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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in combination with amendments, see Remarks and Claims, filed 12/10/2025, with respect to rejections of claims 1-11 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejection of claims 1-11 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in combination with amendments, see Remarks and Claims, filed 12/10/2025, with respect to rejections of claims 1-11 under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejection of claims 1-11 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in combination with amendments, see Remarks and Claims, filed 12/10/2025, with respect to rejections of claims 1-10 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Beginning on page 7, the applicant asserts that the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, rendering it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. The applicant argues that the wavelengths disclosed by Nabat are all well within the infrared spectrum and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to substitute the ultraviolet light of Young-min as it would render Nabat unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. It is initially noted that the claims as written do not provide any details regarding the operation of the headgear device. The claimed headgear device merely requires a UVB light source within an earcup of a headgear. The claims do not preclude the existence of other light sources or various combined operations. Here, Nabat discloses an optical therapeutic apparatus adapted to be worn overhead or around a wearer's ear, [] and to provide optical stimulation massage to the wearer's ear []. Wherein a plurality of light emitters further includes a plurality of auxiliary-stimulation elements capable of emitting a plurality of auxiliary stimulation light beams ranging from about 450 nm to about 1000 nm (para 0014). Young-min (the secondary reference) is used to teach that using UVB lights (i.e., wavelength of 280 nm to 315 nm), and its benefits, are known in the art having a sterilization and inflammation treatment function (description). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Nabat with the teachings of Young-min, because doing so would allow for further sterilization or treatment of inflammation of the wearer, providing the predictable result of further treating the wearer.
Furthermore, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, both references are intended to provide phototherapy using a device worn on the ear of the user. A person having ordinary skills in the art would reasonably look at both references and come to the obvious conclusion of combining the references to combine the light therapy advantages provided by both devices. It is further noted that combining/modifying Nabat to include the added wavelengths would not render Nabat inoperable as it already includes and is capable of operating and providing different wavelengths at different time intervals.
Beginning on page 8, the applicant argues similar reasons for independent claim 11. For similar reasons (as recited above) the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. It is initially noted that the claim(s) as written do not provide any details regarding the operation of the headgear device nor the structural details of the device. The claims merely require a headgear having an earcup, headband to be worn over a wearer’s head and having UVB light source position in the headband.
Segal discloses the claimed device but is quiet on the light sources being UVB. Young-min (the secondary reference) is used to teach that using UVB lights (i.e., wavelength of 280 nm to 315 nm), and its benefits, are known in the art having a sterilization and inflammation treatment function (description). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Segal with the teachings of Young-min, because doing so would allow for further sterilization or treatment of inflammation of the wearer, providing the predictable result of further treating the wearer.
Furthermore, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, both references are intended to provide phototherapy using a device worn on the ear of the user. A person having ordinary skills in the art would reasonably look at both references and come to the obvious conclusion of combining the references to combine the light therapy advantages provided by both devices. It is further noted that combining/modifying Segal to include the added wavelengths would not render Segal inoperable as it already includes programmed course and is capable of operating and providing different wavelengths at different time intervals/courses.
For at least the reasons cited above, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained and is Final.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130331640 to Nabat et al. (hereinafter “Nabat”) in view of KR20190067110A to Young-min et al. (hereinafter “Young-min”).
Regarding claim 1. Nabat discloses a headgear configured to be worn on a wearer's head (para 0029 “therapeutic apparatus 1000”), the headgear comprising: an earcup (para 00296 “ear shield 11”); and a light source within the earcup (para 0029, 0031 “plurality of light emitters 21 are disposed within the interior portion of the ear shield 11”, fig. 1).
But fails to disclose the wavelength to include an ultra-violet B (UVB) light (e.g., 290 nm and 315 nm).
Young-min, from a similar field of endeavor teaches that it is known to emits ultraviolet light having a wavelength of 280 nm to 315 nm (Description) to provide UV at different properties depending on the wavelength. it would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Nabat with the teachings of Young-min, because doing so would allow for further sterilization or treatment of inflammation of the wearer, providing the predictable result of further treating the wearer.
Regarding claim 2. Nabat as modified by Young-min renders obvious the headgear of claim 1, wherein the UVB light source comprises a light emitting diode (LED) (para 0034 “first acupoint-stimulation element 21 a is an LED (Light Emitting Diode)”).
Regarding claim 3. Nabat as modified by Young-min renders obvious the headgear of claim 1, wherein the UVB light source comprises a strip of light emitting diodes (LEDs) (para 0031 “plurality of light emitters 21 are disposed within the interior portion of the ear shield 11 in array manner”).
Regarding claim 4. Nabat as modified by Young-min renders obvious the headgear of claim 3, wherein the earcup further comprises a cushion around a perimeter of the earcup (para 0016, 0030 “circular soft cushion”) and the strip of LEDs is positioned within a space on an inner surface of the cushion (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5. Nabat as modified by Young-min renders obvious the headgear of claim 2, wherein the earcup further comprises a space configured to accommodate for a wearer's ear within the earcup and the LED is positioned within the space configured to accommodate a wearer's ear (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6. Nabat as modified by Young-min renders obvious the headgear of claim 5, wherein the UVB light source comprises at least one LED and the UVB light source substantially fills the space configured to accommodate a wearer's ear (fig. 1, para 0034 “21 a is an LED (Light Emitting Diode)”, Young-min teaching the at least one light source being UVB).
Regarding claim 7. Nabat as modified by Young-min renders obvious the headgear of claim 5, wherein the UVB light source comprises at least one LED and the UVB light source is cross shaped (fig. 1). It is noted that the claim nor the specification provide any evidence of criticality regarding the shape, therefore under its broadest reasonable interpretation, any shape could be arbitrary selected to provide the same treatment. Such shape is therefore understood to be a design choice. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); and In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947).
Regarding claim 8. Nabat as modified by Young-min renders obvious the headgear of claim 1, wherein the earcup includes a sound emitting source (para 0036-0037, fig 5, “loud speaker 22”) and a cushion (para 0016, 0030 “circular soft cushion”) and the UVB light source is positioned within a space between the cushion and the sound emitting source (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9. Nabat as modified by Young-min renders obvious the headgear of claim 1, wherein the earcup includes a sound emitting source (para 0036-0037, fig 5, “loud speaker 22”) and the UVB light source is positioned on a front surface of the sound emitting source (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10. Nabat as modified by Young-min renders obvious the headgear of claim 9, as modified by Young-min renders obvious the UVB light source comprises at least one LED and the UVB light source is cross shaped (fig. 1). It is noted that the claim nor the specification provide any evidence of criticality regarding the shape, therefore under its broadest reasonable interpretation, any shape could be arbitrary selected to provide the same treatment. Such shape is therefore understood to be a design choice. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); and In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180021592 to Segal in view of KR20190067110A to Young-min et al. (hereinafter “Young-min”).
Regarding claim 11, Segal discloses a headgear configured to be worn on a wearer's head (para 0027 fig. 1), the headgear comprising: at least one earcup (fig. 1); a headband to be worn over a wearer's head (fig. 1); and a light source positioned in the headband (para ).
But fails to disclose the wavelength to include UVB light (e.g., 290 nm and 315 nm).
Young-min, from a similar field of endeavor teaches that it is known to emits ultraviolet light having a wavelength of 280 nm to 315 nm (Description) to provide UV at different properties depending on the wavelength. it would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Segal with the teachings of Young-min, because doing so would allow for further sterilization or treatment of inflammation of the wearer, providing the predictable result of further treating the wearer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20180015301A1 to Lim; CN209862582U to Guoxiong; CN114189782A to Aimin.
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 SANA SAHAND whose telephone number is (571)272-6842. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 am -5:30 pm; F 9 am-3 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer S McDonald can be reached at (571) 270- 3061. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SANA SAHAND/ Examiner, Art Unit 3796