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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-22 in the reply filed on 03/10/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 23-28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/10/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 6, 9, 11, 14, and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the term “lengthwise direction” in the last line is missing a requisite “a” such that the term reads “a lengthwise direction”.
Regarding claims 2-3, 6, 9, 11, 14, and 19-20, the claims are missing a comma following the claim number from which each dependent claim relies. For example, in claim 2, the claim reads “The mask as claimed in claim 1 comprising”, but should read “The mask as claimed in claim 1, comprising” and in claim 3, the claim reads “The mask as claimed in claim 2 wherein” but should read “The mask as claimed in claim 2, wherein”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A “coupling mechanism” in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, Examiner interprets that a “coupling mechanism” is “a component that bonds the layers of the mask together”, where page 4 of Applicant’s specification states that “Optionally, the coupling arrangement may comprise a plurality of male projections extending from one of the inner or outer layers and a plurality of holes provided at the alternate outer or inner layer, the projections capable of being received within the holes to couple the inner and outer layers together. Optionally, the coupling arrangement is positioned at or towards a perimeter of the mask and/or the coupling arrangement is positioned exclusively at or towards a perimeter of the mask. As will be appreciated, the coupling arrangement may comprise any means by which the outer and inner layer may be coupled together to entrap and/or encapsulate the inner layers so as to provide a multilayer composite integral body. Optionally, the coupling arrangement is an adhesive, a chemical or thermal bonding (such as heat bonding) to act between the inner and outer layers.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-22 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitation “a person” in line 4. The antecedent basis for the limitation of “a person” in line 4 seems unclear because it is unclear whether the limitation of “a person” in line 2 of claim 1 is the same as the limitation of “a person” in line 4. For the purpose of examination, the limitation of “a person” in line 4 has been interpreted as being the same as the limitation of “a person” in line 2. All dependent claims are indefinite for the same reasons set forth for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites the limitation "the eye openings" in line 2 and "the mouth opening" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites the limitation "a perimeter of the mask" in line 3. The antecedent basis for the limitation of " a perimeter of the mask" in line 3 seems unclear because it is unclear whether the limitation of “a perimeter of the mask” in line 2 of claim 9 is the same as the limitation of " a perimeter of the mask" in line 3. For the purpose of examination, the limitation of " a perimeter of the mask" in line 3 has been interpreted as being the same as the limitation of “a perimeter of the mask" in line 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 10-11, 13, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (hereinafter “Kim”) (WO 2020231216 A1). For the prior art rejections, U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0257971 A1 has been used as the equivalent document for WO 2020231216 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a phototherapy mask configurable to be worn and cover a forehead, chin and cheeks of a person (¶[0016], which teaches “a facial beauty device capable of customized multi-care for each skin area and realizing a three-dimensional flexible mask,” ¶[0023], where “the embodiment is directed to providing a facial beauty device that may increase the overall uniform face care effect by evenly irradiating LED light to the entire facial skin even though a light-emitting module is disposed in an appropriate range”) comprising:
a flexible outer layer (Figure 2, first face body 311, ¶[0115], where “the face body 310 may include the first face body 311 which is flexible … The first face body 311 may be referred to as an outer face body”);
a flexible inner layer positionable opposite the skin of a person (Figure 2, second face body 312, ¶[0115], where “the face body 310 may include … the second face body 312 which is an area in contact with a user's face … the second face body 312 may be referred to as an inner face body,” ¶[0116], where “the second face body 312 are formed of a flexible material”);
a coupling mechanism physically coupling the outer and inner layers together (Figure 2, mounting member 320, support part 350, ¶[0154], where “the mounting member 320 may be coupled to the face body 310”);
an LED assembly having a plurality of LEDs (¶[0128], where “the light-emitting module 316a may include an LED module or an OLED module,” ¶[0131], where “The facial beauty device 301 may include a plurality of light-emitting modules 316a”) and a flexible LED printed circuit board to mount the LEDs (¶[0047], where “The stimulation providing part may include the first light-emitting module 316a disposed on the circuit board 315,” ¶[0124], where “the circuit board 315 may be an FPCB board, but the embodiment is not limited thereto”), the LED assembly mounted between and positionally retained by the inner and outer layers (¶[0124, where “the face body 310 includes the circuit board 315 disposed between the first face body 311 and the second face body 312”);
wherein the mask is capable of being bent to adopt a curved shape profile at least in lengthwise direction between a forehead end and chin end of the mask (Figure 2, ¶[0121], where “when the user uses the face body, the flexible material is not simply placed on the face, but the face body is lifted by pulling the mounting member that is a stretch bending part to the chin, and at the same time, is in close contact with the face”).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kim teaches a cheek slit extending inwardly from each lateral side of the mask towards a central longitudinal axis of the mask (Figure 2, mask sheet 360, which shows cheek slits on the lateral sides of the mask, ¶[0034], where “The second face body 312 may include a mask sheet 360 disposed at the inner side thereof”).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches all limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Kim teaches that each slit is curved along its length corresponding to a widthwise direction across the mask (Figure 2, mask sheet 360, which shows cheek slits on the lateral sides of the mask that correspond to a widthwise direction, ¶[0034], where “The second face body 312 may include a mask sheet 360 disposed at the inner side thereof”).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches all limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Kim teaches that a width of each slit decreases in a direction from a perimeter of the mask towards the central longitudinal axis (Figure 2, mask sheet 360, which shows cheek slits on the lateral sides of the mask that decrease in width, ¶[0034], where “The second face body 312 may include a mask sheet 360 disposed at the inner side thereof”).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kim teaches a pair of eye openings (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches all limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Kim teaches a mouth opening and/or a nose opening (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches all limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Kim teaches that each cheek slit is positioned in a lengthwise direction of the mask between the eye openings and the mouth opening (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches all limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Kim teaches an eye guard projecting from each of the respective eye openings at the inner layer (Figure 4A, first-first frame 371a, ¶[0161], where “For example, FIG. 4A is a first detailed view of the second face body 312 in the facial beauty device according to the embodiment shown in FIG. 2,” ¶[0163], where “The first frame 371 may include a first-first frame 371a disposed around the eye area,” ¶[0165], where “there is a technical effect … to protect important areas of the face such as eyes and forehead by the first-first frame 371a disposed around the eye area when a chin area of the flexible face body is in close contact with the face”), each eye guard comprising a material that is different to a material of the inner and/or outer layer (¶[0117], where “For example, the first face body 311 and the second face body 312 may be made of a flexible material such as silicone, thermo plastic elastomer (TPE), or urethane,” ¶[0162], where “The first frame 371 may be formed of a resin material having high elasticity and chemical resistance, but the embodiment is not limited thereto”).
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches all limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Kim teaches that each eye guard is annular to define a skirt at each eye opening (Figure 4A, first-first frame 371a).
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kim teaches a plurality of light diffusers positioned proximate to each LED at the inner layer (Figure 7C, second face body 312, first light-emitting module 316a, first diffusion plate 317a, ¶[0223], where “The fourth embodiment may apply the technical features of the facial masks 301 and 302 according to the above-described embodiment and the second embodiment,” ¶[0224], where “Referring to FIG. 7C, the facial mask in the fourth embodiment may include the first light-emitting module 316a disposed on the circuit board 315, the first diffusion plate 317a disposed on the first light-emitting module 316a”).
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kim teaches that the outer layer and/or the inner layer comprise a silicone material (¶[0117], where “the first face body 311 and the second face body 312 may be made of a flexible material such as silicone, thermo plastic elastomer (TPE), or urethane”).
Regarding claim 21, Kim teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kim teaches that a material composition of the mask is configured to allow the mask to be bent from a generally planar shape profile to a contoured 3D shape profile approximately matching a contoured 3D shape profile of a face of a person (Figure 2, ¶[0121], where “when the user uses the face body, the flexible material is not simply placed on the face, but the face body is lifted by pulling the mounting member that is a stretch bending part to the chin, and at the same time, is in close contact with the face”).
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 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee”) (KR 101497617 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Although Kim teaches a coupling mechanism, Kim does not explicitly teach that the coupling mechanism comprises a plurality of male projections extending from one of the inner or outer layers and a plurality of holes provided at the alternate outer or inner layer, the projections capable of being received within the holes to couple the inner and outer layers together.
Lee teaches a photomask to apply LED light to the face of a user (Abstract), and further teaches that the coupling mechanism comprises a plurality of male projections extending from one of the inner or outer layers and a plurality of holes provided at the alternate outer or inner layer, the projections capable of being received within the holes to couple the inner and outer layers together (Figure 2, Page 5, ¶ 7, where “The outer shells 231a, 232a, and 232a 'and the inner shells 231b, 232b, and 232b' that are separated from each other may be fixed to each other via a known or common coupling member such as a bolt or a pin, 'And the edges of the end plates 231b, 232b and 232b' may be engaged with each other to be detachably fixed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Lee, which teaches that the coupling mechanism comprises a plurality of male projections extending from one of the inner or outer layers and a plurality of holes provided at the alternate outer or inner layer, the projections capable of being received within the holes to couple the inner and outer layers together, with the invention of Kim in order to fix the outer an inner shells together and to allow for detachable fixation (Lee Page 5, ¶ 7).
Regarding claim 9, Kim in combination with Lee teaches all limitations of claim 8 as described in the rejection above.
Kim teaches that the coupling mechanism is positioned at or towards a perimeter of the mask and/or the coupling mechanism is positioned exclusively at or towards a perimeter of the mask (Figure 1, mounting member 320).
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Tapper et al. (hereinafter “Tapper”) (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0051834 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kim does not teach a light reflector layer positioned intermediate the LED printed circuit board and the inner layer, the reflector layer comprising a plurality of openings through which the LEDs extend in a direction towards the inner layer.
Tapper teaches a therapeutic lamp platform inductive mask with a phototherapy device including a plurality of radiant lamps disposed to communicate radiant energy to a user treatment area (Abstract), and further teaches a light reflector layer (¶[0100], which teaches “a transparent flexible polymer sheet wherein a reflective film is applied on top of the flexible polymer sheet”) positioned intermediate the LED printed circuit board and the inner layer, the reflector layer comprising a plurality of openings through which the LEDs extend in a direction towards the inner layer (¶[0100], which teaches “a transparent flexible polymer sheet wherein a reflective film is applied on top of the flexible polymer sheet including cutouts opposite the LEDs for allowing the radiant light to communicate through a reflective area in a manner as shown in the relationship of FIG. 4 between the LEDs' 12 inner wall 52 through aperture 70. This arrangement may also include a flexible outer wall 50 on the other side of the flexible polymer sheet to provide malleable rigidity to the film, reflective coating assembly”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Tapper, which teaches a light reflector layer positioned intermediate the LED printed circuit board and the inner layer, the reflector layer comprising a plurality of openings through which the LEDs extend in a direction towards the inner layer, with the invention of Kim in order to allow the radiant light to communicate through a reflective area (Tapper ¶[0100]).
Regarding claim 17, Kim in combination with Tapper teaches all limitations of claim 12 as described in the rejection above.
Tapper teaches that the reflector layer comprises a polymer material, a white or reflective material (¶[0100], which teaches “a transparent flexible polymer sheet wherein a reflective film is applied on top of the flexible polymer sheet including cutouts opposite the LEDs for allowing the radiant light to communicate through a reflective area in a manner as shown in the relationship of FIG. 4 between the LEDs' 12 inner wall 52 through aperture 70. This arrangement may also include a flexible outer wall 50 on the other side of the flexible polymer sheet to provide malleable rigidity to the film, reflective coating assembly.” Examiner interprets that the reflective film inherently comprises a reflective material.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Tapper, which teaches that the reflector layer comprises a polymer material, a white or reflective material, with the modified invention of Kim in order to allow the radiant light to communicate through a reflective area (Tapper ¶[0100]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Wu et al. (hereinafter “Wu”) (CN 106388026 A).
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches all limitations of claim 13 as described in the rejection above.
Although Kim teaches each light diffuser (Figure 7C, first diffusion plate 317a), Kim does not explicitly teach that each light diffuser comprises a conical section extending axially in a direction away from each LED at the inner layer.
Wu teaches LED phototherapy clothes that comprise a clothes main body, an LED light emitting unit and control device, an LED light emitting unit, and a diffusion device (Abstract), and further teaches that each light diffuser comprises a conical section extending axially in a direction away from each LED at the inner layer (Page 4, ¶ 13, where “the diffusion film 23 is provided with the projection 233 and the projection 233 may be … conical”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Wu, which teaches that each light diffuser comprises a conical section extending axially in a direction away from each LED at the inner layer, with the invention of Kim in order to diffuse light by increasing the projection close to the diffusion film and the light distribution density (Wu Page 4, ¶ 13).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lay et al. (hereinafter “Lay”) (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0370090 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Although Kim teaches a flexible LED printed circuit board (¶[0047], ¶[0124]), Kim does not teach that the flexible LED printed circuit board comprises at least one polymer substrate and a conductive layer having metallic tracks coupled to or mounted at the polymer substrate.
Lay teaches systems, devices, and related methods for phototherapeutic treatment of skin, and more particularly phototherapeutic treatments for skin conditioning and/or the treatment of skin wrinkles (Abstract), and further teaches that the flexible LED printed circuit board comprises at least one polymer substrate and a conductive layer having metallic tracks coupled to or mounted at the polymer substrate (¶[0162], where “a flexible substrate may include a flexible printed circuit board (PCB), and may include at least one polyimide-containing layer and at least one layer of copper or another electrically conductive material”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Lay, which teaches that the flexible LED printed circuit board comprises at least one polymer substrate and a conductive layer having metallic tracks coupled to or mounted at the polymer substrate, with the invention of Kim since, as is well known, circuit boards generally comprise electrically-conductive regions and non-electrically-conductive regions, whereby electrical current can be delivered to electronic components as desired (Lay ¶[0172]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Yoo (KR 20210030583 A).
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kim does not teach that each LED is a multi- chip LED, the chips of each LED configured to emit light of a different wavelength.
Yoo teaches an LED mask device comprising a plurality of LED light emitting units installed on the mask (Abstract), and further teaches that each LED is a multi- chip LED (Page 3, ¶ 5, where “The sheet-shaped LED module 1000 includes a flexible circuit board 1200 and a plurality of LED light emitting units 1400 arranged on the flexible circuit board 1200 … each of the plurality of LED light emitting units 1400 … is a plurality of micro LED chips 1400a, 1400b, 1400c that are gathered together”), the chips of each LED configured to emit light of a different wavelength (Page 3, ¶ 5, where “each of the plurality of LED light emitting units 1400 emits light of a different wavelength and is a plurality of micro LED chips 1400a, 1400b, 1400c that are gathered together, that is, a micro LED chip 1400a in the first wavelength band, A second wavelength band micro LED chip 1400b and a third micro LED chip 1400c are included”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Yoo, which teaches that each LED is a multi- chip LED, the chips of each LED configured to emit light of a different wavelength, with the invention of Kim in order to vary the depth of irradiation based on the wavelength of light, where certain wavelengths will stimulate cells to improve elasticity, while preventing skin pigmentation and regenerating the skin, certain wavelengths will penetrate into the skin dermis tissue, promoting collagen production and helping with skin elasticity and regeneration, and certain wavelengths will irradiate the epidermis to treat acne and aid in exfoliation (Yoo Page 4, ¶ 1).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Yoo as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (hereinafter “Liu”) (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0190845 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Kim in combination with Yoo teaches all limitations of claim 18 as described in the rejection above.
Neither Kim nor Yoo teaches thermal partitioning to thermally partition the chips at each LED.
Liu teaches an edge-lit device for providing light-based dermatological treatment with one or more light emitting diodes (Abstract), and further teaches thermal partitioning to thermally partition the chips at each LED (Figure 6, LEDs 16, heat sink 72, ¶[0103], where “In the example embodiment shown in FIG. 6, device 10 includes a heat control system 70 including a heat sink 72 and one or more fans 74. A number of LEDs 16 and/or other electronics are physically mounted on heat sink 72 to dissipate heat away from such components. Heat sink 72 may have any suitable size and/or shape, may be formed from any suitable material or materials (e.g., aluminum or other thermally conductive material or materials), and may include fins or any other known heat dissipation or heat transfer features”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Liu, which teaches thermal partitioning to thermally partition the chips at each LED, with the modified invention of Kim in order to dissipate heat away from the LEDs and/or other electronics (Liu ¶[0103]).
Regarding claim 20, Kim in combination with Yoo and Liu teaches all limitations of claim 19 as described in the rejection above.
Liu teaches an electronic controller electrically coupled to each LED, the controller configured to control a current supply to each LED to switch each chip of each LED between an active and inactive mode (¶[0165], where “Right and left channel LED boards 140a and 140b correspond to right and left panel sections 14 of device 10. Specifically, right channel LED board 140a includes a circuit having a number of right-panel LEDs (e.g., 4 yellow light LEDs and 4 infrared LEDs) powered by a battery pack 110a, a LED controller 150a, and various other electronics (e.g., fuses, resistors, capacitors, etc.) for controlling the operation of the right-panel LEDs. Similarly, left channel LED board 140b includes a circuit having a number of left-panel LEDs (e.g., 4 yellow light LEDs and 4 infrared LEDs) powered by a battery pack 110b, a LED controller 150b, and various other electronics (e.g., fuses, resistors, capacitors, etc.) for controlling the operation of the left-panel LEDs. LED controllers 150a and 150b control the operation of the right-panel LEDs and left-panel LEDs, respectively, based on signals received from controller 92, e.g., by providing a pulsed 3A current as specified by controller 92.” Examiner interprets that by controlling the current supplied to each LED that the LEDs can be switched between active and inactive modes based on either supplying current or not supplying current to said LEDs.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Liu, which teaches an electronic controller electrically coupled to each LED, the controller configured to control a current supply to each LED to switch each chip of each LED between an active and inactive mode, with the modified invention of Kim in order to control the operation of respective LEDs (Liu ¶[0165]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu.
Regarding claim 22, Kim teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Kim does not teach a plurality of resistors mounted at the LED printed circuit board.
Liu teaches a plurality of resistors mounted at the LED printed circuit board (¶[0165], where “Right and left channel LED boards 140a and 140b correspond to right and left panel sections 14 of device 10. Specifically, right channel LED board 140a includes … various other electronics (e.g., fuses, resistors, capacitors, etc.) for controlling the operation of the right-panel LEDs. Similarly, left channel LED board 140b includes … various other electronics (e.g., fuses, resistors, capacitors, etc.) for controlling the operation of the left-panel LEDs.” Examiner interprets that since the resistors are included on the LED board, that the resistors are mounted on said LED board.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Liu, which teaches a plurality of resistors mounted at the LED printed circuit board, with the invention of Kim in order to control the operation of respective LEDs (Liu ¶[0165]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bhardwaj (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0339462 A1), which teaches a phototherapy face mask for emitting therapeutic radiation towards the facial region of a user and that includes a flexible PCB layer provided between the inner surface and the outer surface, on which a plurality of coherent light sources such as LEDs are mounted.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEFRA D. MANOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 AM - 3:30 PM ET.
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.
/SEFRA D. MANOS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/UNSU JUNG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights