DETAILED ACTION
This is the first action in response to US Patent Application No. 18/705,890, filed 29 April, 2024, as the National Stage Entry of International Application PCT/CA2023/050466, filed 05 April, 2023, and with priority to US provisional applications 63/327,405 and 63/393,110, filed 05 April, 2022, and 28 July, 2022, respectively. All claims 1-20 are pending and have been fully considered.
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 .
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 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: “levelling mechanism” in claim 13.
The limitation “levelling mechanism” is interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because: (A) the limitation includes the generic placeholder “mechanism”; (B) the limitation modifies the generic placeholder by reciting the function “for aligning toes of the foot in a substantially horizontal plane, such that all the toenails are substantially equidistant from the light source array”; and (C) although claim 13 recites some structural limitations with respect to the levelling mechanism being detachable disposed within the cavity, the claim alone does not set forth sufficient structure to establish how the levelling mechanism aligns the toes of a foot as claimed.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The specification indicates that the leveling mechanism (400) is a ramped platform 410 having an incline of at least 2 degrees between a lower end 406 and a higher end 408 ([0046]), the ramped platform serving to correct for the difference in size between the big toe and pinky toe so that all toes are a nearly equal distance from the light source (see Fig. 4C). Accordingly, the “levelling mechanism” of claim 13 is interpreted as referring to a ramped platform, or equivalents thereof (in the instant case an equivalent would be expected to at least have slanted surface on which toes can be arranged).
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because “the feet” at line 3 of the claim should read “the extendable feet” to ensure proper antecedent basis and avoid conflation between the “extendable feet” (of claim 16) and the “foot” (claim 1, line 3) received in the cavity of the housing. Alternatively, claim 16 could be adjusted to refer to the “extendable feet” (claim 16, line 1) and the “feet” (claim 16, line 3) as “extendable legs” (based on the instant specification at [0040]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10-12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nath (US 20120283622 A1, cited in the IDS filed 17 July, 2025).
Regarding claim 1, Nath teaches a device, an embodiment of which is depicted in Figs. 5-7 below, comprising a housing (cover 697 for optical shielding purposes—[0096]) which defines a cavity for receiving a foot (see Fig. 6b) and a plurality of LEDs (541,641) which are arranged along a top side of the cover to emit light (see Figs 6a-b) toward the toes of the foot (irradiation device generates an intense light stripe covering the nail ledge by linearly arranged high-power light-emitting diodes—[0089]; two groups of three high-power LEDs 541 ---[0090]; six high-power diodes [641] emit light radiation to the toenails—[0094]).
PNG
media_image1.png
658
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
574
402
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
538
368
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Nath indicates the LEDs can include a mixture of diodes emitting in different colors for irradiating the toes, especially LEDs emitting at approximately 405 nm and LEDs emitting at approximately 630 nm ([0101]); these wavelengths correspond to wavelengths suitable for reducing inflammation and for photodisinfection and for excitation of a fluorophore, respectively, based on at least the instant disclosure (see, e.g., the instant disclosure [0064]). It is noted that the fluorophore absorbed into the toenails recited in the instant claim is not interpreted as a positively recited structure of the claimed device, and instead refers to a material worked upon by the device; in view of MPEP 2115, the recitation of the fluorophore is limiting only insofar as the second wavelength of light must be capable of exciting a fluorophore (which the 630 nm wavelength of Nath is for the reasons discussed above).
Accordingly, Nath fairly teaches a combined photodisinfection and visualization device for onychomycosis, comprising:
a housing (cover 697) having an open end for receiving a foot into a cavity of the housing (see Fig. 6b);
a light source array (LEDs 641) arranged along a top of the cavity for directing a region of uniform illumination onto toenails (light radiation limited to toenails to maximize utilization of the beam power density generated by the high-power diodes—[0094]; toenails receive a sufficiently homogenous beam power density from light stripe 696—[0093]), the light source array comprising a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs 541/641) configured to emit:
a first wavelength of light for excitation of a fluorophore absorbed into the toenails to selectively mark areas of onychomycosis infection (LEDs emitting at approximately 630 nm—[0101]); and
a second wavelength of light for reducing inflammation and for photodisinfection of the onychomycosis (LEDs emitting at approximately 405 nm—[0101]).
The cited embodiment (Figs. 5-7) of Nash is not explicitly clear in showing that the light source array is embedded in at least a top surface of the cavity (Fig. 6b appears to show the housing 697 with an open top surface, the light source array arranged there above).
However, Nath teaches a related embodiment (Fig. 2) wherein a light emitter (light guide 24 with cross-section converter 26 and rotating table 27—see [0059], [0052]) is coupled by bolts (28) to a top surface of a housing (110/210) ( housing 110 receives foot or hand of patient to irradiate all five toenails or fingernails with light, the housing 110 functioning to screen light so that persons nearby are not exposed to the extreme brightness of scattered light—[0052]; housing 110 is also partially transparent to facilitate observation of the toenails during treatment—[0055]; housing 110 includes side faces, a front face, and a top surface—[0057]; note that housing 210 is the same as housing 110).
PNG
media_image4.png
562
376
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the embodiment of Figs. 5-7 of Nath such that the housing (697) includes a top wall with the LED array coupled thereof, as substantially seen in the embodiments of Figs. 1-4 of Nath, for the benefit of protecting users from the extreme brightness of the emitted light (Nath at [0052] discusses how housing 110 functions to screen light so that persons nearby the system are not exposed to extreme brightens). Thus arranged, the LED array of Nath is reasonably embedded in at least a top surface of the cavity. Also, it would otherwise be obvious to rearrange the LED array and/or make it integral with the top surface of the cavity, absent a showing of significance (i.e., a new or unexpected result); see MPEP 2144.04(VI.)(C.) and MPEP 2144.04(V.)(B.) regarding the obviousness of rearranging parts and making parts integral, respectively.
Regarding claim 2, Nath teaches the device of claim 1. As seen in Fig. 2 of Nath (the housing 110/210 of which is essentially incorporated into the modified embodiment of Nath discussed with respect to claim 1 above), Nath further teaches the cavity encloses the lateral, medial and dorsal forefoot regions of the foot (Fig. 2 shows the cavity enclosing the front portion of a foot, including sides, middle, and top thereof).
Regarding claim 3, Nath teaches the device of claim 1. Claim 3 indicates that the fluorophore is methylene blue. As discussed with respect to claim 1 above, the fluorophore recited in the claims is not interpreted as a positively recited structure of the claimed device and instead refers to a material worked on by the claimed device; see MPEP 2115. Furthermore, the 630 nm wavelength taught by Nath is capable of exciting methylene blue, as evidenced at least by the instant disclosure (at [0064]); thus, the device of Nath is capable of exciting a fluorophore wherein the fluorophore is methylene blue.
Regarding claim 4, Nath teaches the device of claim 1. Nath further teaches the plurality of LEDs comprise: a first subset of LEDs for emitting the first wavelength of light; and a second subset of LEDs for emitting the second wavelength of light (a mixture of diodes emitting in different colors, especially LEDs emitting at approximately 405 nm and LEDs emitting at approximately 630 nm—see [0101]).
Regarding claim 5, Nath teaches the device of claim 1. Nath further teaches the first wavelength is between 630 nm and 670 nm and the second wavelength is between 400 nm and 420 nm (a mixture of diodes emitting in different colors, especially LEDs emitting at approximately 405 nm and LEDs emitting at approximately 630 nm—see [0101]; “about” 630 nm and approximately 405 nm lay within or substantially overlap with the claimed ranges).
Regarding claim 7, Nath teaches the device of claim 1. The device of Nath is configured to illuminate all the toenails simultaneously (see Fig. 6b showing light stripe 696 laying over all the toenails so that they receive a sufficiently homogeneous beam power density—[0093]). Nath does not explicitly indicate that the illumination covers an area of at least 25 cm2, but Nath does teach irradiating all the toenails (see 6b and [0093] as discussed above) and suggests that the irradiation area should not be excessively expanded to avoid a reduction in optical power density ([0060]). Within these constraints, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at an illumination area of at least 25 cm2 across a horizontal plane by way of routine optimization, for the benefit of ensuring that the device is capable of irradiating the entire surface of all toenails of substantially any person without excessively increasing the power required by the system to achieve a suitable optical power density.
Regarding claim 10, Nath teaches the device of claim 1. Nath further teaches a cooling system having a heatsink (copper plate 54 and aluminum heat radiator 55 with cooling fins 551—[0091]) connected to the light source array (high power LEDs 541 are glued with good heat contact to a 10 mm thick copper plate 54—[0090]; the plate 54 including the diodes is connected in a heat-conductive manner to a heat radiator 55 made of aluminum having cooling fins 551—[0091]).
Regarding claim 11, Nath teaches the device of claim 10, wherein the cooling system further comprises at least one fan configured to force air over the heatsink (fan 552 provides air throughput through the radiator 55—[0092]).
Regarding claim 12, Nath teaches the device of claim 10. The embodiments of Nath (Figs. 5-7) primarily relied upon in the above rejections does not clearly comprises at least one fan configured to blow air into the cavity for cooling the foot. However, in a related embodiment, Nath explicitly recommends the use of a ventilator in communication with the cavity of the housing to prevent discomfort for a patient/user (because of the high radiation density of the radiation applied to the nail plate, the application of a ventilator [not shown here] or at least of shaded ventilation slots at the face of the housing 110 is recommended because of the noticeable heat action so that a maximum irradiation density can be maintained without noticeable pain for the patient—[0055]). From the suggestion of Nath, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the housing of Nath (as modified with respect to claims 1/10 above) with a fan (i.e., a common type of ventilator) configured to blow air into the cavity for the benefit of enabling a maximum irradiation density to be applied without causing pain to a patient being treated by the device (see Nath at [0055]).
Regarding claim 19, Nath teaches the device of claim 1. Nath teaches embodiments wherein a foot padding (318) which functions as a wall of the cavity has a foot bed which assists in positioning the foot more accurately in the light beam ([0082]). The foot bed fairly defines a marking (see Fig. 3, divot defined in padding 318 fairly constitutes a marking). Therefore, it would be obvious to incorporate into the modified device of Nath markings on side walls of the cavity for positioning the toenails within the region of illumination for the benefit of positioning the foot more accurately in the light beam (see Nath at [0082]).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nath (US 20120283622 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Dijkstra (US 2021/0282962 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Nath teaches the device of claim 1. Nath indicates that each LED diode can be equipped with a reflector (94) and lens (96) ([0092]) to guide the emitted light toward the toes. Nath also discusses configuring the LEDs to achieve the smallest possible overlapping area of light spots to obtain the most homogenous possible beam power density of all five nail plates in the irradiation field ([0122]), which evidently would be influenced by beam [spread] angle of the LEDs. Thus, Nath fairly suggests a focusing lens (lens 96, optionally with reflector 94) to concentrate light emitted by the LED so as to form a region of uniform illumination. Nath does not particularly indicate that the lens achieves an approximately 45-degree beam angle. However, in the analogous art of LED phototherapy devices (abstract), Dijkstra discusses a phototherapy devices comprising a plurality of LEDs which each include a focusing lens configured to confine emitted electromagnetic radiation within a beam angle of 30 to 60 degrees ([0014]), which range was found to be most beneficial ([0079]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the lenses of Nath to confine the emitted light to a beam angle of approximately 45 degrees (such as an angle between 30 and 60 degrees, as seen in Dijkstra) for the benefit of optimizing the coverage and uniformity of irradiation applied across the illumination field.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nath (US 20120283622 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Deng (CN 211486267 U, cited in the IDS filed 17 July, 2025; reference is made to the translation provided with said IDS).
Regarding claim 8, Nath teaches the device of claim 1. Nath does not teach the light source array is further embedded in opposing side walls of the cavity.
However, in the analogous art of LED lighting devices ([0002]) for phototherapy of human skin (skin under the irradiation of photodynamic force—[0016]), Deng teaches a housing comprising an upper panel (100) and side panels connected to the upper panel defining a space thereunder for receiving a part of the human body such as the feet, wherein multiple LED modules are distributed on the upper panel and the two side panels, each of which emit 415 nm blue light and 625 nm red light ([0026]; see Fig. 1). It is evident that irradiating the body portion from multiple sides allows for greater irradiation coverage and intensity across the inserted body part. Therefore, it would be obvious toa person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Nath to further include light source arrays embedded in opposite side walls of the cavity, as seen in Deng, for the benefit of improving the coverage of irradiation delivered to the target body part.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nath (US 20120283622 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Paesdag (DE 10-2020-124898 A1, cited in the IDS filed 17 July 2025; reference is made to the translation filed with said IDS).
Regarding claim 9, Nath teaches the device of claim 1. Nath does not particularly teach the light source array is further embedded in a back wall of the cavity.
However, in the analogous art of foot baths with blue light treatments ([0001]), Paesdag teaches a foot bath (2) comprising a box-like housing (4) with an LED carrier (14) integrated into its walls for receiving a firsts et of LEDs (212) along the top inner portion of the housing, an additional set of LEDs (214) along the bottom portion of the housing, and a further set of LEDs (210) along the and back of the housing (Fig. 1, [0089]). It is evident that such arrangement enables use of the device to irradiate substantially the entire surface of foot. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Nath to include a light source array embedded in a back wall of the cavity (as substantially seen with LEDs 210 of Paesdag) for the benefit of enabling the device to illuminate substantially the entire surface of a foot.
Regarding claim 17, Nath teaches the device of claim 1. Nath does not teach a detachable basin disposed within the cavity, for containing water or a solution for immersing the foot.
However, in the analogous art of foot baths with blue light treatments ([0001]), Paesdag teaches a foot bath designed for the irradiation of feet ([0087]) with blue, UV light, or red light irradiated by LEDs ([0088], [0090]; [0098]) which includes a tub for soaking a foot in a liquid (1010) which is removable from a device housing (Fig. 2; translucent tray 10 is removable from the housing 4—[0090]; tray 1010 is inserted into the housing 4—[0098]; inner tub 1010—[0091]; translucent tub 1010 for accommodating two feet in a foot bathing space—[0093]). The tub allows a therapeutic liquid to be delivered to the feet ([0004], [0089]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Nath to include a detachable basin (e.g., inner tub 1010 of Paesdag) disposable within the cavity for the benefit of enabling the device of Nath to be used for a combination liquid and photo therapy treatment, as seen in Paesdag.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nath (US 20120283622 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yoon (US 2022/0008747 A1, cited in the IDS filed 13 April, 2026).
Regarding claim 16, Nath teaches the device of claim 1. Nath does not clearly teach extendable feet, wherein a distance between the light source array and the toes may be varied by extending or retracting the feet.
However, it is first noted that the structure of the recited “extendable feet” is recited broadly and may encompass any extendable structure which can be adjusted to change a distance between the light source array and the toes.
Furthermore, Yoon, in the analogous art of phototherapy apparatuses (title), teaches a phototherapy apparatus (100) comprising a housing (110) ([0081]) which defines a cavity with an opening for receiving a portion of a user’s body (treatment space 115—[0083]), such as the toes ([0088]), wherein a plurality of LED arrays (light source unit 150 disposed on lower surface of body 140, light source unit 150 including multiple light sources 155 emitting therapeutic light—[0096]; light source 155 comprises light emitting chips 152—[0097]—which are LEDs—[0098]) are arranged on extendable feet (130) (moving units 130 capable of moving up or down by changing the length of the first moving unit—[0092]; body 140 disposed on lower surface of first moving unit 130—[0093]) so that the light sources may be moved closer to a surface of a user’s toe (Fig. 6, [0106]; also see [0112]-[0114])). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the light source array(s) of Nath to be suspended from extendable feet (moving units 130 of Yoon) for the benefit of promoting close contact between the light source and toes so that phototherapeutic light can be delivered more directly (consider Yoon at Fig. 6, [0106], and [0112]-[0114]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nath (US 20120283622 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kang (US 2022/0339463 A1, filed 02 March, 2022).
Regarding claim 18, Nath teaches the device of claim 1. Kang does not teach a camera disposed within the cavity, the camera configured to view the foot and/or the toes; and an external display connected to the device, for displaying the camera view.
However, in the analogous art of apparatuses for treating fungal infections of the feet (apparatus for treating athlete’s foot—tittle, abstract), Kang teaches an apparatus comprising a housing (main body 100) defining a cavity with an opening for receiving a hand or foot (body accommodating space part 110—Fig. 2, [0046]-[0047]; entrance to space 110—[0050]) and an LED light source unit (400) embedded within a wall of the cavity (LED light source unit 400 is mounted inside the grooved mounting part 101—[0070], see position with respect to cavity in Figs. 4 and 6) comprising a first set of LEDs (410) emitting light of a wavelength of 405 nm and a second set of LEDs (420) emitting light of a wavelength of 635 nm ([0068]), the light being emitted toward a foot for treating athlete’s foot ([0089]). Kang further teaches a camera (camera unit 800) which photographs a body part within the cavity (110) and a display unit (500) which displays photographic data from the camera to allow a user to monitor the treatment of the foot ([0077]-[0078]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to equip the device of Nath with a camera disposed within the cavity and external display for displaying the camera view, as seen in Kang, for the benefit of allowing a user to monitor the treatment of the foot ([0077]-[0078]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nath (US 20120283622 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Anderson et al. (US 2020/0323483 A1, cited in the IDS filed 17 July, 2025).
Regarding claim 20, Nath teaches the device of claim 1. Nath does not teach a fluorescence sensor disposed within the cavity, for detecting and quantifying fluorescence emission of the fluorophore; and an external display connected to the device, for displaying a fluorescence reading.
However, in the analogous art of therapeutic light systems (title, abstract), Anderson teaches a treatment module (1502) which receives a user’s foot, wherein an infection detection system in the treatment module carries out fluorescence spectroscopy to allow a controller (1504) to identify fungal infection and present the information to a display (1506) (Fig. 15, [0089]-[0090]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Nath to include a fluorescence sensor within the cavity and an external display for displaying a fluorescence reading (as substantially seen with the infection detection system and display 1506 of Anderson) for the benefit of identifying the location of the fungal infection on the foot (consider Anderson at [0090]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15 are 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.
Regarding claim 13, it is first emphasized that the claim has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), as set forth above. Accordingly, claim 13 is understood to require a ramped platform—or an equivalent thereof—which is detachably disposed within the cavity and is suitable to correct for differences in sizes between toes such that the toes of a foot positioned on the ramped platform (or equivalent) will all lay substantially within a plane (with respect to a top surface of the toes).
The closest prior art, Nath, teaches the device of claim 1. Nath does not teach a detachable levelling mechanism disposed within the cavity, for aligning toes of the foot in a substantially horizontal plane, such that all the toenails are substantially equidistant from the light source array.
Blanche et al. (US 2015/0343235 A1, cited in the IDS filed 17 July, 2025), in the analogous art of treatments of nail and foot fungus (title), teaches a device (100) for treating an infection of the nail bed (abstract) comprising a plurality of LEDs (175) arranged within an illumination chamber (105) (Figs. 1-3, [0057]-[0059]), wherein posts (105) are positioned within the chamber (105) and arranged to hold and contain a user’s toes (digits 185) (Fig. 5, [0066]). Blanche teaches other digit spacing mechanisms (360) for spacing a user’s fingers or toes when positioned within the device (Figs. 15A-B, [0094]-[0095]). Nonetheless, Blanche does not teach the posts/spacing mechanisms comprising a ramped platform suitable for arranging all toes of a user in a horizontal plane (e.g., Fig. 5 of Blanche clearly shoes toes 185 wherein a surface of the big toe is much closer to light sources 175 than the other toes).
Certain structures which constitute ramped platforms which could feasibly align toes in a horizontal plane are known. For example, US 20190091090 A1 discloses a lift wedge (104) having a ramp shape that is depicted with the a narrower end of the ramp inserted underneath the foot from a pinky toe side of the foot toward a big toe side of a foot so that the toes appear more evenly aligned along a horizontal plane (Figs. 2-3, [0092]). However, US 20190091090 A1 does not provide any suggestion to use the lift wedge to align toes within a phototherapy device, and is instead in the field of endeavor of devices for foot exercise (title). Accordingly, there is insufficient evidence in the prior art which would reasonably motivate a person to implement a ramped platform within a phototherapy device as claimed.
No further prior art was found which reasonably teaches or suggests the leveling mechanism of claim 13 in combination with the phototherapy device of claim 1. Accordingly, the subject matter of claim 13 (as interpreted) is novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Claims 14-15 contain allowable subject matter by virtue of dependency on claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY C PILSBURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8054. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30a-5:00p.
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, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/BRADY C PILSBURY/Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights