DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
The application claims priority to provisional 62/197,736 filed 7/28/2015, CON 15/222,292 filed 07/28/2016, CON 16/884,858 filed 5/27/2020, and CIP filed 17/750,872; however, neither of these applications and provisional detail or explain the use of administering a hair growth agent to a treatment area of mammalian tissue. Therefore, the priority for the claim set is based on the provisional 63/374,298 which provides the support for the claim limitations 9/01/2022.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on December 19, 2025. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 1, 5-6, and 15-16 have been amended, claim(s) 18 have been cancelled, and no claim(s) have been added. Thus, claims 1-17 and 19-20 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 5, filed December 19, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 8-9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 8-9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17 and 19-20 have been considered but the arguments do not apply to the combination of the references being used in the new grounds of rejection set forth above. The applicant asserts that the prior art rejections do not teach or suggest the features as now amended into the amended claims; therefore, the examiner has applied a new combination of prior art to reject the claims and address the arguments necessitated by such amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 10-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumpan-Bahrami (US 2020/0221994 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kumpan-Bahrami discloses a method for delivering light emissions to stimulate hair growth (e.g. [0013]), the method comprising: providing a phototherapy device comprising an array of light-emitting devices (e.g. [0027]-[0028] Fig 1C) configured to generate light having a first peak wavelength in a range from 600 nanometers (nm) to 700 nm (e.g. [0146] Fig 1C the preferable wavelength is 655 nm), the phototherapy device further comprising a reservoir for storing a hair growth agent (e.g. [0081]-[0084]; [0171]-[0174] Fig 1:130), and a plurality of applicator structures configured to administer the hair growth agent to a treatment area of mammalian tissue (e.g. [0164] Fig 1C:120), the plurality of applicator structures and the array of light-emitting devices being arranged between the reservoir and the treatment area (e.g. Fig 1C); administering the hair growth agent to the treatment area of mammalian tissue (e.g. [0025]-[0026]; [0081]; [0170] the treatment can be provided to both the scalp and/or the hair); and impinging the light on the treatment area after administering the hair growth agent to the treatment area (e.g. [0044]-[0045]; [0079]-[0081]; [0150]; [0168]-[0170] the hair growth agent can be applied at home or by the dosing device which automatically adjusts the dosing of the hair treatment agent, before, during and after turning on the illumination device based on the sensor data).
Regarding claim 7, Kumpan-Bahrami discloses wherein administering the hair growth agent comprises topically applying the hair growth agent along a surface of the treatment area (e.g. [0027]; [0164] Fig 1C:120).
Regarding claim 10, Kumpan-Bahrami discloses wherein administering the hair growth agent comprises systemic delivery of the hair growth agent (e.g. [0027]; [0164] Fig 1C:120).
Regarding claim 11, Kumpan-Bahrami discloses wherein the impinging the light on the treatment area is performed within five hours of administering the hair growth agent (e.g. [0044]-[0045]; [0079]-[0081]; [0150]; [0168]-[0170] the hair growth agent can be applied at home or by the dosing device which automatically adjusts the dosing of the hair treatment agent, before, during and after turning on the illumination device based on the sensor data).
Regarding claim 14, Kumpan-Bahrami discloses wherein the impinging the light on the treatment area is performed concurrently with administering the hair growth agent (e.g. [0044]-[0045]; [0079]-[0081]; [0150]; [0168]-[0170] the hair growth agent can be applied at home or by the dosing device which automatically adjusts the dosing of the hair treatment agent, before, during and after turning on the illumination device based on the sensor data).
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) 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumpan-Bahrami in view of Rabin (US 2010/0106077A1)
Regarding claim 2, Kumpan-Bahrami is silent regarding wherein the hair growth agent comprises one or more of hyaluronic acid, arginine, minoxidil, finasteride, tretinoin, ketoconazole, or spironolactone.
However, Rabin discloses a method and apparatus for treating the scalp with phototherapy in combination with a hair growth agent (e.g. abstract) wherein the hair growth agent comprises one or more of hyaluronic acid, arginine, minoxidil, finasteride, tretinoin, ketoconazole, or spironolactone (e.g. [0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Kumpan-Bahrami to incorporate the teachings of Rabin wherein the hair growth agent comprises one or more of hyaluronic acid, arginine, minoxidil, finasteride, tretinoin, ketoconazole, or spironolactone for the purpose of utilizing a known treatment agent that is commercially available (e.g. Kumpan-Bahrami [0043]).
Regarding claim 15, Kumpan-Bahrami discloses placing the phototherapy device proximate the treatment area (e.g. [0025]; [0128]-[0131]; [0144]); and electrically activating the array of light-emitting devices (e.g. [0162]; [0166] 104). Kumpan-Bahrami is silent regarding wherein impinging the light having the first peak wavelength on the treatment area comprises: providing the phototherapy device comprising a flexible substrate with a proximal surface and a distal surface that is opposite the proximal surface, the proximal surface supporting the array of light emitting devices.
However, Rabin discloses a method and apparatus for treating the scalp with phototherapy in combination with a hair growth agent (e.g. abstract) wherein impinging the light having the first peak wavelength on the treatment area comprises: providing the phototherapy device comprising a flexible substrate with a proximal surface and a distal surface that is opposite the proximal surface (e.g. [0007]-[0008]; [0041] Fig 1C:18), the proximal surface supporting the array of light emitting devices (e.g. [0073]; Figs 13 and 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method and system of Kumpan-Bahrami to incorporate the teachings of Rabin wherein impinging the light having the first peak wavelength on the treatment area comprises: providing the phototherapy device comprising a flexible substrate with a proximal surface and a distal surface that is opposite the proximal surface, the proximal surface supporting the array of light emitting devices for the purpose of utilizing a known structure for a phototherapy device for treating the scalp and hair.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumpan-Bahrami in view of Gentile (“A Randomized blinded retrospective study: the combined use of micro-needling technique, low-level laser therapy and autologous non-activated platelet-rich plasma improves hair re-growth in patients with androgenic alopecia”)
Regarding claim 3, Kumpan-Bahrami is silent regarding wherein the hair growth agent comprises platelet rich plasma.
However, Gentile discloses a minimum invasive therapy of low-level laser therapy used in combination with micro-needling and platelet rich plasma for hair re-growth wherein the hair growth agent comprises platelet rich plasma.(e.g. abstract, Introduction, 2.4, 2.4.1 and Conclusion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Kumpan-Bahrami to incorporate the teachings of Gentile wherein the hair growth agent comprises platelet rich plasma for the purpose of utilizing a known combination for enhancing hair re-growth (e.g. Gentile Conclusion)
Regarding claim 4, modified Kumpan-Bahrami discloses wherein administering the hair growth agent comprises administering localized injections of the hair growth agent through a surface of the treatment area (e.g. Gentile 2.4.1 the PRP injections are introduced using a mesotherapy gun).
Regarding claim 12, modified Kumpan-Bahrami is silent regarding wherein the impinging the light on the treatment area is performed after a time delay of at least five minutes from administering the hair growth agent .
However, Gentile discloses a minimum invasive therapy of low-level laser therapy used in combination with micro-needling and platelet rich plasma for hair re-growth wherein the users apply the low-level laser therapy is applied once the user is at home multiple times a week (e.g. 2.5 Low-level laser therapy device)..
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Kumpan-Bahrami to incorporate the teachings of Gentile wherein the impinging the light on the treatment area is performed after a time delay of at least five minutes from administering the hair growth agent for the purpose of enhancing the treatment after the user has received the hair growth agent.
Regarding claim 13, modified Kumpan-Bahrami is silent regarding wherein the impinging the light on the treatment area is performed in a range from five minutes to one hour of administering the hair growth agent. However, Gentile discloses applying the light much later once the user has gotten home after receiving the hair growth agent and could be minutes or hours later. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an appropriate delay of applying the light as it has shown that there is a wide range of time frames in which the light can be applied and the prior art Gentile proves that the mere addition of impinging light on the treatment area is beneficial (e.g. Gentile Conclusion).
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumpan-Bahrami in view of Gentile as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Ingman (US 2014/0330196 A1)
Regarding claim 5, modified Kumpan-Bahrami is silent regarding wherein administering the localized injections comprises rolling the phototherapy device with the plurality of applicator structures radially arranged as needles along the treatment area to inject the hair growth agent through the surface of the treatment area.
However, Ingman discloses a method and system for promoting hair growth (e.g. [0002]) which includes applying a hair growth agent to the scalp (e.g. [0357]) and applying the treatment by manually displacing the device by rolling a phototherapy device with the plurality of applicator structures radially arranged as needles along the treatment area to inject the hair growth agent through the surface of the treatment area (e.g. [0362] Fig 10a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of modified Kumpan-Bahrami to incorporate the teachings of Ingman to substitute the treatment strips wherein administering the localized injections comprises rolling the phototherapy device with the plurality of applicator structures radially arranged as needles along the treatment area to inject the hair growth agent through the surface of the treatment area for the purpose of utilizing a substitutable known arrangement of applying the hair growth agent to the user as Ingman as shows in Figs 10a-g a variation of applications including a stationary embodiment such as in Fig 10b.
Regarding claim 6, modified Kumpan-Bahrami discloses wherein the treatment area comprises a scalp (e.g. [0026]-[0027]) and the phototherapy device in the form of a cap (e.g. [0144]; [0148]; [0157]; [0183] Fig 1F). modified Kumpan-Bahrami is silent regarding administering the localized injections comprises placing a cap with needles on the treatment area to inject the hair growth agent through the surface of the treatment area.
However, Ingman discloses a method and system for promoting hair growth (e.g. [0002]) which includes applying a hair growth agent to the scalp (e.g. [0357 administering the localized injections comprises placing a cap with needles on the treatment area to inject the hair growth agent through the surface of the treatment area (e.g. [0371] Fig 10a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified method of Kumpan-Bahrami to incorporate the teachings of Ingman to substitute the treatment strips with a cap with needles on the treatment area to inject the hair growth agent through the surface of the treatment area for the purpose of utilizing a substitutable known arrangement of applying the hair growth agent to the user as Ingman as shows in Figs 10a-g a variation of applications including a stationary embodiment such as in Fig 10b.
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumpan-Bahrami in view of Leclerc (US 2007/0208395 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kumpan-Bahrami is silent regarding further comprising administering a photosynthesizing agent to the treatment area before impinging the light on the treatment area.
However, Leclerc discloses a phototherapy device and method or providing phototherapy to a body surface further comprising administering a photosynthesizing agent to the treatment area before impinging the light on the treatment area (e.g. [0009] [0033]; [0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Kumpan-Bahrami to incorporate the teachings of Leclerc of administering a photosynthesizing agent to the treatment area before impinging the light on the treatment area for the purpose of enhancing the absorption of a light therapy device (e.g. Leclerc [0118])
Regarding claim 9, modified Kumpan-Bahrami is silent regarding wherein the photosynthesizing agent is applied concurrently with the hair growth agent. However, a photosensitizer is meant to enhance the absorption of a light therapy device (e.g. Leclerc [0118]), and the method of Kumpan-Bahrami concurrently applies the light on the treatment area concurrently with the hair growth agent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method to apply the photosynthesizing agent concurrently with the hair growth agent in order to enhance the applied light therapy.
Claim(s) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Rabin as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Pina (US 2016/0271420 A1.
Regarding claim 16, modified Kumpan-Bahrami discloses driver circuitry (e.g. [0162] 104) and a sensor to trigger the driver circuitry to at least one of initiate, terminate, or modify operation of the array of light-emitting devices (e.g. [0162]; [0166]).
Modified Kumpan-Bahrami is silent regarding wherein the phototherapy device comprises driver circuitry and a proximity sensor on the flexible substrate, the proximity sensor being configured to trigger the driver circuitry to at least one of initiate, terminate, or modify operation of the array of light-emitting devices.
However, Pina discloses a laser therapy method and apparatus wherein the phototherapy device comprises driver circuitry (e.g. [0034] Fig 5:118) and a proximity sensor on the flexible substrate (e.g. [0041]-[0042]), the proximity sensor being configured to trigger the driver circuitry to at least one of initiate, terminate, or modify operation of the array of light-emitting devices (e.g. [0041]-[0042])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified method and system Kumpan-Bahrami to incorporate the teachings of Pina to add driver circuity and proximity sensor to the device , the proximity sensor being configured to trigger the driver circuitry to at least one of initiate, terminate, or modify operation of the array of light-emitting devices
Regarding claim 17, newly modified Kumpan-Bahrami discloses wherein the proximity sensor is a capacitive sensor (e.g. Pina [0041]).
Claim(s) 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumpan-Bahrami in view of Shanks (US 2006/0095099 A1)
Regarding claim 19, Kumpan-Bahrami is silent regarding further comprising impinging light having a second peak wavelength on the treatment area after administering the hair growth agent to the treatment area, the second peak wavelength differing from the first peak wavelength by at least 20 nm.
However, Shanks discloses a low level laser therapy that is used for hair treatment utilizing two or more different wavelengths to stimulate the scalp and the second peak wavelength differing from the first peak wavelength by at least 20 nm (e.g. [0049] the first wavelength being at 632 and the second one being within the range of 600-800). While, it doesn’t explicitly state that the wavelengths are 20 nm apart, the prior art Shanks is proved to be effective between about 630 nm and 670 nm. Additionally, Kumpan-Bahrami discloses in [0146] that the preferred wavelength is about 655 nm which is at least 20 nm apart from the disclosed wavelength in Shanks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kumpan-Bahrami to incorporate the teachings of Shanks to utilize two wavelengths and specifically the two wavelengths expressed in Kumpan-Bahrami and Shanks within the range discloses in Shanks that have been proven to be effective.
Regarding claim 20, modified Kumpan-Bahrami discloses wherein the first peak wavelength is in a range from 615 nm to 635 nm and the second peak wavelength is in a range from 650 nm to 670 nm (e.g. Kumpan-Bahrami [0146] Shanks [0049]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSANDRA F HOUGH whose telephone number is (571)270-7902. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 am - 4 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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)270-5625. 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.
Jessandra Hough April 23, 2026
/J.F.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3796 /William J Levicky/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights