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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 04 December 2025. As per the amendment: claims 1,6, and 11 have been amended, claim 2 has been cancelled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1 and 3-11 are presently pending and under examination.
Response to Arguments
Response to Arguments Regarding 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendment to claim 11 has overcome the previously recited 112(b) in the previously filed Non-Final Rejection Office Action mailed 05 September 2025.
Response to Arguments Regarding 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 4-8 of Remarks, filed 04 December 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 1, 3, 6-7, and 9-11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Minamoto et al. (US 2006/0195166 A1), hereinafter Minamoto.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite the limitations of now cancelled claim 2, and argues that Nelson teaches away from Schanze, so the added feature “a slot opening of the installation slot is located on the side surface” of amended claim 1 is not taught or disclosed by Jones in view of Schanze, Jones’855, and Nelson (see pg. 8 of Remarks). Without acquiescing to the arguments and merely to expedite prosecution of the application Examiner has now instead used Minamoto to teach the limitation of an installation slot and its features (as described in detail below). Examiner would also like to make note of an additional prior art reference Zhou et al. (US 2025/0099778 A1), hereinafter Zhou which also teaches an installation slot that comprises light conversion devices ([0008]).
Therefore, claims 1, 3, 6-7, and 9-11 remain rejected as described in detail below.
No additional specific arguments were presented with previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of dependent claims 4-5 and 8 nor specifically with respect to the previously cited Esteban and van de Ven prior art references.
Therefore, claims 4-5 and 8 remain as previously rejected as described in detail below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US Patent 8,858,607 B1, previously cited), hereinafter Jones in view of Jones et al. (US Patent 9,295,855 B2, previously cited), hereinafter Jones’855 in view of Minamoto et al. (US 2006/0195166 A1), hereinafter Minamoto.
Examiner would like to point out the similarities between Figure 3 of Jones and Figure 1 of Jones’855, and has used the reference descriptions found in the disclosure of Jones’855 to define the reference values found in Figure 3 of Jones.
Regarding claim 1, Jones discloses a phototherapy device (Column 1, lines 16-17: “The present disclosure relates to a multispectral light source having utility for light therapy and other applications.”), comprising:
a base (modified Figure 3. Examiner is interpreting layers 6 and 7 to be the base, Jones’855 states in Column 18, lines 40-49: “The lower layer 6 is optional and can be any number of films or coatings... The optional top layer 7 of the device is a protective layer and can comprise a highly transparent silicone material like the lower layer”)
at least one light conversion device (spectrum converter, Column 6, lines 61-65: “This new light source apparatus uses multiple new light spectrum converting materials and device structures that can absorb light in one spectral range from light emitting devices such as LEDs or laser diodes, and then reemit most of the absorbed photons in all or part of the ONIR spectral range”) , wherein each of the at least one light conversion device comprises a plurality of light conversion patterns (Column 17, line 63-Column 18, line 2: “there are one or more high quantum yield (internal QY over 60%) spectrum-converting materials placed between the LED and the surface(s) to be illuminated, and one or more light emitting devices or other compatible light generators. These spectrum converter materials may be separate or be mixed into a single spectrum converter component”, Column 7, lines 51-57: “(e) 350 nm and 480 nm dominant peak LEDs with spectrum converters use a phosphor or QD as the spectrum converter for absorption of over 70% of the LED radiant power light; (f) 600 nm-780 nm dominant emission peak LEDs with spectrum converters use a fluorescent dye or QD spectrum converter for absorption of over 30% of the LED radiant power light”, Column 21, lines 1-3: “The present invention provides for a wide variety of combinations of phosphors, quantum dots, and/or dyes as photoluminescent spectrum converters”); and
a light source module (Figure 4, LED 12, Column 6, lines 50-54: “the disclosure relates to a light emitting device combined with a spectrum converter and power supply to provide a primarily non-coherent output light source that efficiently generates and provides a customizable spectral range light.”, Column 11, lines 9-10: “The device may be configured as comprising rows or columns of said LEDs”), arranged on a side of the base (view Jones Figure 4) configured to provide an excitation beam to the light conversion patterns, so that each of the light conversion patterns emits a converted beam (Column 6, lines 61-65:“This new light source apparatus uses multiple new light spectrum converting materials and device structures that can absorb light in one spectral range from light emitting devices such as LEDs or laser diodes, and then reemit most of the absorbed photons in all or part of the ONIR spectral range.”).
wherein the base (modified Figure 3. Examiner is interpreting layers 6 and 7 to be the base, Jones’855 states in Column 18, lines 40-49: “The lower layer 6 is optional and can be any number of films or coatings... The optional top layer 7 of the device is a protective layer and can comprise a highly transparent silicone material like the lower layer”) has a light incident surface (view modified Figure 3), a light emitting surface and a side surface, the light incident surface is opposite to the light emitting surface, the side surface is connected between the light incident surface and the light emitting surface (view modified Figure 3), the light source module is arranged on the light incident surface (view Jones figure 4), the converted beam exits through the light emitting surface (view modified Figure 3, and Figure 1 of Jones’855, Jones’855 states in Column 17, line 65- Column 18, line 3: “two arrows 1 pointing into the device represent incoming sunlight or other bright ambient white light. The arrow that passes completely through the device represents unconverted visible incoming light, which is typically under 10% for this exemplified device. The upper arrow 2 pointing out of the device represents converted ONIR light exiting the device.”, where arrow 2 is representative of the arrow 2a of the modified Figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
460
603
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner modified Figure 3 (Jones)
Jones and Jones ‘855, alone or in combination, fail to explicitly teach a base having an installation slot, at least one light conversion device detachably arranged in the installation slot, a light source module arranged on a side of the base, and a slot opening of the installation slot is located on the side surface.
However, Minamoto teaches an instrument for ultraviolet irradiation for treating the skin having a base (casing 44) having an installation slot (Figure 5: filter mount 51, [0062] “Casing 44 has filter mount 51 in the form of an elongate slot defined therein”), at least one light conversion device detachably arranged in the installation slot ([0062] “Filter unit 43 is substantially in the form of an elongate flat plate having light-shielding filters 18 and opening 31…filter unit 43 can move in filter mount 51 along guide rails. Filter unit 43 has grip tab 49 disposed on one longitudinal end thereof for being gripped when filter unit 43 is to be inserted into and removed from filter mount 51.”, [0061] “filter unit 43 having a plurality of light-shielding filters 18 and opening 31 each having different ultraviolet radiation transmittances for the ultraviolet radiation that is emitted from light source 16”)), and a light source module arranged on a side of the base (view Figure 1: light source 16, [0031] “ultraviolet irradiator 11 comprises light source 16 for applying ultraviolet radiation to the skin of a patient, filter unit 17 having a plurality of light-shielding filters 18 each having different ultraviolet radiation transmittances for the ultraviolet radiation emitted from light source 16” ); and a slot opening of the installation slot is located on the side surface (Figure 5: filter mount 51, [0062] “Casing 44 has filter mount 51 in the form of an elongate slot defined therein”).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jones to incorporate the teachings of Minamoto to have a base having an installation slot, at least one light conversion device detachably arranged in the installation slot, a light source module arranged on a side of the base, and a slot opening of the installation slot is located on the side surface , as these prior art references are directed to phototherapy devices. One would be motivated to do this as making the light conversion device interchangeable/detachable allows for the device to be tailored to various phototherapy treatment regimes. .
Additionally, Examiner would like to note it would be within ordinary skill in the art to have a slot opening on the side surface before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 3, Jones in view of Minamoto teaches the phototherapy device according to claim 1 (as shown above). Jones further discloses wherein the light conversion patterns comprise a variety of light conversion patterns with different light emission wavelengths (Column 7, lines 51-: “(e) 350 nm and 480 nm dominant peak LEDs with spectrum converters use a phosphor or QD as the spectrum converter for absorption of over 70% of the LED radiant power light; (f) 600 nm-780 nm dominant emission peak LEDs with spectrum converters use a fluorescent dye or QD spectrum converter for absorption of over 30% of the LED radiant power light; (g) over 70% of the total output light from the device is in the 595-960 nm spectral range; (h) at least 1% of the highest radiant power peak in the 600 nm-750 nm part of the emitted light spectrum of the output light is provided at all wavelengths between 600 nm and 820 nm; (i) LED(s) of the one or more LEDs, whose light is not significantly absorbed by the spectrum converters comprise LEDs with dominant peak wavelengths within the 350 nm-480 nm spectral range and/or within the 650 nm to 860 nm spectral range;”, Figure 3, Column 24, lines 8-12: “Different spectrum-converting materials may be mixed or sequentially placed in the light path so that 1, 2, or more different spectrum converters are present in the light path of at least half the collective initial LED light output.”, Column 26, lines 3-6: “This device's output light from the spectrum converter(s) may intentionally contain up to 40% light in the violet and/or blue spectral range with >60% light in the ONIR spectral range.”) .
Regarding claim 7, Jones in view of Minamoto teaches the phototherapy device according to claim 1. Jones further teaches the device further comprising a control module (Column 15, lines 4-5: “The light source device in embodiments may comprise one or more controllers”), wherein the light source module comprises a plurality of light emitting elements arranged in an array (Column 11, lines 24-25: “The device may be configured as comprising rows or columns of said LEDs”), and the control module is electrically connected to the light emitting elements and configured to control a luminous intensity of the light emitting elements (Column 15, lines 4-16: “The light source device in embodiments may comprise one or more controllers that are programmably arranged to turn the device off at an end of a programmed time… One or more controllers may also optionally: turn off or on all or adjust the power to prewired portions of the LED array (modes) at designated times or resulting from other selected conditions being met: adjust the treatment time or power and mode conditions”, Column 14, lines 36-39: “a controller that can be used to modify the light intensity and/or treatment time as directed by the treatment clinician, physician, or by a predetermined formula in the controller or computer linked to the system”) .
Regarding claim 9, Jones in view of Minamoto teaches the phototherapy device according to claim 7 (as shown above). Jones further discloses the device further comprising a light sensor, configured to sense the converted beam reflected back by a user (Column 13, line 65-Column 14, line 5: “the device comprises a monitoring and control assembly including one or more light sensors placed in, on, and/or near the lighted window, facing toward a target surface when the device is in use so that the sensor(s) detect reflected light from the target, with the sensor(s) arranged to provide input to a controller circuit to adjust light intensity based on reflectivity, and/or to adjust the time of treatment”).
Jones discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly disclosing the light sensor arranged on the side of the base. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a light sensor, arranged on the side of the base, for the purpose of sensing the converted beam reflected back by a user, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 11, Jones in view of Minamoto teaches the phototherapy device according to claim 1 (as shown above). Jones further discloses the device further comprising a skin friendly layer, arranged on a surface of the base far from the light source module (view Figure 1 and 2: the soft silicone lips are not directly adjacent to the LED strips, Column 34, lines 30-35: “An embodiment of the present invention provides for a light source where the area surrounding most of the perimeter of translucent window(s) over the LEDs is a raised mostly-opaque structure to act as a soft cushion if placed against the tissue surface and to reduce lateral light. The cushion structure or material may be a soft-solid, tubular, bladder, or partly coiled structure.”, Column 17, lines 44-51: “Around the top perimeter of the device is shown an optional soft and flexible opaque lip that provides a soft surface against the skin and allows horizontal air flow when not pressed tight against the skin. This lip can flatten and allow the array of window--like wells to be pressed onto the skin if desired. This lip also blocks light leakage, which could potentially be annoying to users because of the very high light intensities this system provides.”)
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Minamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Esteban (US 2022/0388960 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Esteban.
Regarding claim 4, Jones in view of Minamoto teaches the phototherapy device according to claim 1 (as shown above). Jones and Minamoto, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein each of the at least one light conversion device further comprises a light shielding layer, the light shielding layer is partitioned into a plurality of accommodating spaces, and the light conversion patterns are respectively arranged in the accommodating spaces.
However, Esteban teaches compositions of light-emitting devices ([0002]) such as a phototherapy device ([0623]) wherein each of the at least one light conversion device further comprises a light shielding layer (light-shielding pattern 500), the light shielding layer is partitioned into a plurality of accommodating spaces ([0612] “the color conversion layer may further include a plurality of color conversion areas and light-shielding patterns arranged among the color conversion areas”), and the light conversion patterns are respectively arranged in the accommodating spaces (view Figure 6: a functional region 400 is found between the light-shielding pattern 500, [0636] “the functional region 400 may be…ii) a color conversion area”).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jones and Minamoto to incorporate the teachings of Esteban to have each of the at least one light conversion device further comprises a light shielding layer, the light shielding layer is partitioned into a plurality of accommodating spaces, and the light conversion patterns are respectively arranged in the accommodating spaces, as these prior art references are directed to light-emitting devices that can be used for phototherapy purposes. One would be motivated to do this prevent unnecessary/accidental light from reaching the target.
Regarding claim 5, Jones in view of Minamoto, further in view of Esteban teaches the phototherapy device according to claim 4 (as shown above). Jones and Minamoto, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein part of the accommodating spaces is not provided with the light conversion pattern.
However, Esteban teaches wherein part of the accommodating spaces is not provided with the light conversion patterns ([0612] “the color conversion layer may further include a plurality of color conversion areas and light-shielding patterns arranged among the color conversion areas.”, [0613] “For example, the plurality of color filter areas (or the plurality of color conversion areas) may include quantum dots. In particular, the first area may include a red quantum dot, the second area may include a green quantum dot, and the third area may not include a quantum dot.”, Examiner interprets the third area which does not include a quantum dot to be the space not provided with the light conversion pattern.).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jones and Minamoto to incorporate the teachings of Esteban to have wherein part of the accommodating spaces is not provided with the light conversion patterns, as these prior art references are directed to light-emitting devices that can be used for phototherapy purposes. One would be motivated to do this to provide the wavelength of the LED to the target without any conversions.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Minamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 2025/0099778 A1), hereinafter Zhou.
Regarding claim 6, Jones in view of Minamoto teaches the phototherapy device according to claim 1 (as shown above). Jones further discloses wherein a quantity of the at least one light conversion device is plural (Column 7, lines 30-32: “the disclosure relates to a light emitting device for generating a predominantly non-coherent output light, comprising one or more spectrum converters”), an arrangement and distribution of the light conversion patterns of the light conversion devices are different (Column 24, lines 8-12: “Different spectrum-converting materials may be mixed or sequentially placed in the light path so that 1, 2, or more different spectrum converters are present in the light path of at least half the collective initial LED light output.”, Column 24, lines 13-67: “the spectrum converter can be a phosphor or quantum dots mixed into clear silicone or other matrix material placed in the proximity of, or touching the LED light-output surface at a concentration, thickness, and area that can convert 50% or more of initial LED light into broad spectrum ONIR light with a emission intensity dominant peak at 620 nm or higher… an additional light conversion material placed in all or part of the light path, consisting of one or more over 60% quantum yield dyes in an inorganic or polymer matrix such as polycarbonate, impact resistant acrylic, or PVC.”.
Although Minamoto teaches a cap 55 that blocks certain light-shielding filters, Jones and Minamoto, alone or in combination, fail to explicitly teach where one of the light conversion device is selected to arrange in the installation slot.
However, Zhou teaches a photon beauty instrument (Abstract) wherein a quantity of the at least one light conversion device is plural, an arrangement and distribution of the light conversion patterns of the light conversion devices are different and one of the light conversion device is selected to arrange in the installation slot ([0058] “The optical filter assembly 50 includes a plurality of optical filters. A manual adjustment mechanism is provided on the housing of the beauty instrument, or an electric adjustment mechanism is provided inside the beauty instrument to drive and change the position of the optical filter, thereby switching the optical filter behind the light outlet of the beauty instrument to optical filter light. The filtered light waves are emitted from the light outlet of the working head.”) .
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jones in view of Minamoto to incorporate the teachings of Zhou to have the one of the light conversion device is selected to arrange in the installation slot, as these prior art references are directed to phototherapy devices. One would be motivated to do this as making the light conversion device interchangeable/detachable allows for the device to be tailored to various phototherapy treatment regimes.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Minamoto as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of van de Ven (US Patent 12,115,384 B2, previously cited), hereinafter van de Ven.
Regarding claim 8, Jones in view of Minamoto teaches the phototherapy device according to claim 7 (as shown above). Jones and Schanze, alone or in combination, fail to teach the device further comprising a communication module, electrically connected to the control module.
However, van de Ven teaches an illumination device for the induction of one or more biological effects (Column 1, lines 7-9) wherein the device further comprising a communication module, electrically connected to the control module (Claim 36: “the support circuitry comprising…communication circuitry configured to communicate with one or more device external to the housing”, Figure 8: communication circuitry 54).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jones and Minamoto to have the device further comprise of a communication module, electrically connected to the control module, as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to phototherapy devices. One would be motivated to do this to communicate with external devices, as recognized by van de Ven (claim 36).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Minamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schanze (US Patent 10,765,885 B2, previously cited), hereinafter Schanze.
Regarding claim 10, Jones in view of Minamoto teaches the phototherapy device according to claim 1 (as shown above). Jones and Minamoto, alone or in combination, fails to explicitly teach the device further comprising a protective layer, arranged between the base and the light source module.
However, Schanze teaches the device having a protective layer (substrate 36), arranged between the base and the light source module (Column 6, lines 18-21: “A flexible array of LEDs 30 is affixed to the inner surface 40 of the mask and provided with suitable power connections. LEDs 30 may be surface mounted to substrate 36 which may be a flexible tape.”, view Figure 4 and 5).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jones and Schanze to incorporate the teachings of Schanze to have a protective layer, arranged between the base and the light source module, as these prior art references are directed to phototherapy devices. One would be motivated to do this as this protective layer can ensure adherence to the mask to prevent peeling.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATTIYA SAYYADA HUSSAINI whose telephone number is (703)756-5921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 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, Niketa Patel can be reached at 5712724156. 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.
/ATTIYA SAYYADA HUSSAINI/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792