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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Second Paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected because the term “nearer” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “nearer” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear where in the sock/slipper/footwear the light sources would need to be in order to satisfy the requirement of being nearer the opening than the closed to portion.
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 1-3, 6 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (KR 20130023751 A).
Choi discloses a user wearable type phototherapy treatment apparatus is provided to irradiate rays (see Abstract). Specifically, Figure 3 illustrates an embodiment in which the irradiation unit 200 may be provided inside the main body 110b of the shoe shape. As shown in Figure 3, plate 210 holds at least two different types of light emitting diodes (i.e., LEDs) 221 and 222. Choi states that LEDs 221 are infrared, however, Choi then states the following: “The infrared unit 221 may be an infrared LED (Infra-Red Light Emitting Diode) having a wavelength band of 300nm ~ 500nm” (see 10th paragraph in Description of Embodiments). Therefore, the LEDs 221 emitting in the wavelength range of 300nm ~ 500nm reads on “the UVB light includes light having a wavelength within a range of 300-315nm.Then, Choi states that LEDs 222 are ultraviolet, however, Choi then states the following: “The ultraviolet unit 222 may be an ultraviolet ray light emitting diode (UV LED) having a wavelength band of 600 nm to 900 nm” (see 11th paragraph in Description of Embodiments). Therefore, the LEDs 222 emitting in the wavelength range of 600nm - 900nm reads on “the red light includes light having a wavelength within a range of 620-700nm. With regard to the recitation of claim 1 that states “a light source configured to emit phototherapeutic light including UVB light for stimulating vitamin D production and red light for stimulating melatonin production”, it is noted that the specific wavelengths recited by Choi overlap those stated in the claims, and therefore the resulting effect of those wavelengths of light when provided by Choi would be the same effect created by illumination the wavelengths recited by claim 1. While the wavelength ranges stated by Choi are broader than those recited in the claims, it has been held that "’[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.’ In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003)” (see MPEP 2144.05(I), third paragraph).
Choi additionally teaches “power supply unit 120 is installed at one side of the main body 110a to allow power to be applied to the irradiation unit 200” (see 12th paragraph in Description of Embodiments). As can be seen in the below reproduction of Fig. 3, the main body of device 100 supports the power supply 120 and LEDs 221,222:
PNG
media_image1.png
614
1058
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, the main body comprises a proximal end with an opening and a distal end. A cut-away of the exterior is shown to illustrate the LEDs located on an interior, which therefore illuminate the interior of the main body.
It is noted, for clarity, that this rejection is made under 35 USC 103 solely for the fact that MPEP 2144.05(I) states that "’[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.’ In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003)”. However, all claimed subject matter is found within Choi alone.
Regarding claim 2, it is illustrated in Figure 3 (see above) that there is a plurality of LEDS 221 and a plurality of LEDs 222. Additionally, it is noted that by Choi teaching the wavelengths which each LED is configured to emit, Choi teaches the last two lines of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, it can be seen in Figure 3 above that there is at least one LED 222 to the left, while another is located to the right side in the figure. Similarly, there is at least one LED 221 to the left, while another is located to the right side in the figure. Therefore, the LEDs are considered to be “spread across the main body” as claimed.
Regarding claims 6 and 14-15, Choi teaches that “The first cam operated timer 310 may be connected to the infrared plate 211” and that “The second cam-operated timer 320 may be connected to the ultraviolet plate 212.” “Therefore, the user may selectively use or simultaneously use the infrared unit 221… and the ultraviolet unit 222” (see the 14th - 16th paragraphs in Description of Embodiments). Specific to claim 15, it is noted that by controlling the length of time of emission, this controls the dosage.
Claims 4-5 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi as applied to claims 3 and 14 above, and further in view of Prescott (US Patent Pub. No. 2006/0235346).
Choi is described above with respect to claims 3 and 14. However, Choi does not teach that the main body would be a slipper or that the power source is within the sole; nor does Choi teach a sensor to detect the foot inserted into the opening.
Regarding claim 4, Prescott teaches a light therapy device including an insole base configured to be disposed adjacent a human patient's foot having at least one light emitter (see Abstract). Prescott teaches that “Although the insole bases discussed herein are directed generally to thin, flexible embodiments that would allow insertion of the insole bases into an article of footwear such as a patient's shoe, slipper, sandal, sock or the like without modification of such footwear, it may also be desirable to have the features of the insole base 1, 30 or others discussed herein, incorporated into a shoe, slipper, sandal, sock or the like for the convenience of use of a patient” (see paragraph 38). Also, “An embodiment of a controller/power supply circuit 26, which may be used with any of the light therapy device embodiments discussed herein, is shown in FIG. 6” (see paragraph 39). Figure 1 illustrates controller/power supply circuit 26 within the sole.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include the power supply within the sole of a slipper, as taught by Prescott, and to use this configuration within the system and methods of Choi, since it has been held that the rearranging of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C.), In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). And the it would have been a mere matter of design choice for the footwear of Figure 3 of Choi to be “a patient's shoe, slipper, sandal, sock or the like without modification of such footwear” (see paragraph 38) as presented by Prescott.
Regarding claim 5, it is noted that Prescott teaches the alternatives of “a patient's shoe, slipper, sandal, sock or the like without modification of such footwear” (see paragraph 38). Additionally, Choi illustrates footwear with a closed toe portion, which is common with socks. Also, Figure 1 of Prescott illustrates the power source near the heel of the sole, which would be “nearer” the opening in Choi as compared to the closed toe portion. Finally, Choi illustrates light sources “spread across the main body portion” and it would be obvious that the light sources of Choi are electrically connected to the power source to be able to turn on an emit light. Additionally, light sources electrically connected to a power source is explicitly taught/shown by Prescott in Figure 1, at least. As such, the combination of Choi with Prescott teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, Prescott teaches “[O]peration of the therapeutic device 10 may be initiated by switch 7… [which may be] a pressure switch that activates the preprogrammed treatment regimen but automatically disengages and shuts off the system when no pressure is applied for a predetermined time period, such as 30 minutes. This allows therapeutic light therapy to be applied while the patient is wearing the device and saves battery power when the patient is not wearing the device” (see paragraph 47 and Figure 1 for location of switch 7). It is noted that when the insole of Prescott is located within the footwear of Choi, pressure being applied to switch 7 by the user wearing the footwear of Choi would occur when the foot is inserted into the opening, as such this reads on the limitation of “a sensor configured to detect when the foot is inserted into the opening”. Additionally, the teachings of Prescott for automatically disengaging and shutting of the system when no pressure is applied reads on the processing circuitry of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, it is noted that the operation explained in paragraph 47 of Prescott reads on the language of claim 17, in that when the pressure switch is engaged (i.e., pressure is applied by a foot), the system will initiate light therapy. It would be obvious that this would initiate at a current time when pressure is applied (i.e., when the foot is inserted into the opening), which would occur after a previous time when the foot is not inserted.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of JP 2006314496 A, herein after “JP”.
Choi is described above with respect to claim 2. However, Choi does not teach the use of a blue wavelength or LED.
JP teaches “shoes which can promote the health of a human body by irradiation with rays of light of various wavelengths by light emitting diodes” (see Abstract). Specifically, JP teaches that any wavelength could be used and would have beneficial effects (e.g., “the light-emitting element emits various light beams having different wavelengths, such as blue, red, white, infrared, and ultraviolet rays” – see third paragraph in Tech Solution). JP states the following:
As shown in FIG. 2, the method for using the shoe with a light emitting function according to the present invention turns on the switch 13 to electrically connect the power supply 14 and the circuit board 11 to cause the light emitting diode 12 to emit light. The light emitting diode 12 emits various light beams having different wavelengths such as blue, red, white, infrared, and ultraviolet, and is of a pulse type or a continuous wave type. The red rays stimulate the sympathetic nervous system and excite and tension the user. The blue rays stimulate the auxiliary sympathetic nervous system and relax the user. Blue light having a wavelength of 450 nm is effective for arthritis. Red rays are effective for migraines and improve muscle tolerance. White light has an effect on depression, and ultraviolet light has a deodorizing effect. The infrared light of 815 nm has the effect of healing the wound, and the red light can be applied to the photodynamic therapy to replace the laser to treat the mass. Since the positions of the light emitting diodes that can emit light of various wavelengths correspond to the points on the legs, the health of the human body can be improved. Further, by using a light emitting diode having a small volume and low power consumption, the shoe 10 is easy to manufacture, has high durability and a low failure rate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide blue LEDs within the system and methods of Choi, because “blue rays stimulate the auxiliary sympathetic nervous system and relax the user.” As such, including these LEDs and emission of blue wavelengths within the system of Choi would increase its utility by allowing for additional therapeutic effects, beyond those presented by Choi.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Tapper et al. (US Patent No. 10,806,211), as evidenced by The Fiber Optic Association website (URL below).
Choi is described above with respect to claim 1. However, Choi does not teach the use of light guides that are interwoven into fabric.
Regarding claims 8-10, Tapper teaches “article of footwear is configured to be worn so as to at least partially cover a wearer's foot. The footwear includes at least one optical fiber on an internal surface of the footwear. The at least one optical fiber is configured to project radiation having a therapeutic wavelength through the at least one optical fiber and toward at least one of the wearer's foot… when the footwear is being worn so as to at least partially cover the wearer's foot” (see Abstract). “FIG. 6 depicts a fabric base layer as a woven fabric base layer 60 in which the optical fiber 56 is integrated as a yarn in the filling direction; however, if desired the optical fiber 56 can be integrated as a yarn in the warp direction” (see column 4, lines 31-34). As shown in Fig. 8, a light source connector 150 is shown, from which optical fibers 56 then run length-wise from proximal end to distal end, and then back and forth (i.e., longitudinally along the main body). It is noted that it is an inherent characteristic of optical fibers that light propagates therein via total internal reflection, as evidenced by The Fiber Optic Association article found at the following URL: https://www.thefoa.org/tech/ref/basic/total_internal_reflection.html. Tapper additionally states that “in contrast to providing discrete LEDs, for example, embedded in the upper 24 in each of the light-emitting zones, which can result in an article of footwear that can be uncomfortable to wear, a light source 80 (FIG. 10) or multiple light sources can be remote and the optical fiber 56 can transmit the light from the light source 80 to light-emitting zones of the upper 24.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize interwoven optical fibers and fabric for creation of light-based therapeutic shoes, as taught by Tapper, for the system and methods of Choi because this would obviate the need for the plate of Choi which holds the LEDs, thereby improving comfort (see column 4, lines 3-6 of Tapper).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Tapper, as evidenced by The Fiber Optic Association website, and further in view of Prescott.
Choi in combination with Tapper and The Fiber Optic Association was described above with regard to claim 8. However, these references fail to teach that the footwear is a sock and the power source and light sources are arranged as claimed.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Prescott teaches a light therapy device including an insole base configured to be disposed adjacent a human patient's foot having at least one light emitter (see Abstract). Prescott teaches that “Although the insole bases discussed herein are directed generally to thin, flexible embodiments that would allow insertion of the insole bases into an article of footwear such as a patient's shoe, slipper, sandal, sock or the like without modification of such footwear, it may also be desirable to have the features of the insole base 1, 30 or others discussed herein, incorporated into a shoe, slipper, sandal, sock or the like for the convenience of use of a patient” (see paragraph 38, emphasis added). Also, “An embodiment of a controller/power supply circuit 26, which may be used with any of the light therapy device embodiments discussed herein, is shown in FIG. 6” (see paragraph 39). Figure 1 illustrates controller/power supply circuit 26 within the sole.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include the power supply within the sole of a slipper, as taught by Prescott, and to use this configuration within the system and methods of Choi, since it has been held that the rearranging of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C.), In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). And the it would have been a mere matter of design choice for the footwear of Figure 3 of Choi to be “a patient's shoe, slipper, sandal, sock or the like without modification of such footwear” (see paragraph 38) as presented by Prescott.
Specifically with regard to additional limitations of claim 11, it is additionally noted that Prescott teaches the alternatives of “a patient's shoe, slipper, sandal, sock or the like without modification of such footwear” (see paragraph 38, emphasis added). Additionally, Choi illustrates footwear with a closed toe portion, which is common, well-known and obvious for socks. Also, Figure 1 of Prescott illustrates the power source near the heel of the sole, which would be “nearer” the opening in Choi as compared to the closed toe portion. Finally, Figure 11 of Tapper illustrates the light sources nearer the opening than the closed toe portion.
Regarding claim 13, it is noted that Tapper teaches the optical fibers extending circumferentially around the main body (see Figure 9, as well as Figures 8 and/or 11).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi as applied to claim 14, in view of Kuhns (US Patent Pub. No. 2020/0253813).
Choi is described above with respect to claim 14. However, Choi does not teach a processor circuitry configured to measure a dosage of its light(s) and to stop treatment/emission when a certain dosage has been provided.
Kuhns teaches a light therapy system (see Title) for the legs and/or feet of a person (see Figure 6). Kuhns teaches that “The light therapy system 100 also includes a light emitting system 150 positionable within the cuff 110 of the pressure cuff system 105 so that light can be administered to the portion of the leg 115 or other body part within the cuff 110 … The light emitting controller 175 is capable of controlling and/or monitoring the application of light, including the dose or dosage of light applied to the leg 115 or other body part. By dose or dosage of light applied it is meant the intensity and/or duration of the light application” (see paragraph 45). And paragraph 72 states that “The array 200 may be turned ON when a pressure above a threshold value is sensed above the associated muscle group. The dosing may continue while the pressure is above the threshold value and the total exposure time is less than that needed to achieve the desired muscle dose.” In other words, the controller controls the emitters to emit light when the desired dose applied to the target area has not been met.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide for the controller to determine dosage amounts any and all light sources, and to conclude emission of any light source that is at or beyond a desired dosage, as taught by Kuhns, and to include this controlling feature into the system and methods of Choi in order to prevent causing damage or other adverse effects to the patient tissue by delivering too much light during any treatment sessions, which improves safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The following prior art is herein made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, but not relied upon in the rejections above:
Schneider et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2017/0267485) – teaches “In an example, a foot presence sensor includes an optical sensor. The optical sensor can be configured to determine whether a line-of-sight is interrupted, such as between opposite sides of a footwear cavity. In an example, the optical sensor includes a light sensor that can be covered by a foot when the foot is inserted into the footwear. When the sensor indicates a change in a sensed lightness condition, an indication of a foot presence or position can be provided” (see paragraph 45).
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