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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on June 29, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-11 are pending under examination.
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 limitations are:
In re claim 6:
“first identification operation units”
In re claim 8:
“second identification operation unit”
In re claim 10 and In re claim 11:
“light detection unit”
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 § 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshinori (JP 2005-162880 A) in view of Maki (JP 2020081344 A).
In re claim 1, Yoshinori discloses a light irradiation device ([0002]: “ultraviolet irradiation device”) for irradiating a treatment target site of a subject to which a medicine containing a photosensitive substance has been administered with therapeutic light ([0002, 0075]: the ultraviolet uncurable resin is a photosensitive substance that can be used with the ultraviolet irradiation device), the light irradiation device comprising:
a light source including a plurality of light output ports (fig 1: 120; [0043]: “head unit connections”),
the light source being configured to
emit the therapeutic light [0006] and identification light ([0065]; the ultraviolet light source includes visible light) from each of the plurality of light output ports [0065],
a plurality of light guide members each having
an incident end (fig 1: the end of 130 that is near 160) to be connected to one of the plurality of light output ports of the light source (fig 1: 120, 130; abstract: “cable section 130 having an electric signal wire to electrically connect between the head part 120 and the controller section 110”) and
an emission end to emit light incident from the incident end (fig 1: the unit 120 that emits light at 150); and
a controller configured to control the light source (fig 1: 110; [0010]: “controller unit 110”),
wherein the controller is configured to perform control to cause the identification light to be emitted from each of the plurality of light output ports to light up the plurality of light guide members connected to the plurality of light output ports, respectively, in an identifiable manner ([0063]; [0065]: “head portion can be distinguished by blinking using the visible light”).
Yoshinori lacks
the identification light being lower in intensity than the therapeutic light
Maki teaches a light irradiation device for irradiating a region on a patient that emits both a therapeutic light and a guide light, the guide light being lower in intensity [0018].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the system of Yoshinori with making the identification light lower in intensity than the therapeutic light as taught by Maki, as having the emitted identification light be lower in intensity would prevent the identification light from being as invasive or from providing unwanted therapeutic effects to the target region.
In re claim 2, Yoshinori discloses wherein the light source is configured to emit the therapeutic light of a first wavelength [0006, 0075] and the identification light of a second wavelength from each of the plurality of light output ports [0072], the second wavelength being different from the first wavelength (Inherent: ultraviolet light and visible light are emitted at different wavelengths).
In re claim 3, Yoshinori discloses wherein the second wavelength of the identification light is a wavelength outside a first bandwidth of light-shielding glasses that block light in the first bandwidth including the first wavelength of the therapeutic light, and the second wavelength is a wavelength within a range of visible light ([0065]: last sentence).
In re claim 4, Yoshinori discloses wherein the light source includes a first light source for generating the therapeutic light [0006] and a second light source for generating the identification light [0046] and is configured to emit the therapeutic light and the identification light independently from the plurality of light output ports ([0063]: “desired head unit can be distinguished by turning on or blinking only the indicator LED of the corresponding head unit”; [0103]: “switch for individually turning on/off the ultraviolet output of the head unit connected to each channel”).
In re claim 5, Yoshinori discloses wherein the light source is configured to switch emission and emission stop of the identification light individually from each of the plurality of light output ports [0063].
In re claim 6, Yoshinori discloses further comprising:
a plurality of first identification operation units provided corresponding to the plurality of light output ports to receive an operation input for instructing emission of the identification light for each light output port ([0044]: “head unit 120 is provided with an identification unit 121 capable of displaying identification information for identifying each head unit 120 for each channel”),
wherein the controller controls the light source to emit the identification light from the light output port corresponding to the first identification operation unit that received the operation input out of the plurality of first identification operation units [0044, 0047].
In re claim 7, Yoshinori discloses wherein the light source is configured to simultaneously emit the identification light mutually different in pattern of lighting-on and lighting-off in unit time from each of the plurality of light output ports ([0055, 0056]).
In re claim 8, Yoshinori discloses further comprising:
a second identification operation unit, one piece of the second identification operation unit being provided for the plurality of light output ports [0051],
the second identification operation unit being configured to receive an operation input for instructing emission of the identification light from the plurality of light output ports [0051],
wherein the controller controls the light source to cause the identification light mutually different in the pattern to be emitted from each of the plurality of light output ports according to the operation input to the second identification operation unit [0051].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshinori (JP 2005-162880 A) in view of Maki (JP 2020081344 A) in view of Cockrell et al. (US 2021/029097).
In re claim 9, Yoshinori lacks wherein the light source includes a first light source for generating the therapeutic light of a first wavelength, and wherein the identification light is light of the first wavelength generated from the first light source, the identification light being light lower in intensity than the therapeutic light.
Maki teaches a light irradiation device that has a light irradiation unit that has a guide light and therapeutic light, with the guide light being lower in intensity than the therapeutic light [0018].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the system of Yoshinori with making the identification light lower in intensity than the therapeutic light as taught by Maki, as having the emitted identification light be lower in intensity would prevent the identification light from being as invasive or from providing unwanted therapeutic effects to the target region.
Cockrell teaches a phototherapy device for impinging light on tissue to induce biological effects [0004]. Different types of therapeutic light can be used, such as ultraviolet light with wavelengths of 320-399 nm [0304], visible light with wavelengths of 400-700 nm [0315], and infrared light with wavelengths higher than 700 nm [0439] to achieve different biological effects [0264].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the system of Yoshinori to use different types of therapeutic light depending on the type of treatment is needed as taught by Cockrell, as visible, infrared, or ultraviolet light can all be used as a therapeutic light to treat a patient depending on the desired biological effect.
Such modifications would yield wherein a light irradiation device with both the therapeutic light and identification light being the same type of light, such as visible light emitted at the same wavelengths, could lower the intensity of the identification light so that the user could look at it without needing to shield their eyes and so that it does not provide unwanted therapeutic effects on the tissue.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshinori (JP 2005-162880 A) in view of Maki (JP 2020081344 A) in view of Irwin (US 2002/0183811).
In re claim 10, Yoshinori lacks further comprising: a light detection unit configured to accept any one of emission ends of the plurality of light guide members to detect light output from the emission end, wherein the controller is configured to perform calibration processing to adjust emission intensity of the therapeutic light at each of the plurality of light output ports based on a detection result of the light detection unit.
Irwin teaches a device for treating skin disorders using ultraviolet light [0003] that has a wand (fig 6: 32) that can be inserted into a calibration port (42) on the housing unit (20). Light is emitted from the wand and the pulse intensity is determined and automatically adjusted to a desired intensity [0094].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the system of Yoshinori with detecting the intensity of the light being emitted and then adjusting the intensity to a desired amount to calibrate the light source as taught by Irwin, as this would ensure that the laser is emitting an appropriate intensity of light, as too little may not be therapeutically beneficial and too much may be therapeutically harmful to the patient.
In re claim 11, Yoshinori lacks wherein the controller is configured to determine whether the calibration processing has been successfully completed based on a comparison between a detection result of the light detection unit and a set value of the emission intensity of the therapeutic light, and perform control to cause the light source to emit the identification light when the calibration processing has been successfully completed.
Irwin teaches once the light emitted from the UV wand is calibrated to the desired intensity, the system goes back to standby mode and will display that the system has been calibrated in a LED or LCD display window (162; [0086, 0094]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the system of the proposed combination by causing the system to display that the light source has been successfully calibrated as taught by Irwin, as displaying the wand has been calibrated would tell the user that the system is ready to use for therapeutic treatment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Thompson et al. (US 2007/0060804) teaches a system for interactive therapy and diagnosis comprising a diagnostic radiation and therapeutic radiation source (abstract). Both light sources could be used at the same wavelength, with the diagnostic source being of lower output power [0042].
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEY N. PRUITT whose telephone number is (571)272-1955. The examiner can normally be reached M-T, 7:30 AM -5 PM. F, 7:30-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)270-5625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HALEY N PRUITT/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/DAVID HAMAOUI/SPE, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights