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 .
Status of Application, Amendments and Claims
The applicant’s response filed 05 May 2026 is entered. Claims 1-10, 12-13, 17-20, and 22-26 are pending; claims 1, 2, 5, 10 and 13 are amended; claims 22-26 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection to address the newly added limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-10, 12-13, 17-20, 22 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moffat et al. (US 2020/0376292) in view of Hammond et al. (US 2010/0179469) and further in view of Bornstein (US 2007/0197884).
[Claims 1, 4-5, 12, 22, 25-26] Moffat discloses a method of treating a subject comprising exposing a skin area of the subject to a sub-erythemal dose of UV-B radiation (a phototherapy system emits narrowband UVB of 311-313 nm at initial doses of 300-800 mJ/cm2, i.e. 0.3-0.8 J/cm2, to a patient depending on Fitzpatrick skin type – at these some of these parameters match those disclosed by the applicant for achieving the effect of reducing body weight) [pars. 0035, 0042, Table 4], wherein: the exposing is repeated on different days (three exposures per week) [par. 0045]; wherein the UV-B radiation originates form an artificial source (a self-service phototherapy kiosk, #104, having a UV photoradiation assembly, #106) [par. 0050].
Moffat does not disclose exposing on different days until a weight loss has occurred and/or the UV-B radiation is applied until metabolic remodeling of the subject has occurred as accessed by determining the levels of a metabolic marker in a sample from the subject.
Hammond discloses an analogous phototherapy method and device comprising a plurality of organic light emitting diode (OLED) devices emitting a wavelength of in the UVB range of 280 nm to 315 nm [par. 0051] in order to promote weight loss [par. 0080; claim 6].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the phototherapy kiosk taught by Moffat to promote weight loss using the same UVB wavelengths as taught by Hammond in order to cause weight loss if so desired. It would further be obvious to expose the subject on different day until the desired weight loss is achieved.
Bornstein discloses weight loss causes decreases in plasma concentrations of C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) and increases in concentration of adiponectin [par. 0014]. These are metabolic markers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to assess weight loss when performing the method rendered obvious by Moffat in view of Hammond by using metabolic markers, including CRP, IL-6 and adiponectin, taken from plasma samples of the subject as taught by Bornstein.
[Claim 2] Moffat discloses wherein the UV-B radiation is a narrow-band UV-B radiation in the range of 305-315 nm (311-313 nm) [pars. 0035, 0042; Table 4].
[Claim 3] Moffat discloses the subject is a human (phototherapy chamber for a human user) [par. 0050].
[Claim 6] Moffat discloses the exposing is repeated on 1-7 days per week (three exposures per week) [par. 0045].
[Claim 7] Moffat discloses the exposed skin area corresponds to at least 5% of the body surface of the subject (chamber may be sized to contain an entire human user or to only receive a portion of a human user) [par. 0050].
[Claim 8] Moffat discloses the sub-erythemal dose is determined based on a skin type of the subject, wherein the initial dose for a subject with:
Fitzpatrick skin type I is 0.2 J/cm2,
Fitzpatrick skin type II is 0.3 J/cm2 (300 mJ/cm2) [see Table 4],
Fitzpatrick skin type III is 0.5 J/cm2 (500 mJ/cm2) [see Table 4], or
Fitzpatrick skin type IV to VI is 0.6 J/cm2.
[Claim 9] Moffat discloses the subject’ age factors into the dosage determination [par. 0157] but does not specifically recite the subject is 65 years old or younger. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to treat a subject 65 year old or younger with the phototherapy device.
[Claim 10] Moffat discloses the narrow-band UV-B radiation with the same parameters as the applicant (see rejections of claims 1 and 10 above) but does not disclose the radiation induces transient and/or reversible metabolic remodeling involving one or more of mitochondrial fragmentation/fission, peroxisomal and mitochondrial lipid beta-oxidation, lipid droplet turnover and glycolysis. Where a reference discloses the terms of the recited method steps, and such steps necessarily result in the desired and recited effect, that the reference does not describe the recited effect in haec verba is of no significance as the reference meets the claim under the doctrine of inherency [Ex parte Novitski, 26 USPQ2d 1389, 1390-91 (BdPatApp & Inter 1993)].
[Claim 13] Moffat in view of Hammond and Bornstein renders obvious using the narrow-band UV-B source (UV radiation assembly, #106) for the treatment of obesity and/or metabolic syndrome in a subject (employes the same parameters as applicant - see rejections of claims 1 and 10 above), wherein the source emits UV-B radiation in the range of 305-315 nm (emits narrowband UVB of 311-313 nm) [pars. 0035, 0042, Table 4]) and is configured for whole body irradiation of a human subject (chamber may be sized to contain an entire human user or to only receive a portion of a human user) [par. 0050]. Moffat does not disclose that the narrow-band UV-B source is a lamp. However, Moffat mentions a radiation lamp [par. 0171] and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to use a lamp-type radiation source in the phototherapy device. A lamp is one of many known types of light sources in the art.
[Claim 17] Moffat discloses the exposed skin area corresponds to at least 20% of the body surface of the subject (chamber may be sized to contain an entire human user or to only receive a portion of a human user) [par. 0050].
[Claim 18] Moffat discloses the exposed skin area corresponds to at least 80% of the body surface of the subject (chamber may be sized to contain an entire human user or to only receive a portion of a human user) [par. 0050].
[Claim 19] Moffat discloses a grading system for determining erythemal responses after 24 hours that may be used to adjust the dosage [par. 0139] but does not disclose for a repeated exposure, the initial dose is increased depending on skin appearance 12-24 hours after the initial exposure. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to assess the erythemal response after 24 hours before repeated exposure to ensure the skin is not undesirably damaged.
[Claim 20] Moffat discloses the subject’s age factors into the dosage determination [par. 0157] but does not specifically recite the subject is 50 years old or younger. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to treat a subject 50 years old or younger with the phototherapy device.
Claims 1 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moffat et al. (US 2020/0376292) in view of MacMahon (US 2021/0283420) and further in view of Prescott (US 2011/0251659).
[Claims 1, 23] Moffat discloses a method of treating a subject comprising exposing a skin area of the subject to a sub-erythemal dose of UV-B radiation (a phototherapy system emits narrowband UVB of 311-313 nm at initial doses of 300-800 mJ/cm2, i.e. 0.3-0.8 J/cm2, to a patient depending on Fitzpatrick skin type – at these some of these parameters match those disclosed by the applicant for achieving the effect of reducing body weight) [pars. 0035, 0042, Table 4], wherein: the exposing is repeated on different days (three exposures per week) [par. 0045]; wherein the UV-B radiation originates form an artificial source (a self-service phototherapy kiosk, #104, having a UV photoradiation assembly, #106) [par. 0050].
Moffat does not disclose exposing is repeated on different days until a decrease in blood glucose, blood cholesterol, blood LDL, blood HDL, and/or blood triglycerides is detected.
MacMahon discloses an analogous phototherapy method and device comprising emitting a wavelength of in the UVB range of 308 nm to 315 nm [par. 0063] in order to alleviate or eliminate metabolic syndrome [par. 0074].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the phototherapy kiosk taught by Moffat to treat metabolic syndrome using the same UVB wavelengths as taught by MacMahon in order to treat metabolic syndrome if so desired. It would further be obvious to expose the subject on different day until the desired weight loss is achieved.
Prescott discloses a phototherapeutic method of managing metabolic syndrome comprising a adjusting a light therapy regimen based on one or more measured metabolic syndrome parameters of the patient, such as triglyceride levels, glucose levels, HDL levels, etc. [Table I, II]. The light regimen may include a plurality of emission periods (during which the light beam is directed towards the target area) separated by interval periods (during which no light beam is generated) [par. 0007]. The e device may further include one or more parameter sensors (not shown) for measuring a metabolic syndrome parameter of the patient. These may include, for example, glucose levels, cholesterol levels, HDL levels, blood pressure, blood oxygen levels, etc. Based on the parameters to be measured, appropriate parameter sensors may be included in the device [par. 0022]. Patients with metabolic syndrome tend to have dyslipidemia (elevated triglycerides and reduced HDL cholesterol), hypertension, and high BMI [par. 0003].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method rendered obvious by Moffat in view of MacMahon to include the detection of glucose, HDL cholesterol and/or triglycerides in order to determine when a phototherapeutic treatment of metabolic syndrome has occurred.
[Claim 24] Prescott discloses a reduction of the levels of one or more marker selected from the group consisting of serum calcium, cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, triglyceride levels, serum glucose, and insulin is indicative of metabolic remodeling [Table I, II].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN J JENNESS whose telephone number is (571)270-5055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 15 July 2026
Prosecution Insights