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 .
Status of Application, Amendments and Claims
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-13 and 15 are pending; claims 6, 8 and 14 are cancelled; and claims 1-4 and 9-11 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues individual control of the plurality of LEDs as taught Morita results in fluctuations in the light emission spectrum on the irradiated surface. The examiner notes Morita says each LED may have individual differences not that the LEDs do have individual differences. Providing additional control of the LED array does not mean this control will always be used. Regardless, it is clear from Morita that the desired light emission to the skin is a uniform emission of peak wavelength in the range 308 nm to 313 nm (see Figs. 2-3) [par. 0035].
The applicant argues Morita does not suggest a peak wavelength between 308 nm to 313 nm because paragraph [0042] indicates “a lower limit of the peak wavelength of the LED light is set to 312 nm, preferably to 313 nm.” The examiner disagrees. Clearly 312 nm and 313 nm are wavelengths between 308 nm to 313 nm. Furthermore, the spectra shown in Figures 2-3 have peak wavelengths between 308 nm and 313 nm with a FWHM of 20 nm.
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 1-5, 7, 9-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. (US 2019/0168017), cited by applicant.
[Claims 1, 9] Morita discloses an ultraviolet therapy apparatus (phototherapy device, #10) comprising a light source unit (#12) that emits ultraviolet light (light the UV-B region), the light source unit is composed of a plurality of LEDs (plurality of LEDs #12a) [pars. 0032-0034], and the plurality of LEDS are configured such that light emitted from the plurality of LEDs meets predetermined criteria on an irradiated surface, wherein the predetermined criteria comprises:
a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum that is between 308 nm and 313 nm (as shown in spectra presented in Figures 2-3 the normalized and relative intensities from 250 nm to 298 nm are nearly zero and wavelengths from 308 nm to 313 nm are nearly 1),
in a case in which an integral intensity of an emission spectrum in a wavelength range of 250 nm to 400 nm is 1 ] (the peak wavelength is 312 nm or 313 nm which defines an integral intensity of 1) [par. 0042],
have a ratio of an integral intensity in wavelengths of 250 nm to 298 nm to an integral intensity in the wavelength range is nearly zero (as shown in spectra presented in Figures 2-3 the normalized and relative intensities from 250 nm to 298 nm are nearly zero); and
emit an emission spectrum such that a ratio of an integral intensity of wavelengths of 308 nm to 313 nm to an integral intensity of wavelengths of 250 nm to 298 nm is greater than or equal to 5.2 (as shown in spectra presented in Figures 2-3 the normalized and relative intensities from 250 nm to 298 nm are nearly zero and wavelengths from 308 nm to 313 nm are nearly 1 which appears to be more than 5.2 times greater).
PNG
media_image1.png
486
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Morita does not explicitly disclose a ratio of an integral intensity in wavelengths of 250 nm to 298 nm to an integral intensity in the wavelength range is less than or equal to 0.088 and an emission spectrum such that a ratio of an integral intensity of wavelengths of 308 nm to 313 nm to an integral intensity of wavelengths of 250 nm to 298 nm is greater than or equal to 5.2. However, Morita expresses the need to minimize the damaging of effects of light with a wavelength equal to or less than 297 nm [par. 0040]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to minimize the wavelengths between 250 nm to 298 nm relative to the therapeutic wavelengths between 308 nm to 313 nm such that the intensity of the wavelength range between 250 nm to 298 nm in less than 0.088 (i.e. nearly zero) and the intensity of the ratio between the wavelength range between 308 nm to 313 nm to the wavelength range between 250 nm to 298 nm is greater than or equal to 5.2 in order to provide purely therapeutic wavelengths and prevent damage from undesired wavelengths.
[Claims 2, 10] Morita discloses an ultraviolet therapy apparatus (phototherapy device, #10) comprising a light source unit (#12) that emits ultraviolet light (light the UV-B region), the light source unit composed of a plurality of LEDs (plurality of LEDs #12a) [pars. 0032-0034], and the plurality of LEDS are configured such that light emitted from the plurality of LEDs meets predetermined criteria on an irradiated surface, wherein the predetermined criteria comprises:
a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum that is between 308 nm and 313 nm (as shown in spectra presented in Figures 2-3 the normalized and relative intensities from 250 nm to 298 nm are nearly zero and wavelengths from 308 nm to 313 nm are nearly 1),
in a case in which an integral intensity of an emission spectrum in a wavelength range of 250 nm to 400 nm is 1 ] (the peak wavelength is 312 nm or 313 nm which defines an integral intensity of 1) [par. 0042],
have an intensity at a wavelength of 298 nm is less than or equal to 0.0078 (as shown in spectra presented in Figures 2-3 the normalized and relative intensities of 298 nm are nearly zero);
have an intensity at a wavelength of 295 nm is less than or equal to 0.0055 (as shown in spectra presented in Figures 2-3 the normalized and relative intensities of 295 nm are nearly zero);
have an intensity at a wavelength of 290 nm is less than or equal to 0.0033 (as shown in spectra presented in Figures 2-3 the normalized and relative intensities of 290 nm are nearly zero);
have an intensity at a wavelength of 280 nm is less than or equal to 0.0015 (as shown in spectra presented in Figures 2-3 the normalized and relative intensities of 280 nm are nearly zero); and
emit an emission spectrum such that a ratio of an integral intensity of wavelengths of 308 nm to 313 nm to an integral intensity of wavelengths of 250 nm to 298 nm is greater than or equal to 5.2 (as shown in spectra presented in Figures 2-3 the normalized and relative intensities from 250 nm to 298 nm are nearly zero and wavelengths from 308 nm to 313 nm are nearly 1 which appears to be more than 5.2 times greater).
Morita does not explicitly disclose the ratios of integral intensities for the wavelengths of 298 nm, 295 nm, 290 nm, and 280 nm are less than equal to 0.0078, 0.0055, 0.0033 and 0.0015 respectively, and an emission spectrum such that a ratio of an integral intensity of wavelengths of 308 nm to 313 nm to an integral intensity of wavelengths of 250 nm to 298 nm is greater than or equal to 5.2. However, Morita expresses the need to minimize the damaging of effects of light with a wavelength equal to or less than 297 nm [par. 0040]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to minimize the wavelengths between 250 nm to 298 nm relative to the therapeutic wavelengths between 308 nm to 313 nm such that the ratio of intensity of the wavelength range between 250 nm to 298 nm in less than 0.0078, 0.0055, 0.0033 and 0.0015 (i.e. nearly zero), and the intensity of the ratio between the wavelength range between 308 nm to 313 nm to the wavelength range between 250 nm to 298 nm is greater than or equal to 5.2 in order to provide purely therapeutic wavelengths and prevent damage from undesired wavelengths.
[Claims 3, 11] Morita discloses an ultraviolet therapy apparatus (phototherapy device, #10) comprising a light source unit (#12) that emits ultraviolet light (light the UV-B region), the light source unit is composed of a plurality of LEDs (plurality of LEDs #12a) [pars. 0032-0034], and the plurality of LEDS are configured such that light emitted from the plurality of LEDs meets predetermined criteria on an irradiated surface, wherein the predetermined criteria comprises:
a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum that is between 308 nm and 313 nm (as shown in spectra presented in Figures 2-3 the normalized and relative intensities from 250 nm to 298 nm are nearly zero and wavelengths from 308 nm to 313 nm are nearly 1),
in an erythema ultraviolet spectrum ECIE in a wavelength range of 250 nm to 400 nm (the peak wavelength is 312 nm or 313 nm which defines an integral intensity of 1) [par. 0042], emit an emission spectrum such that a ratio of an integral intensity of wavelengths of 250 nm to 298 nm to an integral intensity of the wavelength range is less than or equal to 0.44 (as shown in spectra presented in Figures 2-3 the normalized and relative intensities from 250 nm to 298 nm are nearly zero)
wherein the erythema ultraviolet spectrum ECIE is represented as
PNG
media_image2.png
86
282
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where Eλ is a spectral irradiance of the ultraviolet light emitted from the LED, and Ser is an erythema action spectrum and represented as
PNG
media_image3.png
98
480
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Morita does not explicitly disclose a ratio of an integral intensity in wavelengths of 250 nm to 298 nm to an integral intensity in the wavelength range is less than or equal to 0.44. However, Morita expresses the need to minimize the damaging of effects of light with a wavelength equal to or less than 297 nm [par. 0040]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to minimize the wavelengths between 250 nm to 298 nm relative to the therapeutic wavelengths between 308 nm to 313 nm such that the intensity of the wavelength range between 250 nm to 298 nm in less than 0.44 (i.e. nearly zero). While Morita also does not explicitly disclose the erythema ultraviolet spectrum ECIE and the erythema action spectrum Ser, these values appear to be characteristics of the treated skin in which the relative effectiveness is a relative value on the assumption that the influence of light with a wavelength of 250 nm to 298 nm on the human skin is 1, see applicant’s specification [0016]. Because Morita discloses a nearly identical wavelength spectrum, the light emitted by Morita’s device would result in the erythema ultraviolet spectrum ECIE and the erythema action spectrum Ser as claimed.
[Claims 4, 12] Morita discloses an ultraviolet therapy apparatus (phototherapy device, #10) comprising a light source unit (#12) that emits ultraviolet light (light the UV-B region), the light source unit is composed of a plurality of LEDs (plurality of LEDs #12a) [pars. 0032-0034], and the plurality of LEDS are configured such that light emitted from the plurality of LEDs meets predetermined criteria on an irradiated surface, wherein the predetermined criteria comprises:
a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum that is between 308 nm and 313 nm (as shown in spectra presented in Figures 2-3 the normalized and relative intensities from 250 nm to 298 nm are nearly zero and wavelengths from 308 nm to 313 nm are nearly 1),
in an erythema ultraviolet spectrum ECIE in a wavelength range of 250 nm to 400 nm (the peak wavelength is 312 nm or 313 nm which defines an integral intensity of 1) [par. 0042], emit an emission spectrum such that a ratio of an integral intensity of wavelengths of 250 nm to 298 nm to an integral intensity of the wavelength range is less than or equal to 0.44 (as shown in spectra presented in Figures 2-3 the normalized and relative intensities from 250 nm to 298 nm are nearly zero)
wherein the erythema ultraviolet spectrum ECIE is represented as
PNG
media_image4.png
44
170
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where Eλ is a spectral irradiance of the ultraviolet light emitted from the LED, and Ser is an erythema action spectrum and represented as
PNG
media_image3.png
98
480
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Morita does not explicitly disclose a ratio of an integral intensity in wavelengths of 250 nm to 298 nm to an integral intensity in the wavelength range is less than or equal to 0.44. However, Morita expresses the need to minimize the damaging of effects of light with a wavelength equal to or less than 297 nm [par. 0040]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to minimize the wavelengths between 250 nm to 298 nm relative to the therapeutic wavelengths between 308 nm to 313 nm such that the intensity of the wavelength range between 250 nm to 298 nm in less than 0.44 (i.e. nearly zero). While Morita also does not explicitly disclose the erythema ultraviolet spectrum ECIE and the erythema action spectrum Ser, these values appear to be characteristics of the treated skin in which the relative effectiveness is a relative value on the assumption that the influence of light with a wavelength of 250 nm to 298 nm on the human skin is 1, see applicant’s specification [0016]. Because Morita discloses a nearly identical wavelength spectrum, the light emitted by Morita’s device would result in the erythema ultraviolet spectrum ECIE and the erythema action spectrum Ser as claimed.
[Claims 5, 13] Morita discloses the apparatus is configured to emit an emission spectrum such that a ratio of an integral value of wavelengths of 308 nm to 313 nm to an integral value of wavelengths of 250 nm and 298 nm is greater than or equal 0.47 in the erythema ultraviolet spectrum ECIE. Morita does not explicitly disclose a ratio of an integral intensity in wavelengths of 308 nm to 313 nm to an integral intensity in the wavelength range of 250 nm and 298 nm is greater than or equal 0.47. However, Morita expresses the need to minimize the damaging of effects of light with a wavelength equal to or less than 297 nm [par. 0040]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to maximize the therapeutic wavelengths between 308 nm to 313 nm relative to the wavelengths between 250 nm to 298nm such that the ratio of intensity of the wavelength ranges is greater than or equal to 0.47 in order to provide more therapeutic wavelengths and prevent damage from undesired wavelengths.
[Claims 7, 15] Morita discloses a full width at half maximum of an emission spectrum of the LED is less than or equal to 20 nm [par. 0042].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN J JENNESS whose telephone number is (571)270-5055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Edward Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-2180. 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.
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 11 March 2026