Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/762,632

Light Treatment Device

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 02, 2024
Examiner
SAHAND, SANA
Art Unit
3796
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
2-3
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
191 granted / 308 resolved
-8.0% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+26.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
76 currently pending
Career history
384
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
14.9%
-25.1% vs TC avg
§103
47.1%
+7.1% vs TC avg
§102
10.2%
-29.8% vs TC avg
§112
22.3%
-17.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 308 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/16/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC 102 and/or 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the rejections as detailed below. 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. Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20170071321 A1 to Tang et al. (hereinafter “Tang”). Regarding claim 1. (Original) Tang discloses a light treatment device for skin and other tissues (para 0021, “cleaning device 100”), comprising: a housing (para 0021 “main body 110”); a head plate rotatably affixed to the housing (para 0021-0023 “brush head”, fig. 2), wherein: the head plate comprises a plurality of at least one of radially or rotationally symmetric regions (fig. 2-3, para 0022), each region comprises at least one of resilient bristles, rigid protrusions, or a rigid wavy surface (fig 1, para 0023, etc.); and the head plate further comprises at least one transparent or translucent area provided between at least two of the regions (para 0030 “light may be emitted out of a space between the bristles 154 through the support stand 144 and the base 152”), a motor configured to rotate the head plate relative to the housing (para 0021, 0024, etc. “power source”); and at least one light-emitting element provided on the housing beneath the head plate and configured to emit light through the at least one transparent or translucent area of the head plate (para 0030, “plurality of light sources 160”, fig. 2), wherein the motor is configured to rotate the head plate in a non-oscillatory manner (para 0010, 0011, 0021 “drives the brush heads 150 to vibrate through the transmission shaft 130 and the support stand”). Regarding claim 3. (Original) Tang discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the at least one light-emitting element is configured to emit light at one or more particular wavelengths or wavelength ranges within the spectrum of light (para 0030). Regarding claim 4. (Original) Tang discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the head plate comprises a rotatable disc and a disc cover affixed to the rotatable disc (para 0023). Regarding claim 10. (Currently amended) Tang discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the head plate comprises at least two types of contact surfaces selected from the group consisting of resilient bristles, rigid protrusions, or rigid wavy surfaces (para 0028-0034 having different “hardness of bristle”). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of US Pat Pub No. 20120209151 granted to Zhou et al. (hereinafter “Zhou” – previously provided). Regarding claim 2. (Original) Tang discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising a chamber within the housing configured to dispense a substance through the head plate. Zhou, from a similar field of endeavor, teaches a device having a container and dispenser to contain a skin treatment specimen and to dispense the content to the surface of the brush head (para 0045). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Tang with the teachings of Zhou, because doing so would allow providing a treatment specimen during the treatment to improve skin treatment (para 0012). Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of US Pat Pub No. 20090177125 to Pilcher et al (hereinafter “Pilcher” – previously provided). Regarding claim 5. (Original) Tang discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the device comprises a plurality of light- emitting elements (para 0030 “plurality of light sources”) but fails to explicitly disclose at least two of the plurality of light-emitting elements are configured to emit light at different particular wavelengths or wavelength ranges within the spectrum of light. Pilcher, from a similar field of endeavor teaches and shows that it is known to provide different wavelength using different wavelength emitters (para 0054). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Tang with the teachings of Pilcher because doing so would allow generating different wavelength simultaneously to improve treatment. Regarding claim 6. (Original) Tang as modified by Pilcher renders obvious the device of claim 5, wherein the different particular wavelengths or wavelength ranges are user-selectable (Pilcher, para 0034, 0048-0049, etc.). Regarding claim 7. (Original) Tang as modified by Pilcher renders obvious the device of claim 5, wherein the different particular wavelengths or wavelength ranges are automatically selected based on the head plate (Pilcher, para 0048-0049; it is noted that the claim does not require any details regarding how the wavelengths are selected automatically based on the head plate (i.e., are different head plates used?). under its BRI, any automatic selection/modulation of the wavelengths by the device would read over the claimed limitation. Here, different wavelengths are provided based on different treatments). Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of US Pat Pub No. 20140135798 to David (previously presented) Regarding claim 11. (Original) The device of claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising a sensor configured to detect a proximity of the head plate to a surface and to shut off power to at least one of the motor or the at least one light-emitting element when the head plate is not proximal to a surface. David, from a similar field of endeavor, shows that it is known to have proximity sensor to activate the emission of light when the treatment surface of the detachable treatment head is located within a pre-determined distance from the skin of the user (para 0010). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Tang with the known teachings of David to provide the predictable result of activating the device when the treatment surface of the detachable treatment head is located within a pre-determined distance from the skin of the user. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of US Pat Pub No. 20040147984 to Altshuler et al. (hereinafter “Altshuler”) Regarding claim 12. (Original) The device of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the device is configured to provide heat to the head plate from at least one of the at least one light-emitting element or a resistance heating arrangement provided in the housing. Altshuler, from a similar field of endeavor teaches providing a heat plate to be heated by the optical radiation source to provide heat to a skin region during use (para 0008, 0038, etc.). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Tang with the teachings of Altshuler to provide the predictable result of providing desired heat to the skin of the user. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of US Pat No. 4595838 to Kerschgens Regarding claim 13. (Original) The device of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the device is configured to provide heat to the head plate from at least one of a resistance heating arrangement provided in the head plate, or a thermal reservoir provided in the head plate. Kerschgens, teaches that it is known to provide a resistance heating element is used as the infrared radiator. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Tang with the known teachings of Kerschgens to provide the predictable result of providing desired heat to the skin of the user. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 8-9 and 14 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 SANA SAHAND whose telephone number is (571)272-6842. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 am -5:30 pm; F 9 am-3 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, Jennifer S McDonald can be reached at (571) 270- 3061. 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. /SANA SAHAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 02, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 16, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599335
DETECTION AND MONITORING OF SLEEP APNEA CONDITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588865
ELECTRONIC DEVICE PROVIDING EXERCISE GUIDE BASED ON EXERCISE CAPACITY AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588958
POSITION TRACKING DEVICE ASSEMBLIES AND COMPONENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12575743
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ASSESSING HEART AND RESPIRATORY DISORDERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575807
REINFORCEMENT LAYER FOR INTRALUMINAL IMAGING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+26.7%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 308 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month