Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in combination with amendments, see Remarks and Claims, filed 05/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the following: see details below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 13-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200001105 to Teegardin in view of US 20220016435 A1 to Greg Pfiffner (hereinafter “Greg”, previously presented).
Regarding claims 1, 13 and 25. (Currently amended) Teegardin discloses a light therapy device/method (para 0024 “health chamber 100”) comprising: a case configured to mount a plurality of light emitting diode (LED) assemblies (fig. 2, para 0024),wherein each LED assembly comprises two LED chips having different emission spectra mounted on a printed circuit board (para 0026 “emitter modules 140”, para 0028 “The emitter module 140 has an array of light emitting diodes (LEDs) 142. There may be any number of LEDs 142.”; The claim does not provide any details regarding the “LED assembly”, therefore, any assembly/module of LED performing and having the same components would read over the claimed limitation; para 0059, 0060), wherein the plurality of LED assemblies are arranged in an array of rows and columns (fig. 2), wherein each LED assembly in each row includes a first LED chip and a second LED chip (para 0028 any first and second “LED 142 a-d”), the first LED chip configured to emit a near-infrared peak emission spectrum (para 0029 “second LED 142 b has a wavelength of 810 nm”) that is common across the first LED chip of each LED assembly in the row (fig. 2), the second LED chip configured to emit one of two spectra, the two spectra being different red or visible peak emission spectra (para 0029 “the first LED 142 a has a wavelength of 633 nm”; the limitation only requires emitting one of the two reds), alternating between adjacent columns of the row (fig. 2) wherein different rows of the array include alternating distinct near-infrared peak emission spectra in a repeating pattern such that two different rows of the array include LED chips configured to emit at least four distinct peak emission spectra (para 0029 “Any of the LEDs 142 may be activated at any time. The emitter module 140 is structured so that the activation and operation of each LED 142 is independent of the other LEDs 142”).
Teegardin discloses each emitter module to have more than four LEDs 142. Each LED 142 preferably emits a different wavelength of radiation (para 0028) but fails to explicitly disclose the emitting two spectra, wherein the two spectra are different red or visible peak emission spectra.
Greg, from a similar field of endeavor teaches to provide multi-die chip LED configured to emit red light at a wavelength between 655-660 nm (para 0020, 0186, 0188 “LED 32 may be configured to emit light at any of the following colors …”) which allows a user to select a custom wavelength for light emission from the at least one LED. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Teegardin with the teachings of Greg to provide the predictable result of allowing the user to select a custom wavelength for light emission from the at least one LED.
Regarding claim 2. (Previously presented) Teegardin as modified by Greg renders obvious the light therapy device of claim 1, wherein each row of the array is arranged with an LED assembly having a combination of two different emission spectra LED chips alternating with an adjoining LED assembly with two LED chips having a different emission spectra combination (Teegardin, para 0029 “Any of the LEDs 142 may be activated at any time. The emitter module 140 is structured so that the activation and operation of each LED 142 is independent of the other LEDs 142”; Greg para 0224 “at least one LED 108 is arranged and configured to alternately emit light and refrain from emitting light”).
Regarding claim 3. (Currently amended) Teegardin as modified by Greg renders obvious the light therapy device of claim 1 having an exactly equal number of LED chips with corresponding emission spectra in the light therapy device (Teegardin, fig 4-5, Greg fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4. (Previously presented) Teegardin as modified by Greg renders obvious the light therapy device of claim 1, wherein fifty percent (50%) of the plurality of LED assemblies comprise an LED chip having a peak intensity wavelength of about 810 nm combination (Teegardin, para 0029 “the second LED 142 b has a wavelength of 810 nm. [] Any of the LEDs 142 may be activated at any time. The emitter module 140 is structured so that the activation and operation of each LED 142 is independent of the other LEDs 142”).
Regarding claim 5. (Previously presented) Teegardin as modified by Greg renders obvious the light therapy device of claim 1, wherein fifty percent (50%) of the plurality of LED assemblies comprise an LED chip having a peak intensity wavelength of about 850 nm (Teegardin, para 0029 “the third LED 142 c has a wavelength of 850 nm. [] Any of the LEDs 142 may be activated at any time. The emitter module 140 is structured so that the activation and operation of each LED 142 is independent of the other LEDs 142”).
Regarding claim 6. (Previously presented) Teegardin as modified by Greg renders obvious the light therapy device of claim 1, wherein fifty percent (50%) of the plurality of LED assemblies comprise an LED chip having a peak intensity wavelength of about 940 nm (Teegardin, para 0029 “the fourth LED has a wavelength of 940 nm. [] Any of the LEDs 142 may be activated at any time. The emitter module 140 is structured so that the activation and operation of each LED 142 is independent of the other LEDs 142”).
Regarding claim 7. (Previously presented) Teegardin as modified by Greg renders obvious the light therapy device of claim 1, further comprising a computing module having at least one software algorithm residing on a memory, wherein the at least one software algorithm causes the light therapy device to execute at least one operating mode (Teegardin, para 0023; Greg para 0038, 0206).
Regarding claim 8. (Previously presented) Teegardin as modified by Greg renders obvious the light therapy device of claim 7 configured to execute the at least one operating mode in response to instructions received from a wireless remote handheld device having a user interface (Teegardin para 0027 “client device 500”; Greg para 0034, 0206 “device 10 may be communicatively coupled to the remote computing device via any other suitable wireless connection”; Song, disclosure states operating the red light emitting chip and blue light emitting chip at different temperatures selectively).
Regarding claim 14. (Currently amended) Teegardin as modified by Greg renders obvious the method of claim 13, wherein the plurality of LED assemblies
Regarding claim 15. (Currently amended) Teegardin as modified by Greg renders obvious the method of claim 13, wherein the plurality of LED assemblies
Regarding claim 16. (Currently amended) Teegardin as modified by Greg renders obvious the method of claim 13, wherein the plurality of LED assemblies
Regarding claim 18. (Currently amended) Teegardin as modified by Greg renders obvious the method of claim 13, wherein the plurality of LED assemblies
Regarding claim 19. (Currently amended) Teegardin as modified by Greg renders obvious the method of claim 13, wherein the plurality of LED assemblies
Regarding claim 20. (Currently amended) Teegardin as modified by Greg renders obvious the method of claim 13, wherein the plurality of LED assemblies
Regarding claim 21. (Currently amended) Teegardin as modified by Greg renders obvious the method of claim 13, wherein the plurality of LED assemblies
Regarding claim 22. (Currently amended) Teegardin as modified by Greg renders obvious the method of claim 13, wherein the plurality of LED assemblies
Regarding claim 23. (Currently amended) Teegardin as modified by Greg renders obvious the method of claim 13, wherein the plurality of LED assemblies
Regarding claim 24. (Currently amended) Teegardin as modified by Greg renders obvious the method of claim 13, wherein the plurality of LED assemblies
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANA SAHAND whose telephone number is (571)272-6842. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 am -5:30 pm; F 9 am-3 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer S McDonald can be reached at (571) 270- 3061. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SANA SAHAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights