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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 5, 11, 14-16, 24, 26, 29, 31, 42-43, 51, and 53 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “and controller” in line 2 and is suggested to read --and a controller-- in order to ensure proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites “the body” in line 2 and is suggested to read --the generally cylindrical body-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed.
Claim 1 recites “the surface” in line 3 and is suggested to read --the exterior surface-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed.
Claim 2 recites “wherein, the” in line 1 and is suggested to read --wherein the-- in order to be grammatically correct.
Claim 5 recites “the surface” in line 1 and is suggested to read --the exterior surface-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed.
Claim 11 recites “body” in line 2 and is suggested to read --body.-- in order to be grammatically correct.
Claim 14 recites “the sleeve” in line 1 and is suggested to read --the transparent flexible sleeve-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed.
Claim 15 recites “the cylindrical core” in line 2 and is suggested to read --the rigid cylindrical core-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed.
Claim 16 recites “protrusion” in line 2 and is suggested to read --protrusion.-- in order to be grammatically correct.
Claim 24 recites “the parameters” in lines 3-4 and is suggested to read --the wavelength range and treatment frequency parameters-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed.
Claim 26 recites “muscle” in line 1 and is suggested to read --a muscle-- in order to ensure proper antecedent basis.
Claim 29 recites “the control interface” in line 2 and is suggested to read --the user control interface-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed.
Claim 31 recites “the surface” in line 2 and is suggested to read --the exterior surface-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed.
Claim 42 recites “vents forming and a cooling duct through the cylindrical body” in lines 1-2 and is suggested to read --vents and a cooling duct formed through the cylindrical body-- in order to be grammatically correct.
Claim 43 recites “the heatsink backing assembly” in line 2 and is suggested to read --the heatsink backing-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed.
Claim 51 recites “density” in line 1 and is suggested to read --a density-- in order to ensure proper antecedent basis.
Claim 53 recites “and operational time” in line 2 and is suggested to read --an operational time-- in order to ensure proper antecedent basis and be grammatically correct.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are: “a vibratory device” in claim 37 lines 1-2 and claim 54 line 3, and “a heat source element” in claim 40 lines 1-2.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
According to the Applicant’s specification para. [0042], “a vibratory device” in claim 37 lines 1-2 and claim 54 line 3 is being interpreted as an electric motor turning an eccentric flyweight, a piezoelectric vibrator, and equivalents thereof. According to the Applicant’s specification para. [0043], “a heat source element” in claim 40 lines 1-2 is being interpreted as an electroresistive heat source and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation 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 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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 2-4, 7-12, 16-20, 29-36, 51, and 54-55 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 2 recites the limitation "the range" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the power density" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the length" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “respective massage protrusion” in line 2 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is meant to be a part of or separate from “a plurality of massage protrusions” in claim 5.
Regarding claims 8-10, the limitation “at least one massage protrusion” in line 1 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is meant to be a part of or separate from “a plurality of massage protrusions” in claim 5.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “the protrusions” in line 1 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is meant to be a part of or separate from “a plurality of massage protrusions” in claim 5 and/or “at least one massage protrusion” in claim 10. Moreover, the limitation "the length" is recited in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “protrusions” in line 1 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is meant to be a part of or separate from “a plurality of massage protrusions” in claim 5 and/or “at least one massage protrusion” in claim 10. Moreover, the limitation “adjacent rings” in lines 1-2 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is meant to be a part of or separate from “a series of adjacent rings” in claim 11.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “each recess” in line 1 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is meant to be a part of or separate from “recesses” in claim 15.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the interior surface areas" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “the surface area of the cylindrical core” in lines 1-2 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is meant to be the same as or different from “a surface area” of claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “can” in line 3 is confusing, as it is unclear whether the following limitations are required or not for the claimed invention. Moreover, the limitation “different wavelength ranges” in lines 3-4 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is meant to be the same as or different from “different wavelength ranges” in line 2.
Regarding claims 29-30, the limitation “an operative radial angle range” in lines 2-3 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is meant to be part of or separate from “radial angle ranges” of claim 28.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the at least one sensor" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Moreover, the limitation “an operative radial angle range” in lines 3-4 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is meant to be part of or separate from “radial angle ranges” of claim 28.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the length" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "the orientation" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 36, the limitation “can” in line 1 is confusing, as it is unclear whether the following limitations are required or not for the claimed invention. Moreover, the limitation "the intensity" is recited in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 51 recites the limitations "the centre" in line 2 and “the length” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 54 recites the limitation "the speed" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 55 recites the limitation "the intensity" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1, 5-10, 13, 37, 39-41, and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mey (EP 3 409 247 A1, see attached translation).
Regarding claim 1, Mey discloses a massage device (massage roller) (Mey; translation abstract) comprising a generally cylindrical body (core 10 of cylindrical massage roller 1 would also have a corresponding cylindrical shape) (Mey; Fig. 8; translation page 8 third and eighth paragraphs) comprising an internal battery and controller for a plurality of light source elements (inside the core 10 is a power supply device 16, which can be a battery unit, and a light source device 18 which controls light sources 19) (Mey; Fig. 8; translation page 8 last paragraph; translation page 9 first paragraph), the body defining an exterior surface comprising the light source elements arranged in a matrix to emit light from a surface area of the surface (core 10 has an exterior surface for a matrix of light sources 19 which emit light from a surface area of the core 10 exterior surface) (Mey; Fig. 8; translation page 9 second paragraph).
Regarding claim 5, Mey discloses wherein the surface comprises a plurality of massage protrusions (the core 10 has a transparent outer wall 11 with nubs 5 on its surface) (Mey; Fig. 8; translation page 8 last two paragraphs).
Regarding claim 6, Mey discloses wherein the massage protrusions are flexible (nubs 5 can be flexible) (Mey; Fig. 8; translation page 6 last paragraph).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Mey discloses wherein at least a subset of the light source elements collocate with respective massage protrusions (light sources 19 are adjacent to respective nubs 5) (Mey; Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Mey discloses wherein at least one massage protrusion is generally shaped as a plano-convex lens (nubs 5 can have a round knob shape) (Mey; Figs. 4, 8; translation page 6 last paragraph).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Mey discloses wherein at least one massage protrusion is elongate with respect to a tangential axis of the body (nubs 5 can have elongated rib-shapes, which would then be elongate with respect to an axis tangent to the core 10) (Mey; Figs. 4, 8; translation page 6 last paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Mey discloses wherein at least one massage protrusion is domed with respect to a longitudinal axis of the body (nubs 5 can have a round knob shape, which would then be domed with respect to a longitudinal axis of the core 10) (Mey; Figs. 4, 8; translation page 6 last paragraph).
Regarding claim 13, Mey discloses wherein the device comprises a rigid cylindrical core and a transparent flexible sleeve (massage roller 1 can have a core 10 made of a rigid material such as hard rubber or wood, and a flexible transparent outer wall 11 as a shell with flexible nubs 5) (Mey; Fig. 8; translation page 5 last paragraph; translation page 6 last paragraph; translation page 7 last paragraph; translation page 8 last paragraph).
Regarding claim 37, Mey discloses wherein the device further comprises a vibratory device (Mey allows for the individual features of different massager roller embodiments to be combined with each other; the Fig. 8 massage roller 1 can thus have a vibrator as in the Fig. 9 massage roller 1) (Mey; Fig. 9; translation page 9 last two paragraphs; translation page 10 first and sixth paragraphs).
Regarding claim 39, Mey discloses wherein the vibratory device comprises a piezoelectric device (vibrator can be a piezo vibrator) (Mey; Fig. 9; translation page 10 first paragraph).
Regarding claim 40, Mey discloses wherein the device further comprises a heat source element (Mey allows for the individual features of different massager roller embodiments to be combined with each other; the Fig. 8 massage roller 1 can thus have a heater 14 made of heating wires as in the Fig. 7 massage roller 1) (Mey; Fig. 7; translation page 8 sixth paragraph; translation page 10 sixth paragraph).
Regarding claim 41, Mey discloses wherein the heat source element is an electroresistive heat source element (heater 14 can be made of heating wires) (Mey; Fig. 7; translation page 8 sixth paragraph; translation page 10 sixth paragraph).
Regarding claim 51, as best understood, Mey discloses wherein density of the light source elements increases towards the centre of the length of the body (the massage roller 1 with core 10 does not have light sources 19 on its very ends but does have them at the center of its length, thus the density of light sources 19 increases towards the center) (Mey; Fig. 8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sand (US 2014/0081359 A1).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Mey discloses the invention as previously claimed, but does not disclose wherein, the light source elements emit red and near infrared light in the range of 600nm-1000nm.
However, Sand teaches a light applicator for a subject’s body surface (Sand; abstract) wherein, the light source elements emit red and near infrared light in the range of 600nm-1000nm (LED elements 14 emit light at the visible red, i.e. 635 to 680 nm, and near infrared, i.e. 780-980 nm, ranges) (Sand; para. [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Mey light source elements to emit red and near infrared light in the range of 600nm-1000nm, as taught by Sand, for the purpose of providing wavelengths suitable for both lipolysis and photoactivation therapies (Sand; para. [0026]).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, the modified Mey teaches wherein the light source elements comprise subsets of light source elements emitting light in different wavelength ranges and wherein the controller can independently control the subsets to emit light in different wavelength ranges (some of the LED elements 14 can emit two different wavelengths of light, for example about 633 nm and about 830 nm; control device 350 controls each applicator with associated LED elements 14, and so would independently control each of the LED elements 14 emitting the two different wavelengths of light) (Sand; Figs. 1-5; para. [0026]; para. [0032]; claim 25).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Mey teaches wherein the different wavelength ranges centre at approximately 660nm and 850nm respectively (LED elements 14 emit light at two different wavelengths for the visible red, i.e. 635 to 680 nm, and near infrared, i.e. 780-980 nm, ranges) (Sand; para. [0026]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bornstein (US 2007/0197884 A1).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Mey discloses the invention as previously claimed, but does not disclose wherein the power density of the matrix of light source elements is between 0.005W/cm2 to 5 W/cm2.
However, Bornstein teaches an optical method of treating skin (Bornstein; para. [0002]) wherein the power density of the matrix of light source elements is between 0.005 W/cm2 to 5 W/cm2 (power dosimetry of 0.015 W/cm2 to 1 W/cm2 for a LED array) (Bornstein; Fig. 5; para. [0098]; para. [0125]; claim 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Mey light source elements such that the power density of the matrix of light source elements is between 0.005W/cm2 to 5 W/cm2, as taught by Bornstein, for the purpose of providing the light source elements with a suitable power dosimetry for modulating adipocytes (Bornstein; para. [0125]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pryor at al. (US 2008/0262394 A1).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Mey discloses the invention as previously claimed, but does not disclose wherein the matrix of light source elements extends across more than 80% of the length of the body.
However, Pryor teaches a phototherapy apparatus (Pryor; abstract) wherein the matrix of light source elements extends across more than 80% of the length of the body (massage roller 302, 402 has an array of LEDs 304, 404 extending across substantially the whole roller body length) (Pryor; Figs. 3-4; paras. [0029-0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Mey body and light source elements such that the matrix of light source elements extends across more than 80% of the length of the body, as taught by Pryor, for the purpose of increasing the amount of skin that can be treated with light while using the massage roller.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mey as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Lamore (US 2009/0112137 A1).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Mey discloses the invention as previously claimed, but does not disclose wherein the protrusions are arranged along a series of adjacent rings along the length of the body.
However, Lamore teaches a roller device for massage (Lamore; para. [0031]) wherein the protrusions are arranged along a series of adjacent rings along the length of the body (cylindrical axle 50 has a series of adjacent cylindrical rollers 60 with raised portions 100 on them along the length of the cylindrical axle 50) (Lamore; Figs. 1-3; paras. [0046-0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Mey body and massage protrusions such that the protrusions are arranged along a series of adjacent rings along the length of the body, as taught by Lamore, for the purpose of allowing the rings and protrusions to be interchanged as desired to accomplish different types of therapy (Lamore; para. [0048]).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, the modified Mey teaches wherein ends of protrusions of adjacent rings overlap (ends of raised sections 100 on adjacent cylindrical rollers 60 can overlap) (Lamore; Figs. 1-3).
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mey as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Hall et al. (US 2014/0276248 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Mey discloses the invention as previously claimed, but does not disclose wherein the sleeve comprises silicon.
However, Hall teaches a system for delivering light across a skin surface (Hall; abstract) wherein the sleeve comprises silicon (flexible, transparent silicon holds the devices 810a-810f of a light/ultrasonic transducer system 800) (Hall; Fig. 11; para. [0211]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Mey sleeve to comprise silicon, as taught by Hall, for the purpose of providing the sleeve with a specific suitable transparent and flexible material for light to pass through (Hall; para. [0211]).
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mey as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Altshuler et al. (US 2007/0038206 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Mey discloses the invention as previously claimed, but does not disclose wherein the light source elements are recessed in recesses in the cylindrical core.
However, Mey does teach the light source elements are on the surface of the cylindrical core (light sources 19 on the surface of core 10) (Mey; Fig. 8). Moreover, Altshuler teaches a device for applying light to skin for treatment (Altshuler; abstract) wherein the light source elements are recessed in recesses (LED module 270 has a reflector 490; the surface of the reflector 490 has an array of holes 500 corresponding to an LED 530 at the bottom of the hole) (Altshuler; Figs. 7-8; para. [0099]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Mey cylindrical core and light source elements such that the light source elements are recessed in recesses in the cylindrical core, as taught by Mey and Altshuler, for the purpose of enabling 95% of the light from the LEDS to be reflected towards the tissue to be treated (Altshuler; para. [0099]).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, the modified Mey teaches wherein each recess is narrower than an adjacent massage protrusion (Altshuler holes 500 for each Mey light source 19 are circles, and so would be more narrow than the longitudinal length of adjacent Mey nubs 5 which are elongated rib-shaped knobs 5) (Mey, Figs. 4 and 8, translation page 6 last paragraph; Altshuler, Figs. 7-8).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, the modified Mey teaches wherein the interior surface areas of the recesses comprise reflective material (holes 500 are in the surface of the reflector 490, and so are reflective inside) (Altshuler; Figs. 7-8; para. [0099]).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, the modified Mey teaches wherein the surface area of the cylindrical core away from the recesses comprises reflective material (modified Mey core 10 would be reflective just as the Altshuler reflector 490 is, and so the modified Mey core 10 would have a surface area away from the holes 500 which is reflective) (Mey, Fig. 8; Altshuler, Figs. 7-8; para. [0099]).
Claims 21-27 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reichert et al. (US 2013/0030423 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Mey discloses the invention as previously claimed, but does not disclose wherein the controller comprises a memory device comprising a therapeutic program encoded therein and wherein the controller controls the light source elements according to the therapeutic program.
However, Reichert teaches a light engine for dermatological treatment (Reichert; abstract) wherein the controller comprises a memory device comprising a therapeutic program encoded therein and wherein the controller controls the light source elements according to the therapeutic program (control systems 18 have control electronics 30 including memory for storing instructions or algorithms; control system 18 can control the radiation treatment using those instructions or algorithms) (Reichert; paras. [0116-0117]; para. [0682]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Mey controller to include a memory device comprising a therapeutic program encoded therein and wherein the controller controls the light source elements according to the therapeutic program, as taught by Reichert, for the purpose of providing the device with multiple modes of operation (Reichert; para. [0682]; paras. [0686-0687]), thereby providing a user with more treatment options to use as desired.
Regarding claims 22-23, the modified Mey teaches wherein the therapeutic program specifies a dosage parameter, wherein the controller controls at least one of duration and intensity according to the dosage parameter (each selectable treatment or mode can be defined by one or more parameters, such as treatment time and level of energy, to be executed by the control system 18) (Reichert; para. [0681-0682]).
Regarding claim 24, the modified Mey teaches wherein the program further specifies at least one of wavelength range and treatment frequency parameters and wherein the controller is controllable to control the light source elements according to the parameters (control system 18 using instructions/algorithms can control parameters of radiation such as wavelength and pulse frequency) (Reichert; para. [0117]).
Regarding claim 25, the modified Mey teaches wherein the program comprises a user setting and wherein the controller is controllable to adjust the therapeutic program according to the user setting (a user can select a treatment level or a control system 18 can select a treatment level based on selections made by a user) (Reichert; para. [0682]).
Regarding claim 26, the modified Mey teaches wherein the user setting comprises muscle group (the user can select a body part to be treated, thus selecting the group of muscles in that body part) (Reichert; para. [0514]; para. [0682]).
Regarding claim 27, the modified Mey teaches wherein the user setting comprises a user-specified level (the user can select an energy level) (Reichert; para. [0682]).
Regarding claim 36, as best understood, the modified Mey teaches wherein the controller can control the intensity of the light source elements (the user can select the treatment level and/or an energy level from the radiation source, e.g. LEDs) (Reichert; para. [0102]; para. [0107]; para. [0682]).
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hamid (US 2012/0059440 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Mey discloses the invention as previously claimed, including wherein the light source elements are controllable to emit light within radial angle ranges with respect to a longitudinal axis of the body (light is emitted from light sources 19 at a range of radial angles with respect to the longitudinal axis of the roller 1 as illustrated in Fig. 8) (Mey; Fig. 8; translation page 8 last paragraph), but does not disclose wherein the light source elements are independently controllable.
However, Hamid teaches a device with an LED array to provide treatment (Hamid; abstract) wherein the light source elements are independently controllable (user interface to allow a user to select some of the lights for only a selected region to be treated) (Hamid; para. [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Mey light source elements to be independently controllable, as taught by Hamid, for the purpose of enabling a user to operate the device to only treat selected portions or regions of their body (Hamid; para. [0013]).
Regarding claim 29, as best understood, the modified Mey teaches wherein the controller interfaces a user control interface and wherein the control interface is configurable to specify an operative radial angle range (the Hamid user interface on the Mey roller 1 would allow a user to choose which Mey light sources 19 on the roller 1 should operate to treat a region of the body, thereby specifying the operative angle range resulting from the portion of the Mey light sources 19 on the chosen section of roller 1) (Mey, Fig. 8; Hamid, para. [0013]).
Claims 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Altshuler.
Regarding claim 28, Mey discloses the invention as previously claimed, including wherein the light source elements are controllable to emit light within radial angle ranges with respect to a longitudinal axis of the body (light is emitted from light sources 19 at a range of radial angles with respect to the longitudinal axis of the roller 1 as illustrated in Fig. 8) (Mey; Fig. 8; translation page 8 last paragraph), but does not disclose wherein the light source elements are independently controllable.
However, Altshuler teaches a device for applying light to skin for treatment (Altshuler; abstract) wherein the light source elements are independently controllable (LEDs are independently controlled such that only LEDs in close proximity or contact with a user’s skin emit light) (Altshuler; para. [0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Mey light source elements to be independently controllable, as taught by Altshuler, for the purpose of ensuring only lights in contact or close proximity to skin are in use, thereby providing intelligent contact control of the lights (Altshuler; para. [0089]).
Regarding claim 30, as best understood, the modified Mey teaches wherein the device comprises at least one sensor operably coupled to the controller and wherein the controller determines an operative radial angle range in accordance with sensor data received from the at least one sensor (Altshuler contact sensors 360 to detect contact with tissue, and which are electronically connected to control system 220; in the modified Mey device, only those Mey light sources 19 which are in close proximity or contact with a user’s skin as sensed by the Altshuler contact sensors 360 would emit light, thereby determining the operative radial angle range of the light emitted from the roller) (Mey, Fig. 8; Altshuler, paras. [0089-0090]).
Claims 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mey in view of Altshuler as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Lee (WO 2022/019366 A1, see attached translation).
Regarding claim 31, as best understood, the modified Mey teaches the invention as previously claimed, including wherein the at least one sensor is operably coupled to the surface and wherein the controller is configured to control the light source elements to emit light at an operative radial angle of the surface where pressure is detected (Altshuler contact sensors 360 to detect contact of the device surface with tissue, and which are electronically connected to control system 220; in the modified Mey device, only those Mey light sources 19 which are in contact with a user’s skin as sensed by the Altshuler contact sensors 360 would emit light, thereby determining the operative radial angle range of the light emitted from the roller; direct contact with skin would result in pressure applied to the surface) (Mey, Fig. 8; Altshuler, paras. [0089-0090]), but does not teach the at least one sensor is a pressure sensor.
However, Altshuler does teach that the contact sensor can be chosen from other sensor technologies, such as a mechanical sensor (Altshuler; para. [0089]). Moreover, Lee teaches an LED treatment apparatus (Lee; translation abstract) wherein the at least one sensor is a pressure sensor (pressure sensor 1101, 1220 senses user contact with the device) (Lee; Fig. 11a; translation page 5 first paragraph; translation page 17 third paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Mey contact sensor by substituting it for a pressure sensor, as taught by Lee, for the purpose of providing a specific suitable contact sensor mechanism which one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably expect to perform similarly well at sensing user contact with the device.
Regarding claim 32, as best understood, the modified Mey teaches wherein the controller is further configured to control the light source elements across the length of the body depending on a location of pressure detected along the length of the body (Altshuler contact sensors 360 to detect contact of the device surface with tissue, and which are electronically connected to control system 220; in the modified Mey device, only those Mey light sources 19 which are in contact with a user’s skin as sensed by the Altshuler contact sensors 360 would emit light, thereby controlling which Mey light sources 19 emit light across the length of the Mey roller 1 depending upon which ones contact the user) (Mey, Fig. 8; Altshuler, paras. [0089-0090]).
Regarding claim 33, the modified Mey does not teach wherein the controller distinguishes between pressure applied by the flat surface and centrally applied pressure.
However, Lee further teaches wherein the controller distinguishes between pressure applied by the flat surface and centrally applied pressure (controller 1270 switches on lights if a predetermined weight is sensed by sensor 1220, but switches off lights if sensor 1220 detects the lights are facing the ground; sensor 1220 can be a pressure sensor, and thereby be used by the controller 1270 to distinguish between the centrally applied weight of a user versus the more uniform pressure from the flat ground) (Lee; translation page 5 first and second paragraphs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Mey controller such that the controller distinguishes between pressure applied by the flat surface and centrally applied pressure, as taught by Lee, for the purpose of ensuring the lights are only on when treating a user (Lee; translation page 5 second paragraph).
Regarding claim 34, as best understood, the modified Mey teaches wherein the at least one sensor is an orientation sensor and wherein the controller is configured to control the light source elements to emit light dependent on the orientation of the cylindrical body (Lee sensor 1220 can be a gyro sensor, thereby sensing the orientation of the Mey roller 1; controller 1270 switches off lights if sensor 1220 detects the lights are facing the ground, but allows the lights to be switched on if not facing the ground and instead facing a user) (Mey, Fig. 8; Lee, translation page 5 first and second paragraphs).
Regarding claim 35, the modified Mey teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the light source elements to emit light across a top of the cylindrical body (as modified by Lee, the modified Mey light sources 19 would only be able to emit light up from the top surface of the roller 1 towards a user, not down towards the ground) (Mey, Fig. 8; Lee, translation page 5 first and second paragraphs).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mey as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of Kadra et al. (US 2015/0150754 A1).
Regarding claim 38, the modified Mey teaches the invention as previously claimed, but does not teach wherein the vibratory device comprises an electric motor turning an eccentric flyweight.
However, Kadra teaches a device for massaging a surface of the body (Kadra; para. [0001]) including an electric motor turning an eccentric flyweight (means for vibration can include a motor driving an eccentric) (Kadra; para. [0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Mey vibratory device by substituting it for an electric motor turning an eccentric flyweight, as taught by Kadra, for the purpose of providing a suitable alternative to a piezoelectric for producing vibrations (Kadra; para. [0065]) that one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably expect to perform similarly well.
Claims 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dewey et al. (US 2012/0197357 A1).
Regarding claim 42, Mey discloses the invention as previously claimed, but does not disclose further comprising inlet and outlet vents forming and a cooling duct through the cylindrical body and a fan drawing air through the cooling duct.
However, Dewey teaches an apparatus for delivering optical energy (Dewey; abstract) including inlet and outlet vents forming and a cooling duct through the cylindrical body and a fan drawing air through the cooling duct (outer housing 12 has air enter through inlet grills 28, then travel through a space inside defining a flow pathway of air, and exit at the outlet vent grill 34; fan 56 draws in the air through the flow pathway) (Dewey; Figs. 1, 3, 5; paras. [0065-0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Mey cylindrical body to include inlet and outlet vents forming and a cooling duct through the cylindrical body and a fan drawing air through the cooling duct, as taught by Dewey, for the purpose of helping to dissipate heat and maintain the temperature of the laser (Dewey; paras. [0065-0066]).
Regarding claim 43, the modified Mey teaches wherein the light source elements are thermally coupled to a heatsink backing, and wherein the heatsink backing assembly coupled to the cooling duct (laser 16 is thermally coupled to the heat sink 52, which is coupled to the flow pathway) (Dewey; Figs. 1, 3, 5; para. [0065]).
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kumpan-Bahram (US 2020/0221994 A1).
Regarding claim 44, Mey discloses the invention as previously claimed, but does not disclose further comprising a data interface for communicating with a mobile computing device and wherein the controller controls the light source elements according to data received via the data interface.
However, Kumpan-Bahram teaches a treatment device using an illumination device (Kumpan-Bahram; abstract) including a data interface for communicating with a mobile computing device and wherein the controller controls the light source elements according to data received via the data interface (the treatment device can communicate with an external data processing device, such as a smartphone, and so must have a data interface to do so; circuit device of the treatment device uses control commands determined by the external data processing device to execute the illumination treatment) (Kumpan-Bahram; Fig. 3; para. [0121]; para. [0207]; para. [0209]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Mey device to include a data interface for communicating with a mobile computing device and wherein the controller controls the light source elements according to data received via the data interface, as taught by Kumpan-Bahram, for the purpose of enabling the device to access database values when making determinations (Kumpan-Bahram; para. [0209]).
Claims 45-47 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Owusu (US 2020/0375841 A1).
Regarding claims 45-47, Mey discloses the invention as previously claimed, but does not disclose further comprising a user interface operably coupled to the controller, wherein the user interface is located at an end of the cylindrical body, wherein the user interface comprises a digital display.
However, Owusu teaches a massage roller (Owusu; abstract) including a user interface operably coupled to the controller, wherein the user interface is located at an end of the cylindrical body, wherein the user interface comprises a digital display (roller 100 has an input/display end 18 with annular buttons 36, 38, 42, 44 and a display module used for user input; annular buttons 36, 38, 42, 44 interact with the main printed circuit board assembly 52) (Owusu; Figs. 1, 2C, 3; paras. [0051-0052]; para. [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Mey device to include a user interface operably coupled to the controller, wherein the user interface is located at an end of the cylindrical body, wherein the user interface comprises a digital display, as taught by Owusu, for the purpose of allowing a user to interact with selecting menus to provide inputs for control of the device (Owusu; para. [0052]).
Regarding claim 54, as best understood, the modified Mey teaches wherein the device comprises a pushbutton user interface which comprises a vibration speed control button to control the speed of a vibratory device (vibration speed is controlled by the PCBA 52, which gets input from buttons 36, 38 to control the vibration) (Owusu; Figs. 1, 2C, 3; para. [0059]; para. [0083]).
Claims 48-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bennett (US 2013/0231594 A1).
Regarding claims 48-50, Mey discloses the invention as previously claimed, but does not disclose wherein the cylindrical body comprises a diameter greater than 10 cm, wherein the cylindrical body comprises a length greater than 20 cm, wherein the cylindrical body comprises a length of approximately 30 cm.
However, Bennett teaches a heated roller for therapy (Bennett; abstract) wherein the cylindrical body comprises a diameter greater than 10 cm, wherein the cylindrical body comprises a length greater than 20 cm, wherein the cylindrical body comprises a length of approximately 30 cm (roller body 110 can have a diameter of 18 cm and a length of 30 cm) (Bennett; Fig. 1; paras. [0013-0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Mey cylindrical body to comprise a diameter greater than 10 cm, a length greater than 20 cm, and a length of approximately 30 cm, as taught by Bennett, for the purpose of providing the cylindrical body with a size that is sufficient for practical use while also being for convenient for storage and transportation (Bennett; paras. [0013-0014]).
Claims 52 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cho (US 2020/0405576 A1).
Regarding claim 52, Mey discloses the invention as previously claimed, but does not disclose wherein the device comprises a pushbutton user interface which comprises an intensity control button to control light intensity.
However, Cho teaches an apparatus with a light unit for treatment (Cho; abstract) including a pushbutton user interface which comprises an intensity control button to control light intensity (control interface 111 may be a human interface such as a control button; control interface 111 is used to change the intensity of the light) (Cho; Fig. 5; para. [0032]; claim 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Mey device to include a pushbutton user interface which comprises an intensity control button to control light intensity, as taught by Cho, for the purpose of providing a mechanism with which a user can adjust the treatment light parameters according to their physical condition, requirements, and treatment part to thereby achieve better therapeutic effect (Cho; para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 55, as best understood, the modified Mey teaches wherein the device comprises a pushbutton user interface which comprises a light frequency control button to control the intensity of light emitted by the light source elements (control interface 111 may be a human interface such as a control button; control interface 111 is used to change the emitted light parameters such as intensity and frequency) (Cho; Fig. 5; para. [0032]; claim 3).
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Powell et al. (US 2008/0275533 A1).
Regarding claim 53, Mey discloses the invention as previously claimed, but does not disclose wherein the device comprises a pushbutton user interface which comprises a timer control button to control and operational time of the light source elements.
However, Powell teaches a light therapy device (Powell; abstract) including a pushbutton user interface which comprises a timer control button to control and operational time of the light source elements (a user can push time buttons 541, 542 to increase or decrease the duration of the light therapy treatment, as controlled by a timer 364) (Powell; Figs. 3, 5; para. [0017]; para. [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Mey device to include a pushbutton user interface which comprises a timer control button to control and operational time of the light source elements, as taught by Powell, for the purpose of allowing a user to adjust the time interval for treatment based on the condition being treated (Powell; para. [0041]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2015/0165238 A1 by Slayton et al. is considered to be relevant as it discloses a massage roller with an energy source that emits light to treat skin.
US 2020/0315907 A1 by Dijkstra et al. is considered to be relevant as it discloses a phototherapy roller that uses an array of LEDs for light therapy.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACQUELINE M PINDERSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-4:00.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/JACQUELINE M PINDERSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785