A 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/18/2023, 05/29/2025, 10/16/2025, and 11/03/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-23 are currently pending and are under examination. As per the amendments filed on 05/03/2024, claims 4, 6-13, 15, and 17-23 are amended.
Priority
The instant application (filed on 10/18/2023) is a national stage of PCT/IB2022/053653 (filed on 04/19/2022), filed under 35 USC 371. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application CH 00425/21 filed on 04/21/2021. The Examiner used an English translation of the published CH 718557 A1 from Espacenet (see attached) to interpret the matching foreign application in the filed certified priority document. Claims 1-23 are represented in this translated disclosure. Therefore, the instant application will receive an effective filing date of 04/21/2021 and all prior art will be evaluated with respect to this date.
Claim Objection
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
• Claim 1: Claim 1 limitations (a) and (b) have a semicolon as the end while claim limitation (c) has a comma at the end. For consistency, (a), (b), and (c) would have matching punctuation (note claims 15 and 23 use commas).
• Claims 1, 15, and 23: The claims contain periods within the claims (e.g. “a.”, “b.”, “c.”, “d.”). See MPEP 608.01(m) – “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995).”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
❶ Claim 1: “Claim 1: “a directing unit for aligning the at least one light source with the irradiation area” in Claim 1: The limitation does not disclose sufficient structure for the “directing unit.” The “directing unit” is described as “a directing unit can be understood to mean, for example, a mechanical arrangement which is suitable for directing the at least one first light source and/or at least the light radiation of the at least one first light source onto an irradiation area. This can be accomplished, for example, in that a directing unit can be moved and/or pivoted on at least one axis. The directing unit is preferably movable and/or pivotable on at least two axes, so that preferably a cone area, starting from the at least one first light source, can be traversed by the directing unit, so that a plurality of irradiation areas can be sensed within this cone area” (Specification, page 5, lines 17-24). With respect to claim 1, the “directing unit” is interpreted as a mechanical structure which moves or pivots the light source to shine on the directed irradiation area.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 15-23 are directed to a signal per se (“computer program product”).
Step 1
The invention in claims 15-23 is not to a statutory subject matter as the claims recite a “computer program product” (which is a signal per se). The claims can be amended to recite “non-transitory” forms of signal transmission (see MPEP 2106.03 II). Because the claims could be amended to fall within a statutory category, the following eligibility analysis is performed.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claims 15 and 19 recite abstract ideas in the form of mental processes that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection (III)).
Regarding Claim 15, the limitation “to compare an irradiation area detected by a sensor unit with predefined irradiation areas” could be performed by the human mind.
Regarding Claim 19, the limitation “to compare each image detected by an optical sensor with an irradiation area excluded from irradiation” could be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A, Prong Two
For the claim 15 and 19 limitations from Step 2A Prong One, the claims do recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The mental processes (comparisons) are used “to trigger an emission of light radiation comprising wavelengths in a range of 280 nm to 315 nm by at least one first light source if the detected irradiation area does not correspond to an irradiation area excluded from irradiation” (claim 15) and are therefore integrated into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 15-23 are directed to nonstatutory subject matter based on the Step 1 analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21: There is insufficient description of the limitation “wherein the computer program product causes an exposure of an irradiation area to light radiation comprising wavelengths in a range of 280 nm to 315 nm as soon as a sensor unit detects an irradiation area excluded from irradiation in the effective range of the light source.” The specification states: “The computer program is designed to compare an irradiation area recognized by a sensor unit with predefined irradiation areas. Said computer program is further designed to trigger an emission of light radiation comprising wavelengths in a range of 280 nm to 315 nm by at least one first light source. This occurs when the recognized irradiation area does not correspond to an irradiation area excluded from exposure” (page 12, lines 5-9). This would suggest that, unlike the claim language, irradiation only occurs when an excluded area is not detected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, and 11-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2: Recites the phrase “the sensor unit comprises an optical sensor, in particular a camera.” This phrase is unclear, as it is not known if the camera is required, or if the sensor unit comprising an optical sensor is the only requirement.
Claim 5: Recites the phrase “the collecting unit comprises a lens and/or a collimator, in particular comprising a collimator with a collecting lens for generating a directed bundle of rays from the emission of light radiation by the first light source.” This phrase is unclear, as it is not known if the collimator with a collecting lens for generating a directed bundle of rays from the emission of light radiation by the first light source is required, or if either the lens or collimator is the only requirement.
Claim 6: Recites the phrase “a second light source for emitting light radiation comprising wavelengths in the visible range, in particular comprising wavelengths in a range of 380 nm to 720 nm.” This phrase is unclear, as it is not known if wavelengths in a range of 380 nm to 720 nm are required, or if being in the visible range is the only requirement.
Claim 7: Recites the phrase “a second light source for emitting light radiation comprising wavelengths infrared range, in particular in a range of 720 nm to 1800 nm.” This phrase is unclear, as it is not known if wavelengths in a range of 720 nm to 1800 nm are required, or if being in the near-infrared range is the only requirement.
Claim 12: Recites the phrase “wherein the directing unit is designed to be pivotable in at least two axes, in particular at least one rotatably mounted stand base and a rotatably mounted tool arm for pivoting a light source on at least two axes.” This phrase is unclear, as it is not known if the particular at least one rotatably mounted stand base and a rotatably mounted tool arm for pivoting a light source on at least two axes is required, or if the directing unit being designed to be pivotable in at least two axes is the only requirement.
Claim 13: Recites the phrase “the irradiation area is a skin area with an area of 40 cm2 to 900 cm2, in particular 50 cm2 to 600 cm2, in particular of about 400 cm2.” This phrase is unclear, as it is not known if the 50 cm2 to 600 cm2 or 400 cm2 are required, or if the irradiation area being a skin area with an area of 40 cm2 to 900 cm2 is the only requirement.
Claim 13: The phrase “in particular of about 400 cm2” is indefinite because the range implied by the word “about” is when describing the smaller range centered around 400 cm2.
Claim 15: Recites the phrase “a control of a device for stimulating the biosynthesis of vitamin D3, in particular a device according to claim 1.” This phrase is unclear, as it is not known if the device according to claim 1 is required, or if a device for stimulating the biosynthesis of vitamin D3 is the only requirement.
Claim 20: Recites the phrase “the computer program product is designed to enter an operating mode by a signal from the sensor unit, in particular to search for a suitable irradiation area that is not excluded from irradiation.” This phrase is unclear, as it is not known if the search for a suitable irradiation area that is not excluded from irradiation is required, or if being designed to enter an operating mode by a signal from the sensor unit is the only requirement.
Claim 21: is directed to a product (a computer program product) and to a process (causing an exposure of the irradiation area), which renders the claim indefinite. MPEP 2173.05(p).II states:
A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite the apparatus configuration, rather than actual method steps (e.g. “the computer program designed to cause”).
Claim 21: The limitation “wherein the computer program product causes an exposure of an irradiation area to light radiation comprising wavelengths in a range of 280 nm to 315 nm as soon as a sensor unit detects an irradiation area excluded from irradiation in the effective range of the light source” is indefinite because, contrary to claim 15 and the specification (page 12, lines 5-9), claim 21 is claiming irradiation occurs as soon as an excluded area is detected. The claim is currently being interpreted as meaning to suggest irradiation does not occur when an excluded area is detected, but appropriate clarification and correction is required to address this inconsistency.
Dependent claims 3, 11, 16-19, and 22-23 are rejected for being dependent on rejected claims.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-10, and 12-22 are rejected under U.S.C 102(a)(1) and U.S.C 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dijkstra (US PG Pub 2019/0030359 A1, see “Notice of References Cited”).
Regarding Claim 1, Dijkstra discloses a device for providing light therapy ([0001]), comprising:
a) at least one first light source for emitting light radiation comprising wavelengths in a range of between 280 and 315 nm ([0019], [0067] - a light source to project light of 100-1600 nm wavelength, which comprises wavelengths in a range of 280-315 nm),
b) a sensor unit for detecting an irradiation area ([0016] – a camera unit scans the body and captures an image of the treatment area to collect data);
c) a directing unit ([0020] – light direction controller) for aligning the at least one light source with the irradiation area ([0027] – used to direct the irradiation source to follow movement of body treatment area), and
d) a control unit ([0015] – controlling unit), which is designed to identify the irradiation area ([0015] – controlling unit controls the camera unit) and to trigger an emission of light radiation comprising wavelengths in a range of between 280 and 315 nm by the at least one light source ([0015] – controlling unit controls the light projection unit with previously discussed light wavelengths in [0019]).
Dijkstra does not explicitly disclose a device having the effect “stimulating the biosynthesis of vitamin D3” as discussed in the preamble. However, it would be understood that the device in Dijkstra is inherently (MPEP 2114) capable of providing UV-based light therapy to the skin within the required wavelengths ([0028], [0033]) in order to produce a biological effect, which would be understood as including promotion of vitamin D3 production.
Therefore, Claim 1 is anticipated by Dijkstra.
Regarding Claim 2, Dijkstra anticipates the device according to Claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Dijkstra further discloses the sensor unit comprises an optical sensor, in particular a camera ([0016] – a camera unit scans the body and captures an image of the treatment port of the user body to collect data). Note the camera is not interpreted as required (see 112(b) rejection).
Therefore, Claim 2 is anticipated by Dijkstra.
Regarding Claim 3, Dijkstra anticipates the device according to any one of Claims 1 or 2, as indicated hereinabove. Dijkstra further discloses wherein the control unit is designed to control an alignment of the first light source by the directing unit based on an identified irradiation area ([0027] – light direction controller is used to direct irradiation to follow movement of the body treatment area).
Therefore, Claim 3 is anticipated by Dijkstra.
Regarding Claim 4, Dijkstra anticipates the device according to Claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Dijkstra further discloses comprising a collecting unit for generating a directed beam of rays from the emission of light radiation by the first light source ([0020] – “the light direction controller uses techniques like saccade mirror, direction tuning film, laser sintering, or mirror type galvanometer etc. for controlling a direction of the light emitted from the light source”).
Therefore, Claim 4 is anticipated by Dijkstra.
Regarding Claim 5, Dijkstra anticipates the device according to Claim 4, as indicated hereinabove. Dijkstra further discloses the collecting unit comprises a lens and/or a collimator ([0020] –saccade mirror and laser sintering would include the use of lenses), in particular comprising a collimator with a collecting lens for generating a directed bundle of rays from the emission of light radiation by the first light source (see 112(b) rejection, Dijkstra does not disclose a collimator but the underlined limitation is not interpreted as required).
Therefore, Claim 5 is anticipated by Dijkstra.
Regarding Claim 8, Dijkstra anticipates the device according to Claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Dijkstra further discloses wherein the control unit is designed to identify a human face in an irradiation area ([0074] – can identify a face as the treatment area).
Therefore, Claim 8 is anticipated by Dijkstra.
Regarding Claim 9, Dijkstra anticipates the device according to Claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Dijkstra further discloses wherein the control unit is designed to identify a predefined irradiation area ([0074] – identifies a treatment area as a body location by comparing to stored reference data).
Therefore, Claim 9 is anticipated by Dijkstra.
Regarding Claim 10, Dijkstra anticipates the device according to Claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Dijkstra further discloses comprising a communication unit for exchanging data ([0091] – communication means for displaying data on a remote device and allowing the user to change settings).
Therefore, Claim 10 is anticipated by Dijkstra.
Regarding Claim 12, Dijkstra anticipates the device according to Claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Dijkstra further discloses wherein the directing unit is designed to be pivotable in at least two axes ([0086] - the target is tracked and the light is applied in three dimensions), in particular at least one rotatably mounted stand base ([0064] – “Further, once the treatment portion starts moving out of reach of the light direction controller 112 the rotation head 250 that rotates on the spindle 230 with the help of a motor keeps the light projection intact on the treatment portion of the user body”) and a rotatably mounted tool arm for pivoting a light source on at least two axes ([0061] – light direction controller allows the light to be rotated in other directions besides the base rotation; [0086] - the target is tracked and the light is applied in three dimensions). Note the rotatably mounted stand base and rotatably mounted tool arm are not interpreted as required (see 112(b) rejection).
Therefore, Claim 12 is anticipated by Dijkstra.
Regarding Claim 13, Dijkstra anticipates the device according to Claim 3, as indicated hereinabove. Dijkstra further discloses wherein the irradiation area is a skin area with an area of 40 cm2 to 900 cm2, in particular 50 cm2 to 600 cm2, in particular of about 400 cm2 (see 112(b) rejection, underlined not interpreted as required). Dijkstra does not explicitly state a particular surface area to be treated, but states a full body or combination of different body parts can be treated using the device ([0074]). Assuming for the sake of argument a 1.94 m2 (19400 cm2) total body surface area (median adult male in study, Verbraecken et al, “Body surface area in normal-weight, overweight, and obese adults. A comparison study”, see “Notice of References Cited”), a treatment area of a forward facing body part such as the arm would be estimated at roughly 9% of the total body surface area using the well-known Rule of Nines. This would place the forward facing portion of the arm at roughly 0-1746 cm2 depending on how much of the arm was treated. Given this range overlaps with the presented 40-900 cm2, it would be reasonable to conclude Dijkstra’s device would be capable of producing a treatment area of 40-900 cm2.
Therefore, Claim 13 is anticipated by Dijkstra.
Regarding Claim 14, Dijkstra anticipates the device according to Claim 13, as indicated hereinabove. Dijkstra further discloses wherein the skin area of the irradiation area is definable by an adjustable collecting unit ([0072] – a variety of body parts with different areas can be scanned, [0074], [0077] – a variety of body parts with different areas can be irradiated based on treatment needs).
Therefore, Claim 14 is anticipated by Dijkstra.
Regarding Claim 15, Dijkstra discloses a computer program product for carrying out a control of a device for providing light therapy, in particular a device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1, also see 112(b) rejection, device according to claim 1 not interpreted as required), wherein:
a) the computer program product is designed to compare an irradiation area detected by a sensor unit with predefined irradiation areas ([0073], [0086] – the body is tracked via the camera to locate a predefined treatment location via detectable characteristics of that location), and
b) the computer program product is designed to trigger an emission of light radiation ([0077]) comprising wavelengths in a range of 280 nm to 315 nm by at least one first light source ([0019], [0067] - a light source to project light of 100-1600 nm wavelength, which comprises wavelengths in a range of 280-315nm), if the detected irradiation area does not correspond to an irradiation area excluded from irradiation ([0108] – calculating the light exposure in excluded areas to avoid stimulating those areas: “Further, the light therapy device adjusts focus of the light projection in case the light rays scattering out of the treatment portion (towards sensitive areas e.g. eyes) and making user uncomfortable, the light therapy device by analyzing the refractive index of the sensitive areas adjusts the focus of the light and attenuates the light rays to go beyond the treatment portion”; the example of the eyes would be considered a feature on the human face).
Dijkstra does not explicitly disclose a device having the effect “stimulating the biosynthesis of vitamin D3” as discussed in the preamble. However, it would be understood that the device in Dijkstra is inherently (MPEP 2114) capable of providing UV-based light therapy to the skin within the required wavelengths ([0028], [0033]) in order to produce a biological effect, which would be understood as including promotion of vitamin D3 production.
Therefore, Claim 15 is anticipated by Dijkstra.
Regarding Claim 16, Dijkstra anticipates the computer program product for carrying out a control of a device according to Claim 15, as indicated hereinabove. Dijkstra further discloses wherein an irradiation area excluded from irradiation is an irradiation area ([0067], [0089]– eyes are given as an example of an excluded area) selected from the group consisting of: a human face, a skin area provided with one or more pigment nevi, a skin area provided with scab, wound and/or scar tissue, and a skin area already irradiated within a predefined time interval with light radiation comprising wavelengths in a range of 280 nm to 315 nm ([0108] – calculating the light exposure in excluded areas to avoid stimulating those areas: “Further, the light therapy device adjusts focus of the light projection in case the light rays scattering out of the treatment portion (towards sensitive areas e.g. eyes) and making user uncomfortable, the light therapy device by analyzing the refractive index of the sensitive areas adjusts the focus of the light and attenuates the light rays to go beyond the treatment portion”; the example of the eyes would be considered a feature on the human face).
Therefore, Claim 16 is anticipated by Dijkstra.
Regarding Claim 17, Dijkstra anticipates the computer program product for carrying out a control of a device according to Claim 15, as indicated hereinabove. Dijkstra further discloses wherein the computer program product is designed to assign a time interval to a specific irradiation area in which the irradiation area is to be irradiated with light radiation ([0026] – user defined duration; [0071] – a time interval for a specific treatment can automatically be applied based on previously collected and stored data) comprising wavelengths in a range of 280 nm to 315 nm ([0019], [0067] - a light source to project light of 100-1600 nm wavelength, which comprises wavelengths in a range of 280-315 nm).
Therefore, Claim 17 is anticipated by Dijkstra.
Regarding Claim 18, Dijkstra anticipates the computer program product for carrying out a control of a device according to Claim 15, as indicated hereinabove. Dijkstra further discloses wherein the computer program product is designed to control a search of a predefined irradiation area by the computer program product controlling the sensor unit ([0086] – the body is tracked via the camera to locate a predefined treatment location via detectable characteristics of that location).
Therefore, Claim 18 is anticipated by Dijkstra.
Regarding Claim 19, Dijkstra anticipates the computer program product for carrying out a control of a device according to Claim 15, as indicated hereinabove. Dijkstra further discloses wherein the computer program product is designed to compare each image detected by an optical sensor with an irradiation area excluded from irradiation ([0108] – calculating the light exposure in excluded areas to avoid stimulating those areas: “Further, the light therapy device adjusts focus of the light projection in case the light rays scattering out of the treatment portion (towards sensitive areas e.g. eyes) and making user uncomfortable, the light therapy device by analyzing the refractive index of the sensitive areas adjusts the focus of the light and attenuates the light rays to go beyond the treatment portion”; the example of the eyes would be considered a feature on the human face).
Therefore, Claim 19 is anticipated by Dijkstra.
Regarding Claim 20, Dijkstra anticipates the computer program product for carrying out a control of a device according to Claim 15, as indicated hereinabove. Dijkstra further discloses wherein the computer program product is designed to enter an operating mode by a signal from the sensor unit ([0086] – the body is tracked via the camera to locate a predefined treatment location via detectable characteristics of that location), in particular to search for a suitable irradiation area that is not excluded from irradiation (see 112(b) rejection, underlined not interpreted as required, but could be interpreted in Dijkstra as searching for a predefined treatment location in [0086] while avoiding sensitive areas of the body ([0108]).
Therefore, Claim 20 is anticipated by Dijkstra.
Regarding Claim 21, Dijkstra anticipates the computer program product for carrying out a control of a device according to Claim 15, as indicated hereinabove. Dijkstra further discloses wherein the computer program product causes an exposure of an irradiation area to light radiation comprising wavelengths in a range of 280 nm to 315 nm ([0019], [0067] - a light source to project light of 100-1600 nm wavelength, which comprises wavelengths in a range of 280-315 nm), as soon as a sensor unit detects an irradiation area excluded from irradiation in the effective range of the light source [0108] – calculating the light exposure in excluded areas to avoid stimulating those areas when irradiating the treatment location: “Further, the light therapy device adjusts focus of the light projection in case the light rays scattering out of the treatment portion (towards sensitive areas e.g. eyes) and making user uncomfortable, the light therapy device by analyzing the refractive index of the sensitive areas adjusts the focus of the light and attenuates the light rays to go beyond the treatment portion”; the example of the eyes would be considered a feature on the human face). In light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 issues identified in this claim, this claim is interpreted as irradiation only occurring if an excluded zone is not identified in the irradiation area.
Therefore, Claim 21 is anticipated by Dijkstra.
Regarding Claim 22, Dijkstra anticipates the computer program product for carrying out a control of a device according to Claim 15, as indicated hereinabove. Dijkstra further discloses further designed to monitor or configure the execution of a control of a device ([0093] – user can control the light therapy device) for stimulating as part of light therapy on a third-party apparatus via a communication unit ([0093] – a mobile device is communicatively coupled to the light therapy device).
Dijkstra does not explicitly disclose a device having the effect “stimulating the biosynthesis of vitamin D3” as discussed in the preamble. However, it would be understood that the device in Dijkstra is inherently (MPEP 2114) capable of providing UV-based light therapy to the skin within the required wavelengths ([0028], [0033]) in order to produce a biological effect, which would be understood as including promotion of vitamin D3 production.
Therefore, Claim 22 is anticipated by Dijkstra.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 6-7 and 11 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Dijkstra (US PG Pub 2019/0030359 A1, see “Notice of References Cited”) in view of Powell (US PG Pub 2008/0103563 A1, see “Notice of References Cited”).
Regarding Claim 6, Dijkstra anticipates the device according to Claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Dijkstra discloses a light source capable of generating light ranging from 100-1600 nm wavelengths, which would include visible light ([0019]). However, Dijkstra does not disclose a second light source for emitting light radiation comprising wavelengths in the visible range, in particular comprising wavelengths in a range of 380 nm to 720 nm. Note “in particular comprising wavelengths in a range of 380 nm to 720 nm” is not interpreted as required (see 112(b) rejection section).
Powell, in the same field of endeavor of providing phototherapy ([0019]), teaches an LED array which has multiple light sources with different wavelengths ([0042] – visible light emitted from a light source: “For example, control panel 130 may select which wavelengths are used in a particular treatment, i.e., blue, red, yellow, green, ultraviolet, infrared, and combinations thereof as discussed herein. Furthermore, in some embodiments, the control panel 130 may be programmed to emit a combination of wavelengths simultaneously to treat different skin conditions at the same time”). Specific wavelengths for these light sources are discussed in [0035]-[0036] which would reside within the 380 nm to 720 nm visible light range. Note Dijkstra [0008] cites Powell as prior art where the feature of simultaneous use of light sources of different wavelengths is emphasized.
33. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Dijkstra’s light source by incorporating the LED array with multiple light sources able to simultaneously emit light in Powell. This would have been obvious because both Dijkstra and Powell discuss providing light therapy to the skin and Powell provides a solution/improvement by allowing multiple light sources of different wavelengths to simultaneously irradiate in order to treat different conditions at the same time. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the apparatus of Dijkstra by incorporating the LED array with multiple light sources able to simultaneously emit light in Powell.
Therefore, Claim 6 is obvious over Dijkstra in view of Powell.
Regarding Claim 7, the device according to Claim 6 is obvious over Dijkstra in view of Powell, as indicated hereinabove. Dijkstra discloses a light source capable of generating light ranging from 100-1600 nm wavelengths, which would include red/infrared light ([0019]). However, Dijkstra does not disclose a third light source for emitting light radiation comprising wavelengths in the near infrared range, in particular in a range of 720 nm to 1800 nm. Note “in particular comprising wavelengths in a range of 720 nm to 1800 nm” is not interpreted as required (see 112(b) rejection section).
Powell, in the same field of endeavor of providing phototherapy ([0019]), teaches an LED array which has multiple light sources with different wavelengths ([0042] – infrared light emitted from a light source: “For example, control panel 130 may select which wavelengths are used in a particular treatment, i.e., blue, red, yellow, green, ultraviolet, infrared, and combinations thereof as discussed herein. Furthermore, in some embodiments, the control panel 130 may be programmed to emit a combination of wavelengths simultaneously to treat different skin conditions at the same time”). Specific wavelengths for these light sources are discussed in [0035]-[0036] which would reside within the 720 nm to 1800 nm range. Note Dijkstra [0008] cites Powell as prior art where the feature of simultaneous use of light sources of different wavelengths is emphasized.
33. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Dijkstra’s light source by incorporating the LED array with multiple light sources able to simultaneously emit light in Powell. This would have been obvious because both Dijkstra and Powell discuss providing light therapy to the skin and Powell provides a solution/improvement by allowing multiple light sources of different wavelengths to simultaneously irradiate in order to treat different conditions at the same time. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the apparatus of Dijkstra by incorporating the LED array with multiple light sources able to simultaneously emit light in Powell.
Therefore, Claim 7 is obvious over Dijkstra in view of Powell.
Regarding Claim 11, the device according to Claim 7 is obvious over Dijkstra in view of Powell, as indicated hereinabove. Dijkstra further discloses wherein the first light source and/or the second light source and/or the third light source and the sensor unit are physically coupled so that they can be jointly directed at the irradiation area by the directing unit (Fig. 2, [0059] – the light projection unit 110 and camera unit 120 are both placed and connected within rotatable head 250; Fig. 4A., [0079] – the treatment area is both scanned by the camera and irradiated by the light source). Note only one light source is interpreted as required due to the “and/or” statements between light sources.
Therefore, Claim 11 is obvious over Dijkstra in view of Powell.
Claims 23 is rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Dijkstra (US PG Pub 2019/0030359 A1, see “Notice of References Cited”) in view of Zhang (US PG Pub 2019/0083809 A1, see “Notice of References Cited”).
Regarding Claim 23, Dijkstra discloses a computer program product which can be executed on a third-party apparatus ([0093] – a mobile device is communicatively coupled to the light therapy device) and is designed to manage user data for a device ([0093] – user interface to control device) according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Dijkstra does not disclose:
wherein the user data comprises data selected from the group consisting of: skin type, age, occupation and lifestyle, and
wherein the computer program product is designed to exchange said user data in encrypted form with a communication unit of the device.
Note the data only needs to be selected from the provided group and it is interpreted as only needing one of the group to constitute a selection.
Zhang, in the same field of endeavor of providing phototherapy ([0002]), teaches a patient-specific parameter can be entered prior to the administration of light therapy ([0234] – age, skin tone and color, and physical activity condition explicitly provided). Additionally, communication of data is encrypted ([0216] – “to ensure that communications transferred to and from the componentry, the provider, etc. are secure and substantially free from a risk of ‘hacking,’ data related to the patient and her treatment etc. can be encrypted using use secure communications (encryption, etc.)”).
33. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Dijkstra’s light source by incorporating the inclusion of demographic data entered to affect the selection of light therapy and encryption of that data in Zhang. This would have been obvious because both Dijkstra and Zhang discuss providing light therapy to the skin and Zhang provides a solution/improvement by allowing more personalized light therapy based on patient characteristics and to secure sensitive patient data via encryption. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the apparatus of Dijkstra by incorporating the inclusion of demographic data entered to affect the selection of light therapy and encryption of that data in Zhang.
Therefore, Claim 23 is obvious over Dijkstra in view of Zhang.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is 703-756-1345. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 am to 5:00 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 McDonald can be reached on 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.
/Benjamin A. Schmitt/
Examiner
Art Unit 3796
/Jennifer Pitrak McDonald/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796