DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the filing of amendments to the claims on 10/08/2025. As per the amendments, claims 1, 10, and 16 have been amended, and no claims have been added or cancelled. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the language “configured to dispersible ground” in line 5. Examiner suggests changing to read --configured to grind-- in order to correct a grammatical issue. It is noted that alternatively changing the phrase to read --configured to disperse ground-- may have issues as the salt aerosol griding device is not understood to perform a dispersal function.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budarin (WO 2008/092465; see previously attached copy in Office Action of 10/01/2025) in view of Shurtleff (US Pat. 9,629,777) in view of Johnson et al. (US Pub. 2015/0127076).
Regarding claim 1, Budarin discloses a halotherapy enclosure system (device of Figs. 1-5, in particular Fig. 3), comprising: an enclosure delimiting an enclosed space accessible through a closeable opening (see Fig. 3 where salt therapy space C is enclosed by cover B, and above bunk 25, cover B openable and closeable via joint 29 and fastener 30); a salt aerosol grinding device configured to dispersible ground salt particles (see Figs. 1 and 3-4 where dry salt aerosol saturation device 1 has raw salt disintegrator 21 and its engine 7; see also page 6 lines 20-25 where the system crushes salt); and a ventilation system including one or more ventilation ducts in communication with the salt aerosol device and configured to uniformly disperse the salt particles within the enclosure (a ventilation system formed of ventilators 8, nozzles 17, and outlet orifices 26 (ventilation ducts) in Figs. 3-4 which provide the air flow within the device 1 for entraining salt crystals into the air of the space of the room, and page 9 lines 8-16), wherein the enclosure is sufficiently sized to retain at least one physical exertion machine within the enclosed space of the enclosure (see Figs. 3 and 6 where the enclosure defined by cover B and bunk 25 is large enough for a person, and thus is capable of fitting a handheld physical exertion machine (e.g. a grip strength training machine)).
Budarin lacks a detailed description of at least one red light panel and at least one thermal heating light panel disposed on at least one interior enclosure surface.
However, Shurtleff teaches an enclosed environment chamber with a light system and at least one infra-red light device inside of the enclosed space that emits a plurality of infra-red light waves (see Figs. 13-16 where an enclosed room space has infrared waves 405 from LED panel 402 delivering infrared light to a user, and can be used in conjunction with far infrared heating elements 100 that deliver heat energy as seen in Col. 13 lines 18-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the enclosed space halotherapy system of Budarin to provide light therapy and infrared heat therapy to the user as taught by Shurtleff, as it would provide therapeutic heating benefits as known to be provided by sauna-style systems, giving additional relaxation and detoxication to the system. Further, it is noted that Budarin does recognize that similar prior art devices have been used in conjunction with infrared/ light therapy (Budarin; see page 3 lines 20-30).
The modified Budarin device lacks a detailed description of at least one red light panel. It is understood that the modified Budarin device, as modified by Shurtleff, has infrared light devices for emitting infrared light waves (LED panel 402 in Fig. 14). Infrared light sits adjacent to red light on the wavelength spectrum, and it is understood that “red light therapy” has been referred to in the art to refer to red light, near-infrared light, and infrared light therapies as a group.
However, in the alternative that the modified Budarin device lacks a detailed description of a detailed description of at least one red light device inside of the enclosed space that emits a plurality of red light waves, then Johnson teaches it. Johnson teaches a therapeutic device, where applied light therapy is red light therapy, emitted through a red light device and red light waves (see [0011], [0038] and [0042] where LED lights are used to apply therapeutic benefits to a user, including red lights with a wavelength of about 640 nm for applying particular benefits associated with red light).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the infrared light system of the modified Budarin device to be red lights of about 640 nm wavelength as taught by Johnson, as it would be a simple matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art to choose a different wavelength of applied light to deliver different therapeutic benefits, such as red lights of about 640 nm.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Budarin device has wherein the physical exertion machine is one of a resistance machine (Budarin; where the space under cover B and above bunk 25 is capable of fitting a resistance machine, such as a handheld grip training machine. It is noted that the claims do not require a physical exertion machine of any type, but rather merely that the space in the enclosure is large enough to contain a physical exertion machine).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Budarin device has wherein the salt aerosol device comprises a main body that houses a salt grinder (Budarin; see device 1 of Figs. 4-5, having an outer body that contains the salt disintegrator 21) and includes a reservoir configured to retain salt crystals therein (Budarin; see Figs. 4-5 raw salt container 2).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Budarin device has wherein the salt aerosol device is disposed on an exterior surface of the enclosure not within the enclosed space (Budarin; see Fig. 3 where the device 1 and its sluice E are under bunk 25, such that it is not within salt therapy space C, the device located on the underside of bunk 25, which is an exterior wall of salt therapy space C).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Budarin device has wherein the red light panel and the thermal heating light panel are connected to a remote device configured to control an emission of red light from the red light panel and an emission of thermal energy from the thermal heating light panel (Shurtleff; see Fig. 14 where control unit 414 is removed and separate from the LED panel 402 and FIR heating elements 100, such that it is remote; see Col. 13 lines 41-49. It is understood that the control unit powers and controls all of the light elements in the enclosed space).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Budarin device has wherein the at least one red light panel and the at least one thermal heating light panel are disposed on separate interior enclosure surfaces (Shurtleff; see Fig. 13 where the LED panel assembly 400 (as modified in view of Johnson to deliver red light) is disposed on an interior surface of the enclosure wall, and see Figs. 15-16 where FIR heating elements 100 are disposed on other interior surfaces of the enclosure wall (in the modification where the LED assembly 400 and FIR elements 100 are used in tandem, as disclosed in Col. 13 lines 18-26).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Budarin device has wherein the at least one red light panel substantially extends longitudinally on an interior wall surface of the enclosure (Shurtleff; see Figs. 13-14 where the LED panel assembly 400 extends along the interior wall some amount in a longitudinal direction).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Budarin device has wherein the at least one thermal heating light panel substantially extends longitudinally on an interior wall surface of the enclosure (Shurtleff; see Figs. 15-16 where FIR heating element 100 extends some amount in the longitudinal direction of the interior wall surface).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Budarin device has wherein the enclosure includes one or more transparent surfaces (Budarin; see page 9 line 24 where cover B is made of a transparent material).
Regarding claim 11, Budarin discloses a halotherapy enclosure system (device of Figs. 1-5, in particular Fig. 3), comprising: an enclosure delimiting an enclosed space accessible through a pivoting door that in a closed configuration seals the enclosed space (see Fig. 3 where salt therapy space C is enclosed by cover B, and above bunk 25, cover B openable and closeable via joint 29 and fastener 30, the cover B pivoting about joint 29 and cover B acting as a door); a salt aerosol dispersing device including a grinder configured to grind salt crystal into dispersible salt particles (see Figs. 1 and 3-4 where dry salt aerosol saturation device 1 has raw salt disintegrator 21 and its engine 7; see also page 6 lines 20-25 where the system crushes salt) and a blower configured to uniformly disperse the salt particles into the enclosure (see ventilators 8 in Fig. 4 which provide the air flow within the device 1 for entraining salt crystals into the air of the space of the room, and page 9 lines 8-16); wherein the enclosure is sufficiently sized to retain at least one physical exertion machine within the enclosed space of the enclosure (see Figs. 3 and 6 where the enclosure defined by cover B and bunk 25 is large enough for a person, and thus is capable of fitting a handheld physical exertion machine (e.g. a grip strength training machine)).
Budarin lacks a detailed description of at least one red light panel and at least one thermal heating light panel disposed on at least one interior enclosure surface.
However, Shurtleff teaches an enclosed environment chamber with a light system and at least one infra-red light device inside of the enclosed space that emits a plurality of infra-red light waves (see Figs. 13-16 where an enclosed room space has infrared waves 405 from LED panel 402 delivering infrared light to a user, and can be used in conjunction with far infrared heating elements 100 that deliver heat energy as seen in Col. 13 lines 18-26).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the enclosed space halotherapy system of Budarin to provide light therapy and infrared heat therapy to the user as taught by Shurtleff, as it would provide therapeutic heating benefits as known to be provided by sauna-style systems, giving additional relaxation and detoxication to the system. Further, it is noted that Budarin does recognize that similar prior art devices have been used in conjunction with infrared/ light therapy (Budarin; see page 3 lines 20-30).
The modified Budarin device lacks a detailed description of at least one red light panel. It is understood that the modified Budarin device, as modified by Shurtleff, has infrared light devices for emitting infrared light waves (LED panel 402 in Fig. 14). Infrared light sits adjacent to red light on the wavelength spectrum, and it is understood that “red light therapy” has been referred to in the art to refer to red light, near-infrared light, and infrared light therapies as a group.
However, in the alternative that the modified Budarin device lacks a detailed description of a detailed description of at least one red light device inside of the enclosed space that emits a plurality of red light waves, then Johnson teaches it. Johnson teaches a therapeutic device, where applied light therapy is red light therapy, emitted through a red light device and red light waves (see [0011], [0038] and [0042] where LED lights are used to apply therapeutic benefits to a user, including red lights with a wavelength of about 640 nm for applying particular benefits associated with red light).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the infrared light system of the modified Budarin device to be red lights of about 640 nm wavelength as taught by Johnson, as it would be a simple matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art to choose a different wavelength of applied light to deliver different therapeutic benefits, such as red lights of about 640 nm.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Budarin device has wherein a substantial portion of the salt aerosol dispersing device is disposed on an exterior surface of the enclosure not within the enclosed space (Budarin; see Fig. 3 where the device 1 and its sluice E are under bunk 25, such that it is not within salt therapy space C, the device located on the underside of bunk 25, which is an exterior wall of salt therapy space C).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Budarin device has wherein the red light panel and the thermal heating light panel are connected to a remote device configured to control an emission of red light from the red light panel and an emission of thermal energy from the thermal heating light panel (Shurtleff; see Fig. 14 where control unit 414 is removed and separate from the LED panel 402 and FIR heating elements 100, such that it is remote; see Col. 13 lines 41-49. It is understood that the control unit powers and controls all of the light elements in the enclosed space).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Budarin device has wherein the at least one red light panel and the at least one thermal heating light panel are disposed on separate interior enclosure surfaces (Shurtleff; see Fig. 13 where the LED panel assembly 400 (as modified in view of Johnson to deliver red light) is disposed on an interior surface of the enclosure wall, and see Figs. 15-16 where FIR heating elements 100 are disposed on other interior surfaces of the enclosure wall (in the modification where the LED assembly 400 and FIR elements 100 are used in tandem, as disclosed in Col. 13 lines 18-26).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Budarin device has wherein the enclosure includes one or more transparent surfaces (Budarin; see page 9 line 24 where cover B is made of a transparent material).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Budarin device has wherein each one of the red light devices include at least one light emitting diode (LED) that emits wavelength beams within a range of about 660 nanometers (nm) to about 850nm (Johnson; see [0011], [0038] and [0042] where LED lights have a wavelength of about 640 nm for applying red light. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that red light covers the wavelength range of approximately 640 to 700 nm, such that a person using red light would readily, as a matter of design choice, choose any wavelength of red light within the red light range, such as 660 nm, which is understood to be about 640 nm).
Regarding claim 17, Budarin discloses a halotherapy enclosure system (device of Figs. 1-5, in particular Fig. 3), comprising: an enclosure delimiting an enclosed space accessible through a pivoting door that in a closed configuration seals the enclosed space (see Fig. 3 where salt therapy space C is enclosed by cover B, and above bunk 25, cover B openable and closeable via joint 29 and fastener 30, the cover B pivoting about joint 29 and cover B acting as a door), the enclosure including at least one transparent surface (see page 9 line 24 where cover B is made of a transparent material); a salt aerosol dispersing device including a grinder configured to grind salt crystal into dispersible salt particles (see Figs. 1 and 3-4 where dry salt aerosol saturation device 1 has raw salt disintegrator 21 and its engine 7; see also page 6 lines 20-25 where the system crushes salt) and a blower configured to uniformly disperse the salt particles into the enclosure (see ventilators 8 in Fig. 4 which provide the air flow within the device 1 for entraining salt crystals into the air of the space of the room, and page 9 lines 8-16); and a controller disposed outside of the enclosure configured to control conditions inside of the enclosed space (see Fig. 1 where the device 1 has a control desk 5 for controlling the salt dispersal into the enclosure, and see Fig. 3 where the device 1 is located outside of the salt therapy space C), the controller in communication with the salt aerosol dispersing device (see page 8 lines 21-25 and Col. 9 lines 17-19), wherein the enclosure is sufficiently sized to retain at least one physical exertion machine within the enclosed space of the enclosure (see Figs. 3 and 6 where the enclosure defined by cover B and bunk 25 is large enough for a person, and thus is capable of fitting a handheld physical exertion machine (e.g. a grip strength training machine)).
Budarin lacks a detailed description of at least one red light panel and at least one thermal heating light panel disposed on separate interior enclosure surfaces, and a controller in communication with the at least one red light panel, and the at least one thermal heating light panel.
However, Shurtleff teaches an enclosed environment chamber with a light system and at least one infra-red light device inside of the enclosed space that emits a plurality of infra-red light waves (see Figs. 13-16 where an enclosed room space has infrared waves 405 from LED panel 402 delivering infrared light to a user, and can be used in conjunction with far infrared heating elements 100 that deliver heat energy as seen in Col. 13 lines 18-26), the infrared and FIR heating lights located on different interior surfaces (see Fig. 13 where the LED panel assembly 400 is disposed on an interior surface of the enclosure wall, and see Figs. 15-16 where FIR heating elements 100 are disposed on other interior surfaces of the enclosure wall (in the modification where the LED assembly 400 and FIR elements 100 are used in tandem, as disclosed in Col. 13 lines 18-26), and a controller for operating the light devices (see Fig. 14 where control unit 414 is removed and separate from the LED panel 402 and FIR heating elements 100; see Col. 13 lines 41-49. It is understood that the control unit powers and controls all of the light elements in the enclosed space).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the enclosed space halotherapy system and its controller of Budarin to provide controlled light therapy and infrared heat therapy to the user as taught by Shurtleff, as it would provide therapeutic heating benefits as known to be provided by sauna-style systems, giving additional relaxation and detoxication to the system. Further, it is noted that Budarin does recognize that similar prior art devices have been used in conjunction with infrared/ light therapy (Budarin; see page 3 lines 20-30). It is understood that in the modified Budarin device, the control desk of Budarin has been modified to further include the controls for the infrared and far infrared lights as taught by Shurtleff, such that the control system is centralized and located outside of the salt therapy space.
The modified Budarin device lacks a detailed description of at least one red light panel. It is understood that the modified Budarin device, as modified by Shurtleff, has infrared light devices for emitting infrared light waves (LED panel 402 in Fig. 14). Infrared light sits adjacent to red light on the wavelength spectrum, and it is understood that “red light therapy” has been referred to in the art to refer to red light, near-infrared light, and infrared light therapies as a group.
However, in the alternative that the modified Budarin device lacks a detailed description of a detailed description of at least one red light device inside of the enclosed space that emits a plurality of red light waves, then Johnson teaches it. Johnson teaches a therapeutic device, where applied light therapy is red light therapy, emitted through a red light device and red light waves (see [0011], [0038] and [0042] where LED lights are used to apply therapeutic benefits to a user, including red lights with a wavelength of about 640 nm for applying particular benefits associated with red light).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the infrared light system of the modified Budarin device to be red lights of about 640 nm wavelength as taught by Johnson, as it would be a simple matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art to choose a different wavelength of applied light to deliver different therapeutic benefits, such as red lights of about 640 nm.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Budarin device has wherein a substantial portion of the salt aerosol dispersing device is disposed on an exterior surface of the enclosure not within the enclosed space (Budarin; see Fig. 3 where the device 1 and its sluice E are under bunk 25, such that it is not within salt therapy space C, the device located on the underside of bunk 25, which is an exterior wall of salt therapy space C).
Regrading claim 19, the modified Budarin device has wherein the at least one red light panel substantially extends longitudinally on an interior wall surface of the enclosure (Shurtleff; see Figs. 13-14 where the LED panel assembly 400 extends along the interior wall some amount in a longitudinal direction).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Budarin device has wherein the at least one thermal heating light panel substantially extends longitudinally on an interior wall surface of the enclosure (Shurtleff; see Figs. 15-16 where FIR heating element 100 extends some amount in the longitudinal direction of the interior wall surface).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budarin in view of Shurtleff in view of Johnson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Doshi (US Pub. 2019/0083395).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Budarin device has the ventilation ducts are dispersed throughout the enclosure (Budarin; see outlet orifices 26 in Fig. 3 which are located in separate spatial locations within the salt therapy space C), the ventilation ducts connected to a blower system configured to blow the salt particles into the enclosed space of the enclosure (Budarin; see Fig. 3 where outlet orifices 26 are in fluid connection with ventilator 8, which drives the salted air up and out nozzles 17 to the orifices 26).
The modified Budarin device lacks a detailed description of the ventilation ducts connected to a fan configured to blow the salt particles into the enclosed space of the enclosure.
However, Doshi teaches a breathing and salt entraining device, where the air that has the salt is moved by a fan (see Fig. 1 and [0056] and [0058] where air mover 82 can be a fan that draws in the air that is sent further along to entrain the salt to reach the user).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ventilators of the modified Budarin device to be a fan as taught by Doshi, as it would be a simple substitution of one type of air moving mechanism for another, to yield the predictable result of pulling in and driving salt-entrained air to the patient.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,819,515 in view of Shurtleff. While not identical, the claims are not patentably distinct from one another, as outlined below.
Instant Application
‘515 Patent
1. A halotherapy enclosure system, comprising: an enclosure delimiting an enclosed space accessible through a closeable opening; at least one red light panel and at least one thermal heating light panel disposed on at least one interior enclosure surface; a salt aerosol grinding device configured to dispersible ground salt particles; and a ventilation system including one or more ventilation ducts in communication with the salt aerosol device and configured to uniformly disperse the salt particles within the enclosure, wherein the enclosure is sufficiently sized to retain at least one physical exertion machine within the enclosed space of the enclosure.
1. A halotherapy and red light system, comprising: an enclosed space including a plurality of upstanding side walls delimiting a space that is sufficient sized for at least one physical exertion machine and configured to allow a person to exercise using the physical exertion machine in an at least a vertical or horizontal orientation; a machine having a body comprising of a back portion and a front portion, a grinding mechanism that includes a grinder and a discharge mechanism, disposed about the front portion of the machine is a control panel and at least two vents in communication with an exhaust of the discharge mechanism that disperse salt particles into air contained inside of the enclosed space; at least one physical exertion machine disposed inside of the enclosed space; and a plurality of red light devices disposed about a ceiling of the enclosed space, each one of the red light devices configured to emit red light waves for therapeutic benefit.
As seen in the above comparison, claim 1 of the instant application does not significantly differ from claim 1 of the ‘515 patent. The first substantive difference is that the enclosure contains a closeable opening. However, it is understood that any enclosed that is designed to have a person inside of it must have some entrance/ exit into the space, and thus having some door member is inherent to an enclosed space for human use. A second substantive difference is the inclusion of thermal heating lights. While it is understood that the red light system of the ‘515 patent does produce some heat, it is otherwise taught by Shurtleff. Shurtleff teaches an enclosed environment chamber with a light system and at least one infra-red light device inside of the enclosed space that emits a plurality of infra-red light waves (see Figs. 13-16 where an enclosed room space has infrared waves 405 from LED panel 402 delivering infrared light to a user, and can be used in conjunction with far infrared heating elements 100 that deliver heat energy as seen in Col. 13 lines 18-26). It would then be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the red lights of the ‘515 patent with the heating lights as taught by Shurtleff, as it would provide therapeutic heating benefits as known to be provided by sauna-style systems, giving additional relaxation and detoxication to the system. It is further noted that the “ventilation ducts” of the instant application correspond to the ”vents” of the ‘515 patent.
Claim 2 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of the ‘515 patent.
Claim 3 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of the ‘515 patent, where the machine has both the grinder, and must have some area for storing the salt to be used.
Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of the ‘515 patent, where the machine is attached to a wall, such that it can be exterior to the wall.
Claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of the ‘515 patent, as modified in light of Shurtleff above to include the heating lights, all of which is understood to be controlled by the control panel.
Claim 6 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of the ‘515 patent, in light of Shurtleff to include the heating lights.
Claim 7 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of the ‘515 patent.
Claim 8 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of the ‘515 patent, in light of Shurtleff to include the heating lights.
Claim 9 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of the ‘515 patent, where having a transparent surface is merely a choice of materials used for the enclosure (e.g. glass), and thus is a simple matter of design choice for a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 10 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of the ‘515 patent, where the exhaust is understood to be an equivalent structure to the fan.
Claim 11 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of the ‘515 patent, in view of Shurtleff, for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claim 12 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of the ‘515 patent, where the machine is attached to a wall, such that it can be exterior to the wall.
Claim 13 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of the ‘515 patent, where the control panel controls the lights as modified by Shurtleff, and it is well-known that control systems can be remote, which does not patentably distinguish the claim from a non-remote control system.
Claim 14 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of the ‘515 patent, in light of Shurtleff to include the heating lights.
Claim 15 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of the ‘515 patent, where having a transparent surface is merely a choice of materials used for the enclosure (e.g. glass), and thus is a simple matter of design choice for a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 16 of the instant application corresponds to claim 8 of the ‘515 patent.
Claim 17 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of the ‘515 patent, in view of Shurtleff, for the same reasons as claim 1 above. Further, it is understood that in light of Shurtleff, the control panel of the ‘515 device controls and operates all the systems, including the salt dispersal and the lights. Such combined controlled systems are common and well-known.
Claim 18 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of the ‘515 patent, where the machine is attached to a wall, such that it can be exterior to the wall.
Claim 19 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of the ‘515 patent.
Claim 20 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of the ‘515 patent, in light of Shurtleff to include the heating lights.
For the reasons above, claims 1-20 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from the ‘515 patent, in light of obvious teachings from Shurtleff.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment of the ventilation system “including one or more ventilation ducts” (claim 1, ln. 7) results in the term “ventilation system” no longer being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 8-9 of the arguments that the Budarin device is directed specifically to a small hermetically sealed salt chamber, and thus provides no room for movement or the inclusion of a physical exertion device. The argument is not well-taken. First, it is noted that the claims only require that the enclosure is “sufficiently sized” to retain at least one physical exertion machine, and further where the physical exertion machine can be a resistance machine. At present, the claims do not positively recite the physical exertion machine included within the enclosure space, but rather merely the capability of fitting a physical exertion machine within the enclosure space. As such, and as seen in the above rejections, there are known handheld physical exertion machines that would easily fit within the sealed capsule space of Budarin, alongside the patient. Such machines include grip trainers (of which many are small and handheld, some even smaller than a cell phone), stress/ exercise balls, and finger exercisers, among others. A person choosing to exercise in this manner while within the Budarin capsule does not destroy the alter the functionality of Budarin, as they would still be undergoing the halotherapy. The claims do not require that the physical exertion machine be large (e.g. a treadmill), or otherwise preclude a small handheld device from being used within the enclosure.
Applicant argues on page 10 of the remarks that Budarin teaches away from including other healing environments, such as light/ infrared, with its sealed halotherapy capsule, and that modifying Budarin to include the light therapy goes against the disclosure of Budarin and uses impermissible hindsight reasoning. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Furthermore, Budarin does not teach away from including some other forms of therapy (except perhaps those which would introduce humidity/ water into the capsule). As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the disclosure of Budarin, would understand that other therapies could be used in conjunction with the sealed capsule, such as light therapy. Budarin merely describes what the inventor believes to be the best form by which their device can be achieved, and naturally extols their solution as “best” or “proper.” However, it is understood that others of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of seeing improvements and modifications which can be made to the Budarin device, such as the inclusion of other therapies in conjunction with the halotherapy.
For the reasons above, the rejections hold.
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 MATTHEW D ZIEGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-3349. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Timothy Stanis can be reached at (571)272-5139. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW D ZIEGLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785