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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 0 1/18/2024 is being considered by the examiner. Status of Claims Claims 1-20 are currently pending and under examination. Priority The instant application (filed on 07/31/2023 ) is a non-provisional application filed under 35 USC 111(a). Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for domestic priority based on provisional application 63/ 369,984 filed on 0 8/01/2022 . Instant c laims 1- 20 are sufficiently described in the provisional application to assign an effective filing date of 08/01/2022 for claims 1-20 in the instant application. Therefore, all prior art will be evaluated with respect to this date. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness. Claims 1 -2 and 6-7 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US PG Pub 2013/0274839 A1, see “Notice of References Cited”) in view of Russell (US 6,290,713 B1, see 01/18/2024 IDS ). Regarding Claim 1 , Johnson discloses a light therapy mat (Figs. 1 and 2, [0033]) comprising: • a flexible clear portion ( [0036 - 0037] – “A translucent shield or barrier 26 may extend over the front of the flexible circuitry layer 22 thereby preventing the LEDs and any other electronic components on the front side of the flexible circuitry layer 22 from directly contacting objects or body surfaces and/or to allow hygienic cleansing of the device, while allowing the emitted light to pass through the translucent shield or barrier 26”) ; • a flexible back portion ([0036] – a rear flexible pad member 24) • a flexible middle portion between the flexible clear portion and the flexible back portion ([0036] – “These components include a front flexible pad layer 18 having a central aperture 19 formed therein, a plastically deformable (e.g., bendable, malleable, shapeable) layer 20 which also has a central aperture 19 formed therein, at least one flexible circuitry layer 22 having light emitting diodes (LEDs) 23 positioned thereon and a rear flexible pad member) • a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) positioned in the flexible middle portion ([0036]) and configured to emit light at a first wavelength and a second wavelength ( [0038] – “Also, in this example, the LEDs comprise infrared, red and blue LEDs which, respectively, deliver infrared light having a wavelength of, or of about, 880 nm; red light having a wavelength of, or of about, 640 nm or blue light having a wavelength of, or of about, 465 nm”). Johnson does not disclose dual LED’s. Russell, in the same field of endeavor of a flexible phototherapy (Col 1, Lines 5-10) mat (Fig 4, Col 11, Lines 65-67), teaches the use of multicolored LED’s for phototherapy (Col 9, Lines 11-19). A dual LED would have two chips for producing different wavelengths of light on the same LED. In a similar fashion, multicolored LED’s require multiple chips to produce different wavelengths of light on the same LED (i.e. could act as a dual LED). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Johnson’s multilayered phototherapy mat system with LED arrays separated by wavelength by incorporating the multichip LED’s in Russell. This would have been obvious because both Johnson and Russell discuss flexible phototherapy mats with LED arrays and Russell provides a solution/improvement to increase the number of LED’s emitting a particular wavelength at any time by having each LED be capable of producing multiple wavelengths . Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Johnson by incorporating the multichip LED’s in Russell. Therefore, Claim 1 is obvious over Johnson in view of Russell. Regarding Claim 2 , the light therapy mat according to Claim 1 is obvious over Johnson in view of Russell as indicated hereinabove. Johnson further discloses wherein the first wavelength is a red light wavelength or a near infrared light wavelength and the second wavelength is the other one of the red light wavelength or the near infrared light wavelength ([0038] – “Also, in this example, the LEDs comprise infrared, red and blue LEDs which, respectively, deliver infrared light having a wavelength of, or of about, 880 nm; red light having a wavelength of, or of about, 640 nm or blue light having a wavelength of, or of about, 465 nm”). Therefore, Claim 2 is obvious over Johnson in view of Russell. Regarding Claim 6 , the light therapy mat according to Claim 1 is obvious over Johnson in view of Russell as indicated hereinabove. Johnson discloses a timer configured to activate one or more of the LEDs based on at least one of a user input or a machine learning model output ([0043] – the user can set a timer for therapy: “The user interface 14 may include a switch for turning the power on/off and a selector for selecting which treatment mode is desired. Also, optionally, the treatment times may be fixed or the user interface may include a timer set for setting the desired treatment time”). Johnson does not disclose dual LED’s. Russell, in the same field of endeavor of a flexible phototherapy (Col 1, Lines 5-10) mat (Fig 4, Col 11, Lines 65-67), teaches the use of multicolored LED’s for phototherapy (Col 9, Lines 11-19). A dual LED would have two chips for producing different wavelengths of light on the same LED. In a similar fashion, multicolored LED’s require multiple chips to produce different wavelengths of light on the same LED (i.e. could act as a dual LED). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Johnson’s multilayered phototherapy mat system with LED arrays separated by wavelength by incorporating the multichip LED’s in Russell. This would have been obvious because both Johnson and Russell discuss flexible phototherapy mats with LED arrays and Russell provides a solution/improvement to increase the number of LED’s emitting a particular wavelength at any time by having each LED be capable of producing multiple wavelengths. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Johnson by incorporating the multichip LED’s in Russell. Therefore, Claim 6 is obvious over Johnson in view of Russell. Regarding Claim 7 , the light therapy mat according to Claim 1 is obvious over Johnson in view of Russell as indicated hereinabove. Johnson discloses comprising an input receptor configured to operate one or more of a timer setting, a power setting, or a LED setting (Figs. 1-2, [0043] – the user can set a timer for therapy using the user interface as an input receptor: “The user interface 14 may include a switch for turning the power on/off and a selector for selecting which treatment mode is desired. Also, optionally, the treatment times may be fixed or the user interface may include a timer set for setting the desired treatment time”). Johnson does not disclose dual LED’s. Russell, in the same field of endeavor of a flexible phototherapy (Col 1, Lines 5-10) mat (Fig 4, Col 11, Lines 65-67), teaches the use of multicolored LED’s for phototherapy (Col 9, Lines 11-19). A dual LED would have two chips for producing different wavelengths of light on the same LED. In a similar fashion, multicolored LED’s require multiple chips to produce different wavelengths of light on the same LED (i.e. could act as a dual LED). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Johnson’s multilayered phototherapy mat system with LED arrays separated by wavelength by incorporating the multichip LED’s in Russell. This would have been obvious because both Johnson and Russell discuss flexible phototherapy mats with LED arrays and Russell provides a solution/improvement to increase the number of LED’s emitting a particular wavelength at any time by having each LED be capable of producing multiple wavelengths. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Johnson by incorporating the multichip LED’s in Russell. Therefore, Claim 7 is obvious over Johnson in view of Russell. Claims 3 is rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US PG Pub 2013/0274839 A1, see “Notice of References Cited”) in view of Russell (US 6,290,713 B1, see 01/18/2024 IDS ) and Jones (US PG Pub 2018/0207446 A1, see “Notice of References Cited”). Regarding Claim 3 , the light therapy mat according to Claim 1 is obvious over Johnson in view of Russell as indicated hereinabove . Johnson discloses a multilayered light therapy mat with a flexible translucent front panel ([0036-0037]). However, Johnson does not disclose wherein the flexible clear portion comprises polyvinylchloride (PVC) material. Jones , in the same field of endeavor of a flexible LED phototherapy device ( [0005] ) , teaches a protective front layer can be made of transparent PVC ([0022] – “The protective lamp envelope is shown in more detail in FIG. 5 as comprising, preferably, a clear PVC or other partially or completely transparent or translucent polymer material”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flexible clear portion in Johnson by using the PVC composition of the protective front layer in Jones. Given a number of options for transparent or translucent polymer material, it would have been obvious to try PVC as a material for the clear flexible panel in Johnson . A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully using the PVC composition in the protective front layer in Johnson . Therefore, Claim 3 is obvious over Johnson in view of Russell and Jones. Claims 4-5 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US PG Pub 2013/0274839 A1, see “Notice of References Cited”) in view of Russell (US 6,290,713 B1, see 01/18/2024 IDS ) and Rogers (US PG Pub 2012/0320581 A1, see “Notice of References Cited”). Regarding Claim 4 , the light therapy mat according to Claim 1 is obvious over Johnson in view of Russell as indicated hereinabove. Johnson discloses a multilayered light therapy mat with a flexible back panel ([0036-0037]). However, Johnson does not disclose wherein the flexible back portion comprises at least one of a nylon, a spandex, or a polyurethane foam composite. Rogers , in the same field of endeavor of a flexible LED phototherapy device ([0005]) , teaches polymers for use in layers surrounding the LED array elements ([0021]) where nylon is listed as a potential polymer ([0129]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flexible back portion in Johnson by using nylon as part of the polymer layers in Rogers. Given a number of options for polymer material, it would have been obvious to try nylon as a material for the back portion in Johnson. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully using nylon as part of the back layer in Johnston. Therefore, Claim 4 is obvious over Johnson in view of Russell and Rogers. Regarding Claim 5 , the light therapy mat according to Claim 1 is obvious over Johnson in view of Russell as indicated hereinabove . Johnson discloses a multilayered light therapy mat with a flexible middle portion ([0036-0037]). However, Johnson does not disclose the flexible middle portion comprises a styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) composite. Rogers, in the same field of endeavor of a flexible LED phototherapy device ([0005]) , teaches polymers for use in layers surrounding the LED array elements ([0021]) where SBR is listed as a potential polymer ([0129] – “ rubber (including natural rubber, styrene-butadiene, polybutadiene, neoprene, ethylene-propylene, butyl, nitrile, silicones ” ) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flexible middle portion in Johnson by using SBR as part of the polymer layers in Rogers. Given a number of options for polymer material, it would have been obvious to try SBR as a material for the middle portion in Johnson. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully using SBR as part of the middle layer in Johnston . Therefore, Claim 5 is obvious over Johnson in view of Russell and Rogers. Claim 8 is rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US PG Pub 2013/0274839 A1, see “Notice of References Cited”) in view of Russell (US 6,290,713 B1, see 01/18/2024 IDS ) and Jain (US PG Pub 2021/0236844 A1 , see “Notice of References Cited”). Regarding Claim 8 , the light therapy mat according to Claim 7 is obvious over Johnson in view of Russell as indicated hereinabove . Johnson discloses a user interface used for controlling treatment settings ([0043]). However, Johnson does not disclose wherein the input receptor is configured in response to a machine learning output. Jain , in the same field of endeavor of providing phototherapy ([0006]) with LED’s ([0030]) , teaches a machine learning algorithm to control light therapy output ([0042]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Johnson’s multilayered phototherapy mat by incorporating the phototherapy control system using machine learning in Jain . This would have been obvious because both Johnson and Jain discuss phototherapy with LED’s and Jain provides a solution/improvement to predict and apply the desired phototherapy based on historical data and sensor outputs. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Johnson by incorporating the phototherapy control system using machine learning in Jain . Therefore, Claim 8 is obvious over Johnson in view of Russell and Jain. Claim 9 is rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US PG Pub 2013/0274839 A1, see “Notice of References Cited”) in view of Russell (US 6,290,713 B1, see 01/18/2024 IDS ) and Asvadi (US PG Pub 20 09/0030489 , see “Notice of References Cited”). Regarding Claim 9 , the light therapy mat according to Claim 1 is obvious over Johnson in view of Russell as indicated hereinabove. Johnson discloses a light emitting pad (Figs. 1-2, [0033]). However, Johnson does not disclose wherein the first mat and the second mat are connected via a connector. Asvadi , in the same field of endeavor of a flexible sheet with an LED array ([0038]), teaches two sheets can be connected with a zipper to form a bag to be placed around the user (Fig. 4, [0038] – “A zipper 9 is provided along the edges of the sheet 8, so that the sheet 8 can be formed into a bag, for example a kind of sleeping bag”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Johnson’s multilayered phototherapy mat by incorporating the bag design connecting two phototherapy sheets in Asvadi . This would have been obvious because both Johnson and Asvadi discuss flexible phototherapy mats/sheets with LED arrays and Asvadi provides a solution/improvement to increase the treatment area with two sheets connected to form a bag within which the user is placed . Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Johnson by incorporating the bag design connecting two phototherapy sheets in Asvadi . Therefore, Claim 9 is obvious over Johnson in view of Russell and Asvadi . Claim 10-11 , 13, 15 -16 , and 18 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Jain (US PG Pub 2021/0236844 A1, see “Notice of References Cited”) in view of Russell (US 6,290,713 B1, see 01/18/2024 IDS ). Regarding Claim 10 , Jain discloses a method for configuring a light therapy ([0006]) comprising a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) ([0030]), the method comprising: • receiving sensed data from a first sensor associated with the light therapy ([0042] – “The currently measured bilirubin level is a further input to the GLM, as the GLM infers the time likely to be required for the bilirubin level to decrease from the current level to the safe level”; [0043] – “In these embodiments, the therapeutic blue light intensity should be another input for training of the model 44, and the therapeutic blue light intensity is also an input during the inference phase”) ; • providing the sensed data from the first sensor to a machine learning model trained by modifying one or more layers, weighs, synapses, or nodes based on historical or simulated light therapy data ([0042] – “The model can employ a machine learning technique such as Generalized Linear Model (GLM) for individualized prediction of the phototherapy time likely to be required to achieve the designated safe bilirubin level. The GLM model is used for a continuous response variable given continuous and/or categorical predictors … training data 46 suitably consists of phototherapy details of successfully treated cases … This data is used to train a decision tree 48 based prediction model. After successful training, when an unseen case 50 is provided as input to this model, the decision tree generates output data 52, which predicts required number of hours for phototherapy treatment”) ; • receiving a first machine learning output from the machine learning model based on the sensed data from the first sensor, the first machine learning output comprising a light therapy configuration ([0042] – time duration of therapy is decided by the machine learning algorithm, [0043] – intensity is decided by the machine learning algorithm) ; and • configuring the light therapy device based on the light therapy configuration ([0043] – “In embodiments in which the phototherapy device 8 is controlled by the phototherapy monitoring device 10, it is also contemplated to automatically control the therapeutic blue light intensity based on the estimated time-to-safe bilirubin level. For example, the therapeutic blue light may be set to the lower of (1) the minimum therapeutic blue light intensity for achieving safe bilirubin level by a pre-set time interval or (2) a pre-set absolute maximum allowable therapeutic blue light intensity”) . However, Jain does not disclose a light therapy mat comprising a plurality of dual light emitting diodes. Russell, in the same field of endeavor of providing phototherapy (Col 1, Lines 5-10), teaches a flexible mat (Fig 4, Col 11, Lines 65-67) using multicolored LED’s for phototherapy (Col 9, Lines 11-19). A dual LED would have two chips for producing different wavelengths of light on the same LED. In a similar fashion, multicolored LED’s require multiple chips to produce different wavelengths of light on the same LED (i.e. could act as a dual LED). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Jain’s phototherapy control method with a generic phototherapy system by incorporating the use of a phototherapy mat with multichip LED’s in Russell. This would have been obvious because both Jain and Russell discuss phototherapy and Russell provides a solution/improvement as a specific phototherapy system where the user can rest on the mat while receiving therapy (i.e. easy to apply). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the method of J ain by incorporating the use of the phototherapy mat with multichip LED’s in Russell. Therefore, Claim 10 is obvious over Jain in view of Russell. Regarding Claim 11 , the light therapy method according to Claim 10 is obvious over Jain in view of Russell as indicated hereinabove. Jain further discloses wherein the light therapy mat configuration comprises one or more of wavelengths of light, intensities of light, rates of activation, durations of activation, or frequencies associated with the light therapy mat ([0043] – duration of activation is controlled, [0044] – intensity of activation is controlled). Therefore, Claim 11 is obvious over Jain in view of Russell. Regarding Claim 13 , the light therapy method according to Claim 10 is obvious over Jain in view of Russell as indicated hereinabove. Jain further discloses the light therapy mat configuration comprises: • first intensity for application during a first time ([0043] – intensity and time of application are adjustable); and • second intensity for application during a second time ([0043] – intensity and time of application are adjustable). Jain does not disclose a configuration based on wavelength. Russell, in the same field of endeavor of phototherapy (Col 1, Lines 5-10), teaches a phototherapy mat (Fig 4, Col 11, Lines 65-67) using multicolored LED’s for phototherapy (Col 9, Lines 11-19). Multicolored LED’s require multiple chips to produce different wavelengths of light on the same LED. Russell further teaches a number of wavelengths of light can be used in the phototherapy mat based on the application (Col 9, Lines 19-25). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Jain’s phototherapy control method with a generic phototherapy system by incorporating a phototherapy mat using multichip LED’s capable of applying different wavelengths of light in Russell. This would have been obvious because both Jain and Russell discuss phototherapy and Russell provides a solution/improvement with the application of different wavelengths of light to increase the range of treatments. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the method of J ain by incorporating the phototherapy mat using multichip LED’s capable of applying different wavelengths of light in Russell. Therefore, Claim 13 is obvious over Jain in view of Russell. Regarding Claim 15 , J ain discloses a system for configuring a light therapy device ([0006]) , the system comprising: • a phototherapy device ( 8 – phototherapy device ) • a first sensor (14 - bilirubin sensor , 32 - photosensor) • at least one memory storing instructions ([0034]) ; and • at least one processor executing the instructions to perform a process ([0034] – “electronic processor 28 , a microprocessor or microcontroller”) , the processor configured to: receive sensed data from the first sensor associated with the light therapy ( [0042] – “The currently measured bilirubin level is a further input to the GLM, as the GLM infers the time likely to be required for the bilirubin level to decrease from the current level to the safe level”; [0043] – “In these embodiments, the therapeutic blue light intensity should be another input for training of the model 44, and the therapeutic blue light intensity is also an input during the inference phase”) ; provide the sensed data from the first sensor to a machine learning model trained by modifying one or more layers, weighs, synapses, or nodes based on historical or simulated light therapy data ([0042] – “The model can employ a machine learning technique such as Generalized Linear Model (GLM) for individualized prediction of the phototherapy time likely to be required to achieve the designated safe bilirubin level. The GLM model is used for a continuous response variable given continuous and/or categorical predictors … training data 46 suitably consists of phototherapy details of successfully treated cases … This data is used to train a decision tree 48 based prediction model. After successful training, when an unseen case 50 is provided as input to this model, the decision tree generates output data 52, which predicts required number of hours for phototherapy treatment”) ; receive a first machine learning output from the machine learning model based on the sensed data from the first sensor, the first machine learning output comprising a light therapy configuration ([0042] – time duration of therapy is decided by the machine learning algorithm, [0043] – intensity is decided by the machine learning algorithm) ; and configure the light therapy device based on the light therapy configuration ([0043] – “In embodiments in which the phototherapy device 8 is controlled by the phototherapy monitoring device 10, it is also contemplated to automatically control the therapeutic blue light intensity based on the estimated time-to-safe bilirubin level. For example, the therapeutic blue light may be set to the lower of (1) the minimum therapeutic blue light intensity for achieving safe bilirubin level by a pre-set time interval or (2) a pre-set absolute maximum allowable therapeutic blue light intensity”). However, Jain does not disclose a light therapy mat comprising a plurality of dual light emitting diodes. Russell, in the same field of endeavor of providing phototherapy (Col 1, Lines 5-10), teaches a flexible mat (Fig 4, Col 11, Lines 65-67) using multicolored LED’s for phototherapy (Col 9, Lines 11-19). A dual LED would have two chips for producing different wavelengths of light on the same LED. In a similar fashion, multicolored LED’s require multiple chips to produce different wavelengths of light on the same LED (i.e. could act as a dual LED). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Jain’s phototherapy control system with a generic phototherapy system by incorporating the phototherapy mat with multichip LED’s in Russell. This would have been obvious because both Jain and Russell discuss phototherapy and Russell provides a solution/improvement as a specific phototherapy system where the user can rest on the mat while receiving therapy (i.e. easy to apply) . Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Jain by incorporating the phototherapy mat with multichip LED’s in Russell. Therefore, Claim 15 is obvious over Jain in view of Russell. Regarding Claim 16 , the system for configuring a light therapy mat according to Claim 15 is obvious over Jain in view of Russell as indicated hereinabove. Jain further discloses wherein the light therapy mat configuration comprises one or more of wavelengths of light, intensities of light, rates of activation, durations of activation, or frequencies associated with the light therapy mat ([0043] – duration of activation is controlled, [0044] – intensity of activation is controlled) . Therefore, Claim 1 6 is obvious over Jain in view of Russell. Regarding Claim 18 , the system for configuring a light therapy mat according to Claim 15 is obvious over Jain in view of Russell as indicated hereinabove. Jain further discloses the light therapy mat configuration comprises: • first intensity for application during a first time ([0043] – intensity and time of application are adjustable); and • second intensity for application during a second time ([0043] – intensity and time of application are adjustable). Jain does not disclose a configuration based on wavelength. Russell, in the same field of endeavor of phototherapy (Col 1, Lines 5-10), teaches a phototherapy mat (Fig 4, Col 11, Lines 65-67) using multicolored LED’s for phototherapy (Col 9, Lines 11-19). Multicolored LED’s require multiple chips to produce different wavelengths of light on the same LED. Russell further teaches a number of wavelengths of light can be used in the phototherapy mat based on the application (Col 9, Lines 19-25). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Jain’s phototherapy control system with a generic phototherapy system by incorporating the phototherapy mat with multichip LED’s capable of applying different wavelengths of light in Russell. This would have been obvious because both Jain and Russell discuss phototherapy and Russell provides a solution/improvement with the application of different wavelengths of light to increase the range of treatments. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of J ain by incorporating the phototherapy mat with multichip LED’s capable of applying different wavelengths of light in Russell. Therefore, Claim 18 is obvious over Jain in view of Russell. Claims 12, 17, and 20 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Jain (US PG Pub 2021/0236844 A1, see “Notice of References Cited”) in view of Russell (US 6,290,713 B1, see 01/18/2024 IDS ) and Johnson (US PG Pub 2013/0274839 A1, see “Notice of References Cited”) . Regarding Claim 12 , the light therapy method according to Claim 11 is obvious over Jain in view of Russell as indicated hereinabove. Jain discloses a phototherapy device using blue light ([0026-0027]). However, Jain does not disclose the one or more wavelengths of light are selected from a range of approximately 600 nm-1000 nm. Johnson, in the same field of endeavor of phototherapy (Figs. 1 and 2, [0033]), teaches a multilayered phototherapy pad ([0036]) which provides blue, red, and infrared light ([0038] – “Also, in this example, the LEDs comprise infrared, red and blue LEDs which, respectively, deliver infrared light having a wavelength of, or of about, 880 nm; red light having a wavelength of, or of about, 640 nm or blue light having a wavelength of, or of about, 465 nm”). MPEP 2144.05 states “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” There is no evidence of an “unexpected result or criticality” from the range provided. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Jain’s phototherapy control method with a generic phototherapy system by incorporating the red and infrared light provided by LED’s in Johnson. This would have been obvious because both Jain and Johnson discuss phototherapy and Johnson provides a solution/improvement to expanding treatment applications to other conditions which respond better to red and infrared light. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the method of J ain by incorporating the use of red and infrared light provided by LED’s in Johnson. Therefore, Claim 12 is obvious over Jain in view of Russell and Johnson. Regarding Claim 17 , the system for configuring a light therapy mat according to Claim 16 is obvious over Jain in view of Russell as indicated hereinabove. Jain discloses a phototherapy device using blue light ([0026-0027]). However, Jain does not disclose wherein the one or more wavelengths are selected from a range of approximately 600 nm-1000 nm. Johnson , in the same field of endeavor of phototherapy (Figs. 1 and 2, [0033]) , teaches a multilayered phototherapy pad ([0036]) which provides blue, red, and infrared light ([0038] – “Also, in this example, the LEDs comprise infrared, red and blue LEDs which, respectively, deliver infrared light having a wavelength of, or of about, 880 nm; red light having a wavelength of, or of about, 640 nm or blue light having a wavelength of, or of about, 465 nm”). MPEP 2144.05 states “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” There is no evidence of an “unexpected result or criticality” from the range provided. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Jain’s phototherapy control system with a generic phototherapy system by incorporating the red and infrared light provided by LED’s in Johnson . This would have been obvious because both Jain and Johnson discuss phototherapy and Johnson provides a solution/improvement to expanding treatment applications to other conditions which respond better to red and infrared light . Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of J ain by incorporating the red and infrared light provided by LED’s in Johnson. Therefore, Claim 1 7 is obvious over Jain in view of Russell and Johnson . Regarding Claim 20 , the system for configuring a light therapy mat according to Claim 15 is obvious over Jain in view of Russell as indicated hereinabove. Jain discloses a system for configuring a phototherapy device ([0006]) with a processor ([0034] – “electronic processor 28 , a microprocessor or microcontroller”) . However, Jain does not disclose wherein at least one of the at least one processor or the memory is housed within the light therapy mat. Johnson, in the same field of endeavor of phototherapy (Figs. 1 and 2, [0033]), teaches a multilayered phototherapy pad ([0036]) which uses a processor to control the system ([0035]). The microprocessor is stored on a circuit board which is interpreted as being able to be placed within the pad ([0038] – “A second printed circuit board comprising firmware embedded in microprocessor logic circuitry may be housed in the user interface 14 or any other component connected to the device 10”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Jain’s phototherapy control system with a generic phototherapy system by incorporating the microprocessor placement in Johnson. This would have been obvious because both Jain and Johnson discuss phototherapy and Johnson provides a solution/improvement to integrating the processor in a variety of locations to ease access by the user . Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of J ain by incorporating the microprocessor placement in Johnson. Therefore, Claim 2 0 is obvious over Jain in view of Russell. Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Jain (US PG Pub 2021/0236844 A1, see “Notice of References Cited”) in view of Russell (US 6,290,713 B1, see 01/18/2024 IDS ) and Kaestle (US PG Pub 2016/01114184 A1, see “Notice of References Cited”). Regarding Claim 14 , the light therapy method according to Claim 10 is obvious over Jain in view of Russell as indicated hereinabove. Jain discloses a system for configuring a phototherapy device ([0006]) with a processor ([0034] – “electronic processor 28 , a microprocessor or microcontroller”) . A machine learning algorithm is used to control illumination intensity and time of application based on sensor readings and training based on historical data ([0043-0044]). However, Jain does not disclose comprising: • receiving pressure data from a pressure sensor associated with the light therapy mat; • providing the pressure data from the pressure sensor to the machine learning model; • receiving a second machine learning output identifying an active area of the light therapy mat based on the pressure data; and • activating a subset of the plurality of dual LEDs based on the active area. Kaestle , in the same field of endeavor of providing phototherapy ([0006]), teaches a flexible mattress with light emitting diodes placed inside (Figs. 3-4, [0041-0042]). While referred to as a mattress, Figures 3-4 show the flexible device as equivalent to a mat upon which the subject can rest. Sensors 16 are embedded in the mattress to “generate output signals conveying information pertaining to a position, orientation, and/or location of subject 102 on phototherapy mattress 12,” including weight, contact, or pressure sensors ([0029]). These sensors can be used to determine the active location of the user on the mattress so that the processor can adjust the intensity to favor active areas (i.e. areas which the user is positioned over on the mattress) ([0046]). While a processor not identified as using machine learning is used to make this determination in Kaestle , this location algorithm could be integrated into the machine learning algorithm with sensor inputs presented in Jain . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Jain’s phototherapy control method with a generic phototherapy system by incorporating the phototherapy mattress with embedded pressure, weight, or contact sensors used to determine where the user is located to deliver therapy in Kaestle . This would have been obvious because both Jain and Kaestle discuss phototherapy and Kaestle provides a solution/improvement to provide localized phototherapy coverage based on the location of the user on the mattress. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the method of J ain by incorporating the use of the phototherapy mattress with embedded pressure, weight, or contact sensors used to determine where the user is located to deliver therapy in Kaestle . Russell, in the same field of endeavor of providing phototherapy (Col 1, Lines 5-10), teaches a flexible mat (Fig 4, Col 11, Lines 65-67) using multicolored LED’s for phototherapy (Col 9, Lines 11-19). A dual LED would have two chips for producing different wavelengths of light on the same LED. In a similar fashion, multicolored LED’s require multiple chips to produce different wavelengths of light on the same LED (i.e. could act as a dual LED). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Jain’s phototherapy control system with a generic phototherapy system by incorporating the phototherapy mat with multichip LED’s in Russell. This would have been obvious because both Jain and Russell discuss phototherapy and Russell provides a solution/improvement to increase the number of LED’s emitting a particular wavelength at any time by having each LED be capable of producing multiple wavelengths. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the method of J ain by incorporating the phototherapy mat with multichip LED’s in Russell. Therefore, Claim 14 is obvious over Jain in view of Russell and Kaestle . Regarding Claim 19 , the system for configuring a light therapy mat according to Claim 15 is obvious over Jain in view of Russell as indicated hereinabove. Jain discloses a system for configuring a phototherapy device ([0006]) with a processor ([0034] – “electronic processor 28 , a microprocessor or microcontroller”) . A machine learning algorithm is used to control illumination intensity and time of application based on sensor readings and training based on historical data ([0043-0044]). However, Jain does not disclose wherein the processor is further configured to: • receive pressure data from a pressure sensor associated with the light therapy mat; • provide the pressure data from the pressure sensor to the machine learning model; • receive a second machine learning output identifying an active area of the light therapy mat based on the pressure data; and • activate a subset of the plurality of dual LEDs based on the active area. Kaestle , in the same field of endeavor of providing phototherapy ([0006]), teaches a flexible mattress with light emitting diodes placed inside (Figs. 3-4, [0041-0042]). While referred to as a mattress, Figures 3-4 show the flexible device as equivalent to a mat upon which the subject can rest. Sensors 16 are embedded in the mattress to “generate output signals conveying information pertaining to a position, orientation, and/or location of subject 102 on phototherapy mattress 12,” including weight, contact, or pressure sensors ([0029]). These sensors can be used to determine the active location of the user on the mattress so that the processor can adjust the intensity to favor active areas (i.e. areas which the user is positioned over on the mattress) ([0046]). While a processor not identified as using machine learning is used to make this determination in Kaestle , this location algorithm could be integrated into the machine learning algorithm with sensor inputs presented in Jain . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Jain’s phototherapy control system with a generic phototherapy system by incorporating the phototherapy mattress with embedded pressure, weight, or contact sensors used to determine where the user is located to deliver therapy in Kaestle . This would have been obvious because both Jain and Kaestle discuss phototherapy and Kaestle provides a solution/improvement to provide localized phototherapy coverage based on the location of the user on the mattress. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of J ain by incorporating the phototherapy mattress with embedded pressure, weight, or contact sensors used to determine where the user is located to deliver therapy in Kaestle . Russell, in the same field of endeavor of providing phototherapy (Col 1, Lines 5-10), teaches a flexible mat (Fig 4, Col 11, Lines 65-67) using multicolored LED’s for phototherapy (Col 9, Lines 11-19). A dual LED would have two chips for producing different wavelengths of light on the same LED. In a similar fashion, multicolored LED’s require multiple chips to produce different wavelengths of light on the same LED (i.e. could act as a dual LED). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Jain’s phototherapy control system with a generic phototherapy system by incorporating the phototherapy mat with multichip LED’s in Russell. This would have been obvious because both Jain and Russell discuss phototherapy and Russell provides a solution/improvement to increase the number of LED’s emitting a particular wavelength at any time by having each LED be capable of producing multiple wavelengths. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Jain by incorporating the phototherapy mat with multichip LED’s in Russell. Therefore, Claim 19 is obvious over Jain in view of Russell and Kaestle . Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is 703-756-1345. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer McDonald can be reached on 571-270-3061. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Benjamin A. Schmitt/ Examiner Art Unit 3796 /LYNSEY C Eiseman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796