Ferolito (U.S. 20160129279).
Regarding Claim 3, Livingston is silent on wherein the storage unit stores, as the at least one parameter, at least a spectral spectrum of the reference light, a spectral spectrum of the ultraviolet light output from the light- outputting surface, and an erythema action spectrum, and wherein the modifier is configured to calculate the degree of effect of the reference light on the human body on the basis of a product of a relative irradiation intensity of the spectral spectrum of the reference light and a relative effectiveness of the erythema action spectrum stored in the storage unit, calculate the degree of effect on the human body caused by the ultraviolet light output from the light-outputting surface on the basis of a product of the spectral spectrum of the ultraviolet light output from the light-outputting surface and the erythema action spectrum stored in the storage unit, calculate a modification factor, which is a value obtained by dividing the degree of effect of the reference light on the human body by the degree of effect on the human body caused by the ultraviolet light output from the light-outputting surface, and calculate the modified set irradiation dose by multiplying the set irradiation dose input by the input unit by the modification factor.
Ferolito teaches wherein the storage unit stores, as the at least one parameter [0042], at least a spectral spectrum of the reference light [0051]—reference to Fig. 7, a spectral spectrum of the ultraviolet light output from the light-outputting surface [0051]—reference to Fig. 8, and an erythema action spectrum [0053], and wherein the modifier is configured to calculate the degree of effect of the reference light on the human body on the basis of a product of a relative irradiation intensity of the spectral spectrum of the reference light and a relative effectiveness of the erythema action spectrum stored in the storage unit [0051]—describes effectiveness of these action spectrum of wavelengths near 295 nm, calculate the degree of effect on the human body caused by the ultraviolet light output from the light-outputting surface on the basis of a product of the spectral spectrum of the ultraviolet light output from the light-outputting surface and the erythema action spectrum stored in the storage unit [0046]—describes feedback sensors detecting amplitude of emitted light to adjust amplitude and [0054]—which describes how the action-spectrum is used to provide a correct dose of vitamin D based on the UV light exposure method, calculate a modification factor [0051]—reference to compensating for factors, which is a value obtained by dividing the degree of effect of the reference light on the human body by the degree of effect on the human body caused by the ultraviolet light output from the light-outputting surface [0051; “Multiple sensors and/or sensors capable of averaging or viewing a wider area of skin provide protection from single point sampling error.”], and calculate the modified set irradiation dose by multiplying the set irradiation dose input by the input unit by the modification factor [0051; “Multiple sensors and/or sensors capable of averaging or viewing a wider area of skin provide protection from single point sampling error.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate action-spectrum data as taught by Ferolito to understand changes the UV light is subjecting the body to as suggested by Livingston as Livingston discusses the use of reflectance energy data to control the system to create a medically approvable level of photon energy defined as M.E.D. [0003] with Ferolito because Ferolito teaches that when MED exposure reaches a certain threshold, therapy needs to be stopped [0051].
Regarding Claim 6, Livingston is silent on wherein the degree of effect of the reference light on the human body is an integral value of a product of a relative irradiation intensity of a spectral spectrum of the reference light and a relative effectiveness of an erythema action spectrum over a predetermined wavelength range, and wherein the degree of effect on the human body caused by the ultraviolet light output from the light-outputting surface is an integral value of a product of a relative irradiation intensity of a spectral spectrum of the ultraviolet light output from the light-outputting surface and the relative effectiveness of the erythema action spectrum over the predetermined wavelength range. Ferolito teaches wherein the degree of effect of the reference light on the human body is an integral value of a product of a relative irradiation intensity of a spectral spectrum of the reference light and a relative effectiveness of an erythema action spectrum over a predetermined wavelength range, and wherein the degree of effect on the human body caused by the ultraviolet light output from the light-outputting surface is an integral value of a product of a relative irradiation intensity of a spectral spectrum of the ultraviolet light output from the light-outputting surface and the relative effectiveness of the erythema action spectrum over the predetermined wavelength range [0051]—describing the effectiveness of the device determined by use of MEDs, action spectrum, to determine adjustments that must be made during light therapy for different skin types.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate action-spectrum data as taught by Ferolito to determine adjustments, modifications and compensation factors to control exposure to as suggested by Livingston as Livingston discusses temperature and distance compensations [0070 and 0086] with Ferolito because Ferolito teaches the device responds to wavelength data within the action spectrum to adjust UV light dose and delivery [0053].
Regarding Claim 7, Livingston further teaches wherein the wavelength range is from 250 nm to 400 nm [0012]—reference to wavelength range of 280-320 nm.
Regarding Claim 15, Livingston is silent on wherein the second step includes: a step of measuring a spectral spectrum of the ultraviolet light output from the light-outputting surface in a predetermined wavelength range; a step of calculating an erythemal ultraviolet irradiance by integrating a product of a relative irradiation intensity of the spectral spectrum of the ultraviolet light output from the light-outputting surface and a relative effectiveness of an erythema action spectrum over the wavelength range; a step of calculating a relative erythemal ultraviolet irradiance by normalizing the erythemal ultraviolet irradiance by an integral value of the spectral spectrum of the ultraviolet light output from the light-outputting surface over the wavelength range; a step of measuring a spectral spectrum of the reference light in the wavelength range; a step of calculating a reference erythemal ultraviolet irradiance by integrating a product of a relative irradiation intensity of the spectral spectrum of the reference light and the relative effectiveness of the erythema action spectrum of the reference light and the erythema action spectrum over the wavelength range; a step of calculating a reference relative erythemal ultraviolet irradiance by normalizing the reference erythemal ultraviolet irradiance by an integral value of the spectral spectrum of the reference light over the wavelength range; a step of calculating a modification factor by dividing the reference relative erythemal ultraviolet irradiance by the relative erythemal ultraviolet irradiance; a step of calculating the modified set irradiation dose by multiplying the set irradiation dose by the modification factor. Ferolito teaches wherein the second step includes: a step of measuring a spectral spectrum of the ultraviolet light output from the light-outputting surface in a predetermined wavelength range [0051]—reference to Fig. 7; a step of calculating an erythemal ultraviolet irradiance by integrating a product of a relative irradiation intensity of the spectral spectrum of the ultraviolet light output from the light-outputting surface and a relative effectiveness of an erythema action spectrum over the wavelength range [0051]—describing the effectiveness of the device determined by use of MEDs, action spectrum, to determine adjustments that must be made during light therapy for different skin types; a step of calculating a relative erythemal ultraviolet irradiance by normalizing the erythemal ultraviolet irradiance by an integral value of the spectral spectrum of the ultraviolet light output from the light-outputting surface over the wavelength range [0051]—reference to spectrum weighting for UV exposure to skin; a step of measuring a spectral spectrum of the reference light in the wavelength range [0051]—reference to Fig. 7; a step of calculating a reference erythemal ultraviolet irradiance by integrating a product of a relative irradiation intensity of the spectral spectrum of the reference light and the relative effectiveness of the erythema action spectrum of the reference light and the erythema action spectrum over the wavelength range [0051]—describing the effectiveness of the device determined by use of MEDs, action spectrum, to determine adjustments that must be made during light therapy for different skin types; a step of calculating a reference relative erythemal ultraviolet irradiance by normalizing the reference erythemal ultraviolet irradiance by an integral value of the spectral spectrum of the reference light over the wavelength range [0051]—describing the effectiveness of the device determined by use of MEDs, action spectrum, to determine adjustments that must be made during light therapy for different skin types; a step of calculating a modification factor by dividing the reference relative erythemal ultraviolet irradiance by the relative erythemal ultraviolet irradiance [0051; “Multiple sensors and/or sensors capable of averaging or viewing a wider area of skin provide protection from single point sampling error.”]; a step of calculating the modified set irradiation dose by multiplying the set irradiation dose by the modification factor [0051; “Multiple sensors and/or sensors capable of averaging or viewing a wider area of skin provide protection from single point sampling error.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate action-spectrum data as taught by Ferolito to understand changes the UV light is subjecting the body to as suggested by Livingston as Livingston discusses the use of reflectance energy data to control the system to create a medically approvable level of photon energy defined as M.E.D. [0003] with Ferolito because Ferolito teaches that when MED exposure reaches a certain threshold, therapy needs to be stopped [0051].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livingston (U.S. 20160175610) in view of Bennouri (U.S. 9068887).
Regarding Claim 8, Livingston is silent on wherein the degree of effect of the reference light on the human body is a UV index of the reference light, and wherein the degree of effect on the human body caused by the ultraviolet light output from the light- outputting surface is a UV index of the ultraviolet light output from the light-outputting surface. Bennouri teaches wherein the degree of effect of the reference light on the human body is a UV index of the reference light, and wherein the degree of effect on the human body caused by the ultraviolet light output from the light- outputting surface is a UV index of the ultraviolet light output from the light-outputting surface [Abstract; “The UV dosimetry system processes the measured UV irradiance intensity to calculate the UV index (UVI) and the sensor site specific UV dose. It can also calculate the total absorbed UV dose and vitamin D production by taking into account user specific factors.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to UV index data as taught by Bennouri to determine to control UV exposure to as suggested by Livingston as Livingston discusses the use of accurate skin absorption of UV measurements to allow for adjustment based on real-time information [0010] with Bennouri because Bennouri teaches UV index data as an internationally accepted parameter for measuring intensity of UV radiation [Col 1, lines 46-47].
Claim(s) 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livingston (U.S. 20160175610) in view of Benesol (U.S. 20180056088).
Regarding Claim 9, Livingston is silent on wherein the LED light source is manufactured to emit the ultraviolet light having a peak wavelength within a range of 308 nm to 313 nm. Benesol teaches wherein the LED light source is manufactured to emit the ultraviolet light having a peak wavelength within a range of 308 nm to 313 nm [Fig. 1] and [0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the range of 308 to 313 as taught by Benesol to allow for vitamin D creation as suggested by Livingston as Livingston discusses vitamin D created in the human body by exposure to UVB in the range of 280-320 nm [0012] with Benesol because Benesol teaches the effectiveness of excimer lasers at stimulating depigmentation of melanocytes affected by vitiligo [0032].
Regarding Claim 10, Livingston is silent on wherein the LED light source is manufactured to emit the ultraviolet light having a peak wavelength at 308 nm. Benesol teaches wherein the LED light source is manufactured to emit the ultraviolet light having a peak wavelength at 308 nm [Fig. 1] and [0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the range of 308 to 313 as taught by Benesol to allow for vitamin D creation as suggested by Livingston as Livingston discusses vitamin D created in the human body by exposure to UVB in the range of 280-320 nm [0012] with Benesol because Benesol teaches the effectiveness of excimer lasers at stimulating depigmentation of melanocytes affected by vitiligo [0032].
Regarding Claim 11, Livingston is silent on wherein the reference light source is a lamp that emits the reference light having a peak wavelength within a range of 308 nm and 313 nm. Benesol teaches wherein the reference light source is a lamp that emits the reference light having a peak wavelength within a range of 308 nm and 313 nm. [Fig. 1] and [0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the range of 308 to 313 as taught by Benesol to allow for vitamin D creation as suggested by Livingston as Livingston discusses vitamin D created in the human body by exposure to UVB in the range of 280-320 nm [0012] with Benesol because Benesol teaches the effectiveness of excimer lasers at stimulating depigmentation of melanocytes affected by vitiligo [0032].
Regarding Claim 12, Livingston is silent on wherein the reference light source is an excimer lamp. Benesol teaches wherein the reference light source is an excimer lamp [0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the range of 308 to 313 as taught by Benesol to allow for vitamin D creation as suggested by Livingston as Livingston discusses vitamin D created in the human body by exposure to UVB in the range of 280-320 nm [0012] with Benesol because Benesol teaches the effectiveness of excimer lasers at stimulating depigmentation of melanocytes affected by vitiligo [0032].
Regarding Claim 13, Livingston is silent on wherein the reference light source is an LED light source that emits the reference light having a peak wavelength within a range of 308 nm and 313 nm. Benesol teaches wherein the reference light source is an LED light source that emits the reference light having a peak wavelength within a range of 308 nm and 313 nm [0031-0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the range of 308 to 313 as taught by Benesol to allow for vitamin D creation as suggested by Livingston as Livingston discusses vitamin D created in the human body by exposure to UVB in the range of 280-320 nm [0012] with Benesol because Benesol teaches the effectiveness of excimer lasers at stimulating depigmentation of melanocytes affected by vitiligo [0032].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Loupis (U.S. 20160016001)-references system that emits light for treatment of tissues
-Gamelin (U.S. 20180369604)-discusses systems for phototherapy
-Irwin (U.S. 7891361)-refers to UV exposure device for treatment of skin disorders
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm 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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/B.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791