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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Applicant Arguments/Remarks”, filed 05/01/2026, with respect to the interpretations under U.S.C. 112(f), the Objections to the Claims, and the rejections under U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The interpretations under U.S.C. 112(f), the Objections to the Claims, and the rejections under U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments regarding the rejections under U.S.C. 102 are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under U.S.C. 102 have been withdrawn. However, Applicant's arguments regrading the previous 103 rejections, the subject matter of which has been rolled into Claim 1, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s first argument, that Min does not teach allowing a user to select the wavelength between the intervals of 630-660 nm and 810-850 nm, is unpersuasive. The claim language as written does not require that LED must be capable of both wavelengths, just that the user can select a wavelength between the two ranges, and Min explicitly teaches selecting 660 nm in Para. 0062, as well as disclosing selecting a red wavelength overall in Para. 0063.
Applicant’s next argument, that Min’s proximity sensor does not detect a distance between the emitters and the target’s skin is unpersuasive. Min’s Para. 0024 explicitly discloses that they equate proximity to the same definition of distance as Applicant.
Applicant’s argument regarding Min not teaching the limitation regarding “movement of the support with respect to a sliding plane along at least one predetermined direction” is previously acknowledged, as this limitation was covered under the 103 addition of Ebbesson, which Applicant does not provide arguments against. Therefore, the rejection has been rolled up to Claim 1 and is maintained.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 20140316492 awarded to Min et al, hereinafter Min, in view of U.S. Patent Publication 20200306555 awarded to Ebbesson, hereinafter Ebbesson.
Regarding Claim 1 and 10, Min teaches a photobiomodulation device for cell regeneration (Para. 0062) in a subject and method of use, the photobiomodulation device comprising: a support (Fig. 1, support part 1), including a plurality of emitters configured to emit a light beam (Fig. 3, LED 324) having a wavelength between 630 nm and 850 nm (Para. 0065, “660 nm”) and defining an emission dose given by a product between a luminous intensity of said light beam and an emission time of said light beam (the Examiner notes any light dose will have these parameters, as the definition of an emission dose is emission dose=intensity x time), a controller operatively connected to said emitter, the controller being configured to allow a user at least to set said emission time and a predetermined dose (Para. 0012, the control device controlling the intensity and time determines the dose applied) to modulate said luminous intensity of said light beam in relation to said emission time set in such a way that said emission dose corresponds to said predetermined dose (Para. 0012, “and a control circuit part adapted for supplying electric power to the light emitting member and controlling light intensity and irradiation time”), and acquisition sensor operatively connected to said control unit and configured to determine a respective distance between said emitter and said subject hit by said light beam, wherein said controller is configured to modulate said light intensity of said light beam in relation to said acquired distance so that said emission dose corresponds to said predetermined dose (Para. 0024, “The control circuit part includes a proximity sensor formed on the inner face of the rotation part, the proximity sensor sensing a distance from the user's target skin which is put on the base member and enabling the user to control light intensity and light emitting time of the LED according to the sensed distance”) and to allow the user to select said wavelengths between intervals respectively between 630-660 nm and 810-850 nm (Para. 0062-0065 discloses changing wavelengths, one of the wavelengths being 660 nm in Para. 0065). Min does not explicitly teach using a plurality of light emitters, wherein at least one support end comprising a movement system configured to allow movement of the support with respect to a sliding plane along at least one predetermined direction, but does teach the need for even radiation of a subject (Para. 0070), and motivation to selectively treat a part of a person’s body (Para. 0070).
However, in the art of light therapy (Para. 0011), Ebbesson teaches the usage of multiple LED bulbs (Para. 0021) for the purposes of even application (Para. 0005).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Min by Ebbesson, i.e. by using multiple bulbs in the system of Min as in Ebbesson, for the predictable purpose of providing an even treatment as in Ebbesson above.
Further, Ebbesson teaches the usage of wheels on the ends of an arched light therapy device (wheels 13, Fig. 1) to achieve treatment at different portions of a person’s body (Para. 0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Min by Ebbesson, i.e. by using wheels on the ends of Min’s arched treatment device as in Ebbesson, for the predictable purpose of increasing the available treatment sites of the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 2, Min modified by Ebbesson makes obvious the device according to claim 1. Min further teaches wherein said acquisition sensor acquires said distance in time during at least said emission time and said control unit is configured to modulate said light intensity in a variable manner in time in relation to variations of said distance acquired over time in such a way that said emission dose corresponds to said predetermined dose (Para. 0024, “The control circuit part includes a proximity sensor formed on the inner face of the rotation part, the proximity sensor sensing a distance from the user's target skin which is put on the base member and enabling the user to control light intensity and light emitting time of the LED according to the sensed distance”).
Regarding Claim 3, Min modified by Ebbesson makes obvious the device according to Claim 1. Min further teaches wherein said emitters are one of an LED (Para. 0062, “LED 324”).
Regarding Claim 6, Min modified by Ebbesson makes obvious the device according to Claim 1. Min further teaches wherein said support comprises at least one emission wall (light emitting member 3, Fig. 2, Para. 0014 “The rotation part is formed by combination of an inner cover and an outer cover which are formed in an arc shape, the outer cover has hinge portions which are respectively formed at both end portions of the outer cover and are joined with the side plate portions of the support part, and the light emitting member is joined between the inner cover and the outer cover of the rotation part”) including one or more of said emitters and configured to face said subject (Para. 0039).
Regarding Claim 7, Min modified by Ebbesson makes obvious the device according to Claim 1. Min further teaches wherein the at least one support end comprises at least two support ends, a frame to arch connecting said at least two support ends, the at least two support ends and the frame defining a housing configured to house said subject and partly delimited by said frame and part of said support ends, and said at least one emission wall facing towards said housing (Para. 0014, “The rotation part is formed by combination of an inner cover and an outer cover which are formed in an arc shape, the outer cover has hinge portions which are respectively formed at both end portions of the outer cover and are joined with the side plate portions of the support part, and the light emitting member is joined between the inner cover and the outer cover of the rotation part”).
Regarding Claim 8, Min teaches the device according to Claim 1, wherein each of said at least two support end comprises a foot (hinge portions) configured to rest said support stably on a support surface for said subject (Para. 0014, “The rotation part is formed by combination of an inner cover and an outer cover which are formed in an arc shape, the outer cover has hinge portions which are respectively formed at both end portions of the outer cover and are joined with the side plate portions of the support part, and the light emitting member is joined between the inner cover and the outer cover of the rotation part”).
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 Jess Mullins whose telephone number is (571)-272-8977. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. PST M-F.
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, Unsu Jung, can be reached at (571)-272-8506. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800)-786-9199 (In USA or Canada) or (571)-272-1000.
/JLM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/ALLEN PORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights