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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 is a duplicate of claim 14. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3, 5, 7-8, 13-14, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220016435 A1 to Greg Pfiffner (hereinafter “Greg”) in view of KR20060084084A to Song Soon-myeong (hereinafter “Song”).
Regarding claim 1. (Presently amended) Greg discloses a light therapy device (e.g., Abstract, para 0019, 0211, “light therapy device” etc.) comprising: a case having an interior defined by at least one side and configured to mount a plurality of light emitting diode (LED) assemblies within the interior (para 0131, 0211 “housing”, fig. 12) wherein each LED assembly comprises LED chips having different emission spectra (para 0186, 0211-0212 “multi-die chip LED”, “four LED die 32 a, 32 b, 32 c, and 32 d. In some embodiments, two of the four LED die, for example LED die 32 a and 32 c, comprise LEDs configured to emit red light at a wavelength of about 660 nm. The other two LED die, 32 b and 32 d, may comprise LEDs configured to emit infrared light at a wavelength of about 850 nm.”), mounted on a printed circuit board (para 0021), and a reflector (para 0020) wherein the plurality of LED assemblies are arranged in a repeating pattern of rows and columns forming an array (para 0189, figs 2-3), and wherein the array comprises repeating pairs of two (2) LED assemblies (fig. 3), each pair of LED assemblies emitting exactly four (4) different LED chip emission spectra (para 0131, 0188, 0212, etc., it is noted that the claim as stated does not require any details regarding how the LEDs emit exactly four different nor does it require any details regarding what the four different emission to be and how they differ from one another …. Under its BRI, any LED assemblies capable of emitting various different spectra would read over the claimed limitation. Here, Greg discloses the LEDs, having multi-die chip that are capable of emitting various lights/spectrum as desired via the controller.)
Greg fails to disclose the LED assembly having exactly two LED chips.
Song, from a similar field of endeavor shows that it is known to have an LED having exactly two chips to provide emitting red and blue light (description, para 0010, fig 3). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Greg with the known teachings of Song, because doing so would provide the predictable result of generating two different lights using a single LED.
Regarding claim 2. (Presently amended) Greg as modified by Song 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 (para 0224 “at least one LED 108 is arranged and configured to alternately emit light and refrain from emitting light”).
Regarding claim 3. (Presently amended) Greg as modified by Song renders obvious the light therapy device of claim 1 having an exactly equal number of each LED chips with the same emission spectra in the light therapy device (e.g., para 0187 “forty-eight LED die”; showing having even number of LEDs []).
Regarding claim 5. (Presently amended) Greg as modified by Song 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 (para 0212 “other two LED die may comprise LEDs configured to emit infrared light at a wavelength of about 850 nm … at a wavelength between about 840 nm and 870 nm”). It is understood routine experimentation would allow for discovery of the optimum or workable ranges. [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7. (Presently amended) Greg as modified by Song 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 (para 0038, 0206).
Regarding claim 8. (Presently amended) Greg as modified by Song 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 (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 13. (New) Greg as modified by Song renders obvious a method of operating the light therapy device of claim 1 comprising a step powering "on" only one LED chip of each of the LED assemblies emitting the exactly two (2) different emission spectra while the remaining LED chip of the same LED assembly is not powered on (para 0185-0187, 0217-0219).
Regarding claim 14. (New) Greg as modified by Song renders obvious the method of claim 13, wherein the light therapy device comprises a number of LED assemblies having an LED chip with a peak emission spectra of about 660 nm and an LED chip with a peak emission spectra of about 850 nm together in the same LED assembly (para 0186 “LED die 32 a and 32 c, comprise LEDs configured to emit red light at a wavelength of about 660 nm. The other two LED die, 32 b and 32 d, may comprise LEDs configured to emit infrared light at a wavelength of about 850 nm”).
Regarding claim 17. (New) Greg as modified by Song renders obvious the method of claim 13, wherein the light therapy device comprises a number of LED assemblies having an LED chip with a peak emission spectra of about 660 nm and an LED chip with a peak emission spectra of about 850 nm together in the same LED assembly (para 0186 “LED die 32 a and 32 c, comprise LEDs configured to emit red light at a wavelength of about 660 nm. The other two LED die, 32 b and 32 d, may comprise LEDs configured to emit infrared light at a wavelength of about 850 nm”).
Claim(s) 4, 6, 15-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greg as modified by Song as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 13-14, 17 above, and further in view of US 20170216619 A1 to Beerwerth et al. (hereinafter, “Beerwerth”)
Regarding claim 4. (Presently amended) Greg as modified by Song 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 (para 0212 “other two LED die may comprise LEDs configured to emit infrared light at a wavelength of about 850 nm … at a wavelength between about 840 nm and 870 nm”). But fails to disclose the wavelength of about 810 nm.
Beerwerth, from a similar field of endeavor teaches emitting light at a first peak emission wavelength in the far red or infrared wavelength range of between 700 nm and 980 nm to provide cosmetic treatment, in particular hair removal (para 0005, 0006-0010). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Greg as modified by Song with the wavelengths ranges as taught by Beerwerth to provide the predictable result of providing hair removal treatment.
It is noted that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 6. (Presently amended) Greg as modified by Song 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 (para 0212 “other two LED die may comprise LEDs configured to emit infrared light at a wavelength of about 850 nm … at a wavelength between about 840 nm and 870 nm”). But fails to disclose the wavelength of about 940 nm.
Beerwerth, from a similar field of endeavor teaches emitting light at a first peak emission wavelength in the far red or infrared wavelength range of between 700 nm and 980 nm to provide cosmetic treatment, in particular hair removal (para 0005, 0006-0010). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Greg as modified by Song with the wavelengths ranges as taught by Beerwerth to provide the predictable result of providing hair removal treatment.
It is noted that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15. (New) Greg as modified by Song renders obvious the method of claim 13,wherein the light therapy device comprises a number of LED assemblies having an LED chip with a peak emission spectra and an LED chip with a peak emission spectra of about 850 nm together in the same LED assembly (para 0186 “LED die 32 a and 32 c, comprise LEDs configured to emit red light at a wavelength of about 660 nm. The other two LED die, 32 b and 32 d, may comprise LEDs configured to emit infrared light at a wavelength of about 850 nm”) but fails to disclose a peak emission spectra of about 630 nm.
Beerwerth, from a similar field of endeavor teaches emitting light at a first peak emission wavelength in the far red or infrared wavelength range of between 400 nm and 700 nm to provide cosmetic treatment, in particular hair removal (para 0005, 0006-0010). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Greg as modified by Song with the wavelengths ranges as taught by Beerwerth to provide the predictable result of providing hair removal treatment.
It is noted that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 16. (New) Greg as modified by Song renders obvious the method of claim 13,wherein the light therapy device comprises a number of LED assemblies having an LED chip with a peak emission spectra and an LED chip with a peak emission spectra of about 810 nm together in the same LED assembly (para 0186 “LED die 32 a and 32 c, comprise LEDs configured to emit red light at a wavelength of about 660 nm. The other two LED die, 32 b and 32 d, may comprise LEDs configured to emit infrared light at a wavelength of about 850 nm”) but fails to disclose a peak emission spectra of about 630 nm.
Beerwerth, from a similar field of endeavor teaches emitting light at a first peak emission wavelength in the far red or infrared wavelength range of between 400 nm and 700 nm to provide cosmetic treatment, in particular hair removal (para 0005, 0006-0010). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Greg as modified by Song with the wavelengths ranges as taught by Beerwerth to provide the predictable result of providing hair removal treatment.
It is noted that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 18. (New) Greg as modified by Song renders obvious the method of claim 13,wherein the light therapy device comprises a number of LED assemblies having an LED chip with a peak emission spectra of about 660 nm and an LED chip with a peak emission spectra together in the same LED assembly (para 0186 “LEDs configured to emit red light at a wavelength of about 660 nm”). But fails to disclose the wavelength of about 810 nm.
Beerwerth, from a similar field of endeavor teaches emitting light at a first peak emission wavelength in the far red or infrared wavelength range of between 700 nm and 980 nm to provide cosmetic treatment, in particular hair removal (para 0005, 0006-0010). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Greg as modified by Song with the wavelengths ranges as taught by Beerwerth to provide the predictable result of providing hair removal treatment.
It is noted that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greg as modified by Song as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 13-14, 17 above, and further in view of US Pat Pub No. 20030004499 to McDaniel.
Regarding claim 20. (New) Greg as modified by Song renders obvious the method of claim 13,wherein the light therapy device comprises: exactly 50% of the total LED chips having a peak emission spectra; and exactly 50% of the total LED chips having a peak emission spectra of about 660 nm (para 0186 “LED die 32 a and 32 c, comprise LEDs configured to emit red light at a wavelength of about 660 nm. The other two LED die, 32 b and 32 d, may comprise LEDs configured to emit infrared light”) but fails to disclose 630 nm.
McDaniel, from a similar field of endeavor, teaches that depending on the treatment, different wavelengths for LEDs can be selected including 630 nm (para 0073). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Greg as modified by Song with the teachings of McDaniel, to provide the predictable result of providing desired treatment (para 0073).
Claim(s) 19-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greg as modified by Song as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 13-14, 17 above, and further in view of US 20200001105 A1 to Teegardin and US 20120130455 A1 to Baird et al. (hereinafter “Baird”).
Regarding claims 19-24. (New) Greg as modified by Song renders obvious the method of claim 13,wherein the light therapy device comprises: having a peak emission spectra; having a peak emission spectra of about 660 nm; having a peak emission spectra; and having a peak emission spectra of about 850 nm (para 0186 “LED die 32 a and 32 c, comprise LEDs configured to emit red light at a wavelength of about 660 nm. The other two LED die, 32 b and 32 d, may comprise LEDs configured to emit infrared light at a wavelength of about 850 nm… at a wavelength between about 840 nm and 870 nm”).
but fails to disclose wherein exactly 25% and/or 50% of the total LED chips having specific wavelengths.
Teegardin, from a similar field of endeavor, teaches operating the module by individually controlling the LEDs (first, second, third and fourth) individually to provide different wavelengths from each other to treat the user based on desired treatment and designated treatment area (para 0029 - Teegardin shows a device wherein at least four different wavelengths can be emitted simultaneously using four different LEDs operated independently and simultaneously). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Greg as modified by Song with the teachings of Teegardin to provide the predictable result of treating the user based on desired treatment and designated treatment area.
Greg as modified by Song and Teegardin renders the limitations above obvious but fails to disclose a peak emission spectra of about 630 nm and/or about 810 nm.
Baird, from a similar field of endeavor teaches that different wavelengths of light and combination of wavelengths of light have been shown to provide various treatments and provides a series of exemplary wavelengths combinations (para 0055-0076).
It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Greg as modified by Song and Teegardin with the known teachings of Baird to provide various treatments.
It is noted that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
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