DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3, 12, and 14 have been amended, and claim 6 has been cancelled. All other claims remain as originally or previously presented. Rejections of amended claims have been addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed on 7/01/2026, with respect to the previous specification objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous specification objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed on 7/01/2026, with respect to the previous claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous claim objections have been withdrawn. However, one new claim objection is made.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-15, filed on 7/01/2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 112(b) rejections of claims 1-14 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 15, filed on 7/01/2026, with respect to the previous double patenting rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please see the outstanding double patenting rejections below.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 15-20, filed on 7/01/2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Please see the reasons for indicating allowable subject matter below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of copending Application No. 18/811,092 in view of Rózsa (EP 3787742B1) and Ung (U.S. PGPub No. 2007/0183132). Claims 1 and 8 of Application ’092 anticipates the majority of the limitations of claim 1 in the Instant Application. See the table below:
Instant Application
18/811,092
Claim 1: A low power laser therapy device, which comprises at least two optical systems, wherein each optical system comprises
Claim 1: A low power laser therapy device, which comprises: an optical system, wherein the optical system comprises:
a laser light source, a beam expander in front of said light source, a raster arrangement of first light scattering elements on a frontal surface of an associated beam expander, and
a laser light source; a beam expander in front of said light source; a raster arrangement of first light scattering elements on a frontal surface of the beam expander; and
the device comprises a housing around the optical systems having a mouth opening covered by a closing member,
a housing around the optical system, wherein the housing comprises a mouth opening cover by a closing member,
wherein, in front of the optical systems, a second light scattering element is arranged that fills said mouth opening and comprising an arrangement of pyramids,
wherein, in front of the optical system, a raster arrangement of second light scattering element fills said mouth opening, and
and the first light scattering elements are made as pyramids, and
the beam expanders and the first and second light scattering elements are made from a non-polarizing transparent material,
wherein the beam expander and the first and second light scattering elements are made from a non-polarizing transparent material.
and wherein an axial distance between the first and second light scattering elements is between 1.5 to 2.5 times of a height of the pyramids.
Claim 8: The device according to claim 4, wherein an axial distance between the first and second light scattering elements is between 1.5 to 2.5 times of a height of the pyramids.
The limitation “at least two optical systems” from claim 1 of the Instant
Application does not map to claim 1 of Application ’092. Rózsa, however, teaches a low power laser therapy device which comprises at least two optical systems, wherein each optical system comprises a laser light source, a beam expander, first and second light scattering elements, and a closing member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device recited in claim 1 of Application ’092 to include at least two optical systems, as taught by Rózsa, in order to increase both penetration depth and size of the area of the light therapy to improve therapeutic outcomes (Col. 5).
The limitations “a second light scattering element…comprises an arrangement of
pyramids” and “the first light scattering elements are made as pyramids” from claim 1 of the Instant Application do not map to claim 1 of Application ’092. Ung, however, teaches a method for the production of a photoelectron that uses a light source, a beam expander, and a closing member. Ung also teaches using first light scattering elements (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0026, lines 8-9) and a second light scattering element (Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0054, line 1) that are made as pyramids (Paragraph 0054, lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device recited in claim 1 of Application ’092 to include first and second light scattering elements that are made as pyramids as taught by Ung, in order to allow light to be dispersed, no matter what direction the lights are incident from (Paragraph 0054). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if a terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) is timely filed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the invention of claim 1 is directed to a low power laser therapy device, which comprises at least two optical systems, wherein each optical system comprises a laser light source, a beam expander in front of said light source, a raster arrangement of first light scattering elements on a frontal surface of an associated beam expander, and the device comprises a housing around the optical systems having a mouth opening covered by a closing member, wherein, in front of the optical systems, a second light scattering element is arranged that fills said mouth opening and comprising an arrangement of pyramids, and the first light scattering elements are made as pyramids, and the beam expanders and the first and second light scattering elements are made from a non-polarizing transparent material, and wherein an axial distance between the first and second light scattering elements is between 1.5 to 2.5 times of a height of the pyramids.
Claim 1 would be allowable for disclosing that an axial distance between the first
and second light scattering elements is between 1.5 to 2.5 times of a height of the pyramids. Claims 2-14 would be allowable, as they depend on claim 1.
The closest prior art of record is that which was applied in the previous office action: Rózsa (EP 3787742B1) and Ung (U.S. PGPub No. 2007/0183132). Rózsa discloses a low power laser therapy device that comprises at least two optical systems, wherein each optical system comprises a laser light source, a beam expander, a raster arrangement of first light scattering elements, a housing, and a closing member made from a non-polarizing material.
Ung discloses a method for producing a photoelectron that uses an analogous device that includes a first light scattering element and a second light scattering element. Ung teaches that the first and second light scattering elements comprise a raster arrangement of pyramids that are made from a non-polarizing transparent material. Ung is silent regarding the axial distance between the first and second light scattering elements. Figure 2A of Ung simply shows that the two light scattering elements are close together. Furthermore, Ung does not suggest that the distance between the two light scattering elements can or should be altered, or that the distance impacts attenuation or reflection loss. Therefore, the discussed limitation in claim 1 would be allowable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Heidi Hilsmier whose telephone number is (571)272-2984. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Fridays from 7:30 AM - 3:30 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, Niketa Patel can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
/H.A.H./Patent Examiner , Art Unit 3796
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights