DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities: The claim states “probe is slidably with respect to…”. This should most likely be corrected to “probe is slidably connected with respect to”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities: The claim states “mask is appropriate positioned with respect to…”. This should most likely be corrected to “mask is appropriately positioned with respect to…”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 fails to further limit claim 1 on which it depends. Claim 2 lists the options of the light bearing element being integrated or removably detachable. The light bearing element being integrated or removably detachable are the only options, therefore the limitation does not further clarify the metes and bounds of the claim.
Claim 15 fails to further limit claim 1 on which it depends. Claim 15 lists the options of the probe comprising a rigid material, a pliable material , and a flexible material. The probe being rigid, pliable, and flexible are the only options, therefore limitation does not further clarify the metes and bounds of the claim.
One approach to overcoming above mentioned rejections is to separate the options provided into different dependent claims to claim all embodiments separately. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1,2,4,14,16,19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altshuler et al (US20060194164A1); hereinafter Altshuler.
Regarding claim 1, Altshuler teaches a light therapy device insertable within a body cavity, said light therapy device (abstract - light therapy device insertable into body cavity - toothbrush) comprising:
a probe (probe comprising handle portion 16 and head portion 12, Figs. 1-2A) extending from a proximal end (end closer to power supply 32, Fig. 2A) to a distal end (end closer to bristles 14, Fig. 2A), said probe comprising:
an electrical connector (leads 39, Fig. 2B) extending from said proximal end to said distal end (end closer to bristles 14, Fig. 2A); and
a heat transfer element (frame 38 is formed of thermally conductive material to provide eat transfer from light source 18 to an external environment [0063]), extending from said proximal end to said distal end;
a light bearing element (head 12, Fig. 1), attached to said distal end, said light bearing element comprising:
a plurality of lighting elements arranged on a surface of said light bearing element (radiation source 18 comprises a plurality of light sources arranged on reflective surface 20 of head 12), wherein said electrical connector is configured to:
provide power and control signals to said plurality of lighting elements (leads 39 supply electrical power from power supply 32 to optical radiation source 18 and capable of supplying control signals [0063]); and
said heat transfer element is configured to:
draw heat generated by said plurality of lighting elements to said proximal end of said probe (frame 38 is formed of thermally conductive material to provide heat transfer from the light source 18 to an external environment [0063]);
a light distributor surrounding at least said light bearing element ([0094] light dispersing material).
It would have been obvious to make the light distributer removably attachable because it constitutes use of a known technique to improve a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Removeable pieces on a scope or light therapy device are already common so integrating it into this device would be obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Altshuler teaches the light therapy device of claim 1. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Altshuler to include the limitation that the light bearing element is one of: integrated onto said distal end of said probe and removably attachable to said distal end of said probe. This is because it constitutes applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Many light therapy device for other purposes and for other body cavities already integrate removeable or fixed light bearing elements.
Regarding claim 4, Altshuler teaches the device of claim 1. Altshuler further teaches light distributor comprises at least one of:
an optical clear material ([0087] head portion 12 that are preferably constructed of a material substantially transparent to radiation).
Regarding claim 14, Altshuler teaches the light therapy device of claim 1. Altshuler further teaches a distal end heat transfer element positioned substantially adjacent said lighting sources (frame 38 is formed of thermally conductive material to provide heat transfer from the light source 18 to an external environment [0063]).
Regarding claim 16, Altshuler teaches the light therapy device of claim 1. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Altshuler to comprise a mask wherein the probe is slidably connected to the mask because it constitutes use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Many probe devices have coverings.
Regarding claim 19, Altshuler teaches the light therapy device of claim 14. Altshuler further teaches a conduit configured to: conduct a cooling fluid through a loop ([0009] moving cooling fluid along a fluid pathway).
Claim(s) 3,9, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altshuler in view of Klang et al (US 11207544 B2); hereinafter Klang.
Regarding claim 3, Altshuler teaches the device of claim 1. Altshuler fails to teach the shape of the light bearing element. Klang teaches the light bearing element is one of: a spherical shape, an elliptical shape and an elongated shape (fig. 1A). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Altshuler with Klang because it constitutes simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The form factor of the invention of Altshuler is specifically suited for the body cavity it is intended to be used in so it would be obvious to modify the form factor to fit in a different body cavity as disclosed in Klang.
Regarding claim 9, Altshuler teaches the device of claim 1. Altshuler fails to teach the wavelength range. Klang teaches the plurality of lighting elements emit light in at least one of: an ultra-violet wavelength range, a visible wavelength range and an infra-red wavelength range (the LEDs may emit light in the range of 405 nm-470 nm, according to one embodiment herein. The LEDs emit light in the range of 620 nm-750 nm, according to another embodiment herein. The LEDs emit light in the range of 380 nm-450 nm, according to another embodiment herein. The emitted light may kill or limit propagation of various strains of bacteria and fungus). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Altshuler with Klang because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Klang teaches “the emitted light may kill or limit propagation of various strains of bacteria and fungus”.
Regarding claim 15, Altshuler teaches the light therapy device of claim 1. Altshuler fails to teach the material of the probe. Klang teaches the probe comprises one of:
a rigid material, a pliable material and a flexible material (The surface of the body 102 is either rigid or squeezable).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Altshuler with Klang because there is some teaching, suggestion or motivation to do so. Klang teaches that the flexibility properties of the probe can be chosen “depending on the basis of user preference and area of usage”.
Claim(s) 5-8, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altshuler in view of Cockrell et al (US 20210290971 A1); hereinafter Cockrell.
Regarding claim 5, Altshuler teaches the device of claim 1. Cockrell teaches an image capture device positioned on a distal end of said light bearing device ([0021] camera). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Altshuler with Cockrell because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Cockrell teaches the camera is “for collecting data from the mammalian tissue” which makes the improvement obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Altshuler teaches the device of claim 1. Altshuler fails to teach a probe sleeve removably attached. Cockrell further teaches a probe sleeve removably attachable to said light therapy device ([0362] figs. 43-52 housing 4304 may be encased by a sleeve). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Altshuler with Cockrell because it constitutes the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Altshuler and Cockrell both teach a light-based probe in body cavities and Cockrell teaches the improvement of having a sleeve for the same purpose.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Altshuler and Cockrell teaches the light therapy device of claim 6. Cockrell further teaches the probe sleeve is positioned within said light distributor ([0362] a housing 4304 for containing and protecting at least light emitter-driving circuitry 110) .
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Altshuler and Cockrell teaches the light therapy device of claim 6. Cockrell further teaches said light distributor is positioned within said probe sleeve ([0362] a housing 4304 for containing and protecting at least light emitter-driving circuitry 110).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Altshuler and Cockrell teaches the light therapy device of claim 5. Cockrell further teaches a filter, positioned adjacent said image capture device, said filter configured to: attenuate light in at least one of wavelength range emitted by said plurality of lighting sources ([0160] FIG. 56B is a perspective view of a cheek retractor that includes a material, such as a filter, that is configured to block certain wavelengths of light during a phototherapy treatment.) and pass light in a second light wavelength range, wherein said second light wavelength range is based at least on said light emitted by said plurality of lighting sources (duplication of parts).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Altshuler and Cockrell teaches the light therapy device of claim 5. Cockrell further teaches a probe sleeve, removably attachable to said light therapy device ([0362] figs. 43-52 housing 4304 may be encased by a sleeve), said probe sleeve comprising: a filter aligned with said image capture device ([0021] camera).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Altshuler and Cockrell teaches the light therapy device of claim 6. Altshuler further teaches the probe sleeve is composed of one of:
an optically clear material, a translucent material, and a frosted material ([0087] head portion 12 that are preferably constructed of a material substantially transparent to radiation).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altshuler in view of Mayer et al (US 11173320 B2); hereinafter Mayer.
Altshuler teaches the device of claim 1. Altshuler fails to teach an opaque material with windows. Mayer teaches an opaque material; and at least one of: a plurality of openings and a plurality of perforations, within said opaque material (optical windows). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Altshuler with Mayer because it constitutes the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Altshuler and Mayer both teach a light-based probe in body cavities and Mayer teaches the improvement of having optical windows in an opaque material for the same purpose.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altshuler in view of Stasko et al (US 20210128938 A1); hereinafter Stasko. Altshuler teaches the device of claim 16. Altshuler fails to teach a switch. Stasko teaches a switch, said switch configured to:
Provide an indication said mask is appropriate positioned with respect to said body cavity ([0318] the indicator LEDs 509, proximity sensor 526). The indicators may not explicitly teach depicting alignment; however, it would be obvious to use an indicator to display this parameter. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Altshuler with Stasko because it would constitute use of a known technique to improve similar devices in a similar way. LED indicators are commonly used for indicating correct alignment or positioning, so using it for this device, especially when there are already indicators present would be obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 20 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dhrasti SNEHAL Dalal whose telephone number is (571)272-0780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 am - 6:00 pm, Alternate Friday off, 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carl Layno can be reached at (571) 272-4949. 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.
/D.S.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/CARL H LAYNO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796