The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
On pages 6-8 of the remarks dated May 14, 2026, the applicant argues the amendments to the claims overcome the previously applied prior art. The examiner agrees. However, these arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, which includes new prior art to address the newly added limitations.
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, 12-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarausch (US Patent Pub. No. 2022/0016437) in view of Cooper et al. (WO 2012/037355 A2).
Jarausch discloses systems and methods for light generation and use thereof (see Title). Specifically, Jarausch discloses a light therapy device (see Abstract, Title and Figure 1A), comprising:
A main body (see apparatus 100 in Figure 1A);
An array comprising a plurality of individual optical emitters positioned within the main body (see light sources 101 in Figures 1A, 1B, 2B, etc.);
A display panel that is positioned along the main body (see user interface 106 in Figure 1A, as well as in other figures; see paragraph 63 for teaching that “interface 106 may comprise an interface panel having … a display that may be integrated into apparatus 100, e.g., to create and control light recipes”); and
A system controller that is in communication with each of the display panel and the array of optical emitters (see controller 104 in Figure 1A; see paragraph 48 for teaching that the controller controls the light sources: “controller 104 may be implemented as an embedded controller having onboard firmware or as a distributed device to control the operation of light source 101 and, thus, the characteristics of emitted light”; see paragraph 61 which teaches the controller is in communication with the user interface 106: “controller 104 may receive an enable signal, e.g., from user interface 106”),
Wherein the array of optical emitters includes a plurality of sub arrays that are configured to simultaneously produce an optical output at a plurality of target wavelengths (see paragraph 44, “Any number of light sources 101 may be grouped into one or more electrical channels that each may be associated with light emission of a specific wavelength or range of wavelengths”, and also paragraph 49, “controller 104 may control light source 101 to emit UV-B light having a specific intensity and duration while, at the same time, controlling light source 101 to emit visible or infrared light having a certain intensity and duration.”);
Wherein the display panel comprises a touch screen display capable of providing two-way communication with a user (see paragraph 63 for teaching that “interface 106 may comprise an interface panel having … a display that may be integrated into apparatus 100, e.g., to create and control light recipes”).
However, Jarausch does not explicitly teach or illustrate in the figures that the user interface comprises on the display “a visual representation of the array and the plurality of sub arrays.”
Cooper teaches “a photodynamic therapy system can include a flexible panel comprising a plurality of light sources distributed across a conformable light delivery surface thereof. The plurality of light sources can be configured to provide a treatment light to achieve a desired therapeutic effect” (see Abstract). Paragraph 51 states the following, with emphasis added:
As disclosed herein, the light sources may be arranged in individually controllable groups, such as implemented at one or more PDT device panels. The controls 38 can be programmed to selectively activate or deactivate each of such groups independently of each other. For example, the light groups can be arranged in individual tiles that are connected together to provide the light delivery surface of each PDT device 1 2. Each of the groups of light sources can be addressable via the control bus such that each group can be independently addressable and controlled by encoding header information in a control signal that is sent by the control system to one or more PDT device. For example, a user can employ the user interface 34, which can include a graphical representation of each of the light groups on a given PDT device, to selectively activate or deactivate one or more groups of light sources. The control signals can be routed to different output ports through the connectors depending upon the address.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide “a graphical representation of each of the light group” as taught by Cooper, within the system and methods of Jarausch, in order to provide a more intuitive user interface in the system of Jarausch where it can easily be seen and quickly determined what is being activated/deactivated from the full array of light sources.
Regarding claim 12, Jarausch teaches that “Controller 104 may comprise integrated circuitry, such as logic, memory, I/O circuitry to support various types of communication” (see paragraph 48). Additionally, the system includes a power source 107 (see battery 107 in Figure 1A).
Regarding claims 13-14, Jarausch teaches that “Light recipes may be adjusted automatically, e.g., based on user input” (see paragraph 100), where “The term ‘light recipe’ refers to a set of conditions or parameters, such as wavelengths, intensities, exposure time and other light-related conditions” (see paragraph 41). Additionally, Jarausch teaches in paragraph 48: “controller 104 may be implemented as an embedded controller having onboard firmware or as a distributed device to control the operation of light source 101”, while Cooper states “Each of the groups of light sources can be addressable via the control bus such that each group can be independently addressable and controlled by encoding header information in a control signal that is sent by the control system” (see paragraph 51).
Regarding claims 15-16, it is noted that Jarausch’s teaching that the light recipes may be based on a user input, and that “light recipe” refers to a set of conditions or parameters, such as wavelengths, means that the user may set a user defined light color.
Regarding claims 18-19, Jarausch teaches that “apparatus 100 may use a Wi-Fi connection to communicate with a smartphone app that accepts and processes (local or remote) user settings and conditions, such as exposure time, exposure intensity, spatial configuration, skin pigmentation, health condition, etc. … wired or wireless communication interface may be used to synchronize timing, light intensity, dosages, or entire recipes and operation of apparatus 100 from a single user interface” (see paragraph 54).
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarausch in view of Cooper as applied to claim 1 above, in view of van de Ven et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2022/0280807), herein referred to as Ven.
Jarausch in combination with Cooper is described above with regard to claim 1. As stated in paragraphs 43-44 of Jarausch, the light sources may produce a multitude of wavelengths of light (i.e., “apparatus 100 may comprise one or more light sources 101 that may either directly emit light of specific wavelengths or may emit light that is filtered and/or converted into specific wavelengths”) via any type of light source (i.e., “LEDs, laser light sources, plasma discharge tubes, incandescent bulbs, or other light sources known in the art”). However, Jarausch does not explicitly teach red light having a wavelength of about 630 nm. Cooper does teach the use of red light, but states the range of about 665 nm to about 680 nm.
Regarding claims 2-3, Ven teaches treatment of central nervous system disorders (see Title) by administering light to a user (see Abstract), wherein the light is applied through the user’s skin (also in the Abstract). Figure 1 illustrates an array of emitters which may be used. As stated in paragraph 215, “Representative examples of specific characteristics that can be employed in the methods and devices described herein include: using red LEDs (630 nm, 660 nm), NIR LEDs (810 nm, 830 nm, 870 nm)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize 630 nm and 660 nm red light within an array of light emitters, as taught by Ven, and to choose this specific wavelength of red light, because wavelengths of 630nm are “useful to provide anti-inflammatory effects and/or to promote vasodilation” (see paragraph 314 of Ven). Therefore, utilizing this wavelength in the system of Jarausch as combined with Cooper would improve that system’s overall utility by increasing the different afflictions it can treat.
Regarding claim 4, Jarausch states that “or example, in the visible spectrum, controller 104 may adjust relative intensities of light source 101 to generate light having a “blue-rich” spectrum (e.g., 10% or more of visible light intensity in the 460 nm to 490 nm wavelength range)” (see paragraph 53). It is noted that “in the 460 nm to 490 nm wavelength range” is “about 480 nm” as claimed.
Regarding claims 5-6, it is noted that Ven teaches in paragraph 215, “Representative examples of specific characteristics that can be employed in the methods and devices described herein include: using red LEDs (630 nm, 660 nm), NIR LEDs (810 nm, 830 nm, 870 nm)”.
Regarding claim 7, it is noted that Ven teaches that “The wavelength at 850 nm is both anti-inflammatory, by decreasing inflammatory cytokines, and releases NO” (see paragraph 283 of Ven).
Claims 8-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarausch in view of Cooper and Ven as applied to claim 7 above, in view of Forhan (US Patent Pub. No. 2022/0339460).
Jarausch in combination with Cooper and Ven is described above with regard to claim 7. While each of these references teach the use of infrared wavelengths, none of them explicitly teach a wavelength of “about 1060 nm”.
Forhan teaches “a therapy system includes a therapy output device that includes light sources and a controller. The light sources are configured to output electromagnetic radiation at different peak wavelengths” (see Abstract). Forhan teaches the following in paragraph 31:
The therapy output device 120 may output electromagnetic radiation with any combination (e.g., one, two, three, four, or more) of peak wavelengths in the blue light spectrum of 400-450 nm (e.g., 410-420 nm, such as approximately 415 nm), in the red light spectrum of 630-680 nm (e.g., 650-670 nm, such as approximately 660 nm), and/or in the infrared light spectrum of 780-830 nm (e.g., 800-820 nm, such as approximately 805 nm), 825-875 nm (e.g., 840-860 nm, such as approximately 850 nm), and/or 1030-1080 nm (e.g., 1040-1060 nm, such as approximately 1050 nm). In the case of outputting electromagnetic radiation at multiple peak wavelengths, the different peak wavelengths may be identified according to the spectrum of the peak wavelength (e.g., blue light, red light, and/or infrared light peak wavelengths) and/or numerically between spectrums and/or within a spectrum (e.g., first and second peak wavelengths, or first and second infrared peak wavelengths). In one specific example, the therapy output device 120 is configured to selectively output the electromagnetic radiation at peak wavelengths in each of four spectrums that include a red light spectrum at 650-670 nm (e.g., 660 nm), a first infrared light spectrum at 800-820 nm (e.g., 810 nm), a second infrared light spectrum at 840-860 nm (e.g., approximately 850 nm), and a third infrared light spectrum at 1040-1060 nm (approximately 1050 nm). In another specific example, the therapy output device 120 is configured to selectively output the electromagnetic radiation at peak wavelengths in each of three spectrums that include a red light spectrum at 650-670 nm (e.g., 660 nm), a first infrared light spectrum at 840-860 nm (e.g., approximately 850 nm), and a second infrared light spectrum at 1040-1060 nm (approximately 1050 nm). In a still further example, the therapy output device 120 is configured to selectively output the electromagnetic radiation at peak wavelengths in each of seven spectrums that include one peak wavelength in each of the blue light spectrum, the yellow light spectrum, the red light spectrum, and the UVB spectrum and three peak wavelengths in the infrared spectrum (e.g., between 780-2500 nm, such as 780-1200 nm).
Therefore, Forhan teaches multiple spectrums of light being used, including an infrared light spectrum at 1040-1060 nm, which reads on “about 1060 nm” as in claim 8. It is also noted that Forhan teaches in this passage the use of “red light spectrum of 630-680 nm (e.g., 650-670 nm, such as approximately 660 nm)”, and “blue light”, and a first infrared light spectrum at 800-820 nm (e.g., 810 nm), a second infrared light spectrum at 840-860 nm”, as well as the previously stated “about 1060 nm”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize a wavelength in the infrared spectrum at 1040-1060 nm, as taught by Forhan, within the system and methods of Jarausch as combined with Cooper and Ven, because there are multiple different wavelengths of light that have been shown to provide a multitude of health benefits and the ability of a light therapy device to provide a wide array of wavelengths only increases the utility of such devices, thereby allowing for additional health benefits to be attained with a single device (noting that Jarausch states that the controller may control the light sources “to generate light that satisfies, e.g., certain characteristics associated with one or more desired health outcomes” (see paragraph 50) and Cooper teaches “The plurality of light sources can be configured to provide a treatment light to achieve a desired therapeutic effect” (see Abstract and paragraph 4)).
Regarding claims 9-10, while Jarausch teaches that “Any number of light sources 101 may be grouped into one or more electrical channels that each may be associated with light emission of a specific wavelength or range of wavelengths” (see paragraph 44), it does not teach that each light source produces a single, specific wavelength. However, Forhan teaches in paragraph 12 that “The light sources may be light-emitting diodes that each have only one of the peak wavelengths.”
Regarding claim 20, it is noted that the combination of Jarausch with Cooper, Ven and Forhan teaches the possibility for each claimed wavelength of light. Additionally, Jarausch teaches that “Light recipes may be adjusted automatically, e.g., based on user input” (see paragraph 100), where “The term ‘light recipe’ refers to a set of conditions or parameters, such as wavelengths, intensities, exposure time and other light-related conditions” (see paragraph 41). Additionally, Jarausch teaches in paragraph 48: “controller 104 may be implemented as an embedded controller having onboard firmware or as a distributed device to control the operation of light source 101”. Therefore, the system and methods of the combination of references is capable of providing any light recipe “to generate light that satisfies, e.g., certain characteristics associated with one or more desired health outcomes” (see paragraph 50 of Jarausch). Section 2114(II) of the MPEP states (with emphasis in the original), “’Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.’ Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” Section 2114(II) of the MPEP states, “A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987.” The teachings of Jarausch with Cooper, Ven and Forhan is capable and structurally configured for creating this specific “light recipe”, if the user so desires.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarausch in view of Cooper as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kneuer et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2009/0149927).
Jarausch in combination with Cooper is described above with regard to claim 1. While Jarausch teaches that “interface 106 may comprise an interface panel having … a display that may be integrated into apparatus 100, e.g., to create and control light recipes” (see paragraph 63) and Cooper teaches “a graphical representation of each of the light groups on a given PDT device” may be provided, these references do not explicitly teach that this display is a color display (i.e., “the visual representation includes a color representation of the array and the plurality of sub arrays”). Although it may be argued that a black and white or greyscale display is the displaying of a variety of “colors”.
However, Kneuer teaches an apparatus that includes a GUI, in which “the GUI may comprise a full-color touch screen display which allows for customization of the displayed information according to the user's needs. For example the arrangement of data on the GUI may follow the current medical application, which can include, but is not limited to… phototherapy” (see paragraph 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide a color representation of the array and subarray(s) that would be displayed in Jarausch based on the teachings of Cooper, as Kneuer teaches that full-color touch screen displays allow for customization of the displayed information according to the user's needs within a phototherapy application (see paragraph 22). As stated, this would improve the user experience by allowing for customization of the displayed information according to the user's needs.
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 JAMES KISH whose telephone number is (571)272-5554. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00a - 6p 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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/JAMES KISH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights