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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1: “the control unit is selectively wired communication” is grammatically unclear. It is also unclear what “selective” communication would mean here regarding the wiring. For examination purposes, this is interpreted to mean the control unit is in wire communication with these components, as opposed to wireless.
Claim 4: It is unclear to recite changing a treatment light to a converted treatment light, since this appears to mean that the initial treatment light from claim 1 is no longer the light being used for treatment, and where the actual light being used for treatment is now the “converted treatment light”. For sake of examination, the claim is interpreted to mean another initial light wavelength is converted to result in the infrared treatment light.
Claim 8: It is unclear to recite the application member on the body member emitting the IR treatment light, since this appears to rescind the previous requirement that the emission member on the body member emits the IR treatment light. Claim 9 would appear to specifically change the emission member from emitting IR light to emitting UV light for charging the application member. For sake of examination, similar to above, the claims are interpreted to mean that an initial UV wavelength is converted to an IR treatment wavelength via the application member.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4, 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 4, 8: Fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rogers (US 2015/0335911).
PNG
media_image1.png
525
745
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Rogers discloses the same invention as claimed (Figure 7 shown above for example), including a treatment light emission system (abstract) comprising: a body member (e.g. Figure 7: 74/76); at least one emission member carried by the body member to selectively emit a treatment light (Figure 7: 72); a control unit coupled in communication with the at least one emission member to control the at least one emission member to emit the treatment light (Figure 7: 78); and a power unit coupled in communication with the control unit so that the control unit is configured to provide and regulate power to the at least one emission member (Paragraph 40); wherein the treatment light comprises at least one wavelength of infrared (IR) light (Paragraph 64); wherein the control unit is separated and spaced apart from the body member (Figure 7); and wherein the control unit is selectively wired communication with the at least one emission member and with the power unit (Figure 7: wired communication).
Regarding claim 2, Rogers discloses a plurality of emission members and selective control as recited (Figure 7; Paragraph 40; broadest reasonable interpretation of selective activation includes on/off).
Regarding claim 3, Rogers discloses at least a lighting filament (Figure 7).
Regarding claims 5-7, Rogers discloses monitoring to control light emission as recited (Paragraph 66).
Regarding claim 11, Rogers discloses the IR treatment light wavelengths as recited (Paragraph 64).
Claim(s) 12-14, 16-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bickford (US 2014/0163651).
PNG
media_image2.png
313
321
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 12, 14, 16-18, 20, Bickford discloses the same invention as claimed (Figure 6 shown above for example), including a treatment light emission system (abstract) comprising: a body member (Figure 6); and an application member carried by the body member to emit a treatment light (Figure 6: light emitting particles on substrate); wherein the treatment light comprises at least one wavelength of infrared (IR) light (Paragraphs 45, 49, 52); wherein the application member emits the treatment light after being at least one of exposed to and charged by at least one wavelength of light defined as charging light (Paragraphs 45, 49, 52: e.g. UV light); and wherein the application member emits the treatment light for an extended period of time after the application member is exposed to the charging light (Paragraphs 45, 49, 52).
Regarding claim 13, 17, Bickford disclose the body member is charged by a charging unit as recited (Paragraph 52).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers (US 2015/0335911) in view of Dowling (US 2002/0070688).
Regarding claim 4, Rogers discloses using LEDs (Paragraph 24). Rogers does not disclose using a conversion coating as recited. However, Dowling teaches it is common to utilize a conversion coating on an LED (Paragraph 49), in order to obtain a desired output wavelength. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rogers as taught by Dowling to include a conversion coating as recited, in order to obtain a desired output wavelength.
Claim(s) 8-10, 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers (US 2015/0335911) in view of Bickford (US 2014/0163651).
Regarding claims 8-10, Rogers does not disclose an application member as recited. However, Bickford teaches using an application member which charges with UV light and emits IR light (Paragraphs 45, 49, 52), in order to apply therapy even when away from the powered light source. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rogers as taught by Bickford to include an application member as recited, in order to apply therapy even when away from the powered light source.
Regarding 12-20, these can additionally be rejected with Rogers as the base reference using the same proposed combination directly above for claims 8-10 . See the rejections with Bickford as the base reference for additional citations.
Claim(s) 15, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bickford (US 2014/0163651), or in view of Rogers (US 2015/0335911).
Regarding claims 15, 19, Bickford does not disclose the wavelengths recited. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and MPEP 2144.05(I). In addition, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Furthermore, Rogers also teaches IR treatment wavelengths as recited are suitable for treating patients (Paragraph 64). There is no evidence that the particular wavelengths recited are critical. Therefore, it would have obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bickford alone, or with Rogers, to include the recited IR treatment wavelengths, in order to provide suitable treatment or optimize treatment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pan (US 2013/0006118) shows phosphors for UV to IR radiation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eugene T Wu whose telephone number is (571)270-5053. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Carl Layno can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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.
/Eugene T Wu/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796