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. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first/top and second/bottom surface of the vessel, a solvent and solute, a cylindrical vessel, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim s 1-10, 14-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. US 2020/0376291 in view of De Taboada et al. US 2010/0211136 . Regarding claim 1: Johnson discloses a light emitting apparatus 10 (figure 1) which includes a plurality of light sources 13 (“clusters”, figure 1) emitting coherent light (paragraph 0040), the plurality of light sources comprise a first set of light sources 15 (figure 2) and a second set of light sources 16 (figure 2). The first set of light sources 15 (LS1, figure 2) is operated in a super-pulsed mode and emits light in the 890-910 nm range, the second set of light sources 16 (LS2, figure 2) is operated in a pulsed mode and emits light in the 600-700 nm range (paragraphs 0064 and 0055). The frequency of modulation is considered to be the pulsed modes, the super-pulsed mode operates at a higher frequency. However , Johnson does not disclose a vessel comprising a first and second surface which stores solvent with the vessel receiving the laser light / coherent light via one of the surfaces. De Taboada however teaches of a therapy device which emits lights (abstract). The device includes an optical element 23 through which the light beam is emitted (figures 1-2, paragraph 0072). The optical element can include a transparent f lexible bag or container filled with transmissive liquid such as water ( paragraph 0072). It would be inherent for the bag to have two surfaces in which the light is transmitted through. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Johnson to include an optically transmissive bag through which the light is transmitted, as taught by De Taboada, in order to utilize a thermally conductive fluid. Regarding claims 2 and 4-6: De Taboada further teaches that the bag is transparent (paragraph 0072) this would include all sides having the transparent bag material, with the light emitted from a bottom surface against the device to a top surface touching skin of the patient. Regarding claim 3: Johnson discloses that the first set of light sources is modulated at a different frequency than the second set of light sources based on a frequency generator signal (paragraph 0061). Regarding claim 7: Johnson discloses an insert 2011 (figure 21) as well as a hand-held probe device 3011 (figure 23). In figure 21 the light emitting apparatus 11 (figure 1) is on the bottom side of the insert 2011 and for the hand-held probe 3011the light emitting clusters are in areas that contact the skin (paragraph 0060), this would inherently include a base to which the light emitting clusters are operably attached. Regarding claim 8: Figure 23 of Johnson demonstrates a circular base. De Taboada figures 1-2 also demonstrate a circular base with the optical element including a bag which would be considered to be cylindrical. However, it is unclear what the diameter of the base to the diameter of the bag would be. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the bag of De Taboada to be larger than the diameter of the base , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art . In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 . Regarding claims 9-10: De Taboada teaches the use of water (paragraph 0080) which is considered to be a polar substance . Regarding claim 14: Johnson discloses the use of a laser light source (abstract). Regarding claim 15: Johnson discloses a light emitting apparatus 10 (figure 1) which includes a plurality of light sources 13 (“clusters”, figure 1) emitting coherent light (paragraph 0040), the plurality of light sources comprise a first set of light sources 15 (figure 2) and a second set of light sources 16 (figure 2). The first set of light sources 15 (LS1, figure 2) is operated in a super-pulsed mode and emits light in the 890-910 nm range, the second set of light sources 16 (LS2, figure 2) is operated in a pulsed mode and emits light in the 600-700 nm range (paragraphs 0064 and 0055). The frequency of modulation is considered to be the pulsed modes, the super-pulsed mode operates at a higher frequency. However , Johnson does not disclose a vessel comprising a top and bottom surface which stores solvent with the vessel receiving the laser light / coherent light via one of the surfaces. De Taboada however teaches of a therapy device which emits lights (abstract). The device includes an optical element 23 through which the light beam is emitted (figures 1-2, paragraph 0072). The optical element can include a transparent flexible bag or container filled with transmissive liquid such as water (paragraph 0072). De Taboada further teaches that the bag is transparent (paragraph 0072) this would include all sides having the transparent bag material, with the light emitted from a bottom surface against the device to a top surface touching skin of the patient. It would be inherent for the bag to have two surfaces in which the light is transmitted through. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Johnson to include an optically transmissive bag through which the light is transmitted, as taught by De Taboada, in order to utilize a thermally conductive fluid. Regarding claim 16: De Taboada teaches of a transparent bag which has a top surface facing the patient and a bottom surface facing the light emitting device, which would allow for light to pass from the bottom to the top surface into the patient (paragraph 0080). Regarding claim 19: Johnson discloses the use of a laser light source (abstract). Regarding claim 20: Johnson discloses a light emitting apparatus 10 (figure 1) which includes a plurality of light sources 13 (“clusters”, figure 1) emitting coherent light (paragraph 0040), the plurality of light sources comprise a first set of light sources 15 (figure 2) and a second set of light sources 16 (figure 2). The first set of light sources 15 (LS1, figure 2) is operated in a super-pulsed mode and emits light in the 890-910 nm range, the second set of light sources 16 (LS2, figure 2) is operated in a pulsed mode and emits light in the 600-700 nm range (paragraphs 0064 and 0055). The frequency of modulation is considered to be the pulsed modes, the super-pulsed mode operates at a higher frequency. However , Johnson does not disclose a vessel comprising a top and bottom surface which stores solvent with the vessel receiving the laser light / coherent light via one of the surfaces. De Taboada however teaches of a therapy device which emits lights (abstract). The device includes an optical element 23 through which the light beam is emitted (figures 1-2, paragraph 0072). The optical element can include a transparent flexible bag or container filled with transmissive liquid such as water (paragraph 0072). De Taboada further teaches that the bag is transparent (paragraph 0072) this would include all sides having the transparent bag material, with the light emitted from a bottom surface against the device to a top surface touching skin of the patient. It would be inherent for the bag to have two surfaces in which the light is transmitted through. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Johnson to include an optically transmissive bag through which the light is transmitted, as taught by De Taboada, in order to utilize a thermally conductive fluid. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. US 2020/0376291 in view of De Taboada et al. US 2010/0211136 and further in view of Califorrniaa US 2008/0097143. Regarding claim 11: Johnson/De Taboada discloses the claimed invention however Johnson/De Taboada does not disclose the use of a non-polar transmissive fluid. Califorrniaa however teaches that a non-polar liquid allows for infrared transmission (paragraph 0370). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Johnson/De Taboada to include non-polar transmissive fluid, as taught by Califorrniaa, in order to allows for infrared transmission (paragraph 0370). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 12-13 and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 12-13: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 15 in combination with the vessel storing the solvent with a solute in order to phase shift the coherent light when it interacts with the mixture in the vessel. 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 . Claim s 1, 3, 7-8 and 14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim s 1-2 an d12 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/496,370 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other . 18/496,374 18/496,370 Claim 1 : A system comprising: a light emitting apparatus comprising a plurality of light sources , wherein : each light source is configured to emit coherent light , the plurality of light sources comprises a first set of light sources and a second set of light sources, the first set of light sources is configured to emit pulses of coherent light modulated at a first frequency from a plurality of frequencies, the second set of light sources is configured to emit pulses of coherent light modulated at a second frequency from the plurality of frequencies, and the first frequency is different from the second frequency; and a vessel comprising a first surface and a second surface, wherein the vessel is configured to store a solvent, wherein the light emitting apparatus is disposed in proximity to at least one of the first surface and the second surface, and wherein the light emitting apparatus is configured to emit the coherent light into the solvent via the at least one of the first surface and the second surface. Claim 3 . The system of claim 1, wherein the first set of light sources is modulated at the first frequency and the second set of light sources is modulated at the second frequency based on command signals obtained from a frequency generator. Claim 7 . The system of claim 1, wherein the light emitting apparatus further comprises a base, and wherein the plurality of light sources are disposed on the base. Claim 1 : A light emitting apparatus comprising: a base ; and a plurality of light sources disposed on the base , wherein: each light source is configured to emit coherent light , the plurality of light sources comprises a first set of light sources and a second set of light sources, the first set of light sources is configured to emit pulses of coherent light modulated at a first frequency from a plurality of frequencies , based on command signals obtained from a frequency generator , the second set of light sources is configured to emit pulses of coherent light modulated at a second frequency , from the plurality of frequencies, based on the command signals obtained from the frequency generator, and the first frequency is different from the second frequency . Claim 14 . The system of claim 1, wherein each light source is a laser light source . Claim 2 . The light emitting apparatus of claim 1, wherein each light source from the plurality of light sources is a laser light source. Claim 8 . The system of claim 7, wherein the vessel is cylindrical and the base is circular , and wherein a vessel diameter is greater than a base diameter. Claim 12 . The light emitting apparatus of claim 1, wherein the base is shaped as a circular disc. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PAULA J. STICE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (303)297-4352 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 7:30am -4pm MST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Carl H Layno can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT PAULA J. STICE Primary Examiner Art Unit 3796 /PAULA J STICE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796