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
Drawing Objections
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/29/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant makes the following arguments:
The drawings when read in light of the specification shown every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Even if Examiner maintains that the drawings do not explicitly depict each individual optical system Applicant submits that 37 CFR 1.83(a) does not require such a redundant illustration.
Regarding point (i), Examiner notes that 37 CFR 1.83(a) does not require that the drawings when read in light of the specification show every feature of the claim but rather that “the drawings” individually “show every feature of the claims”. As indicated in the Non-Final Rejection, the drawings do not show “a second optical system”, “a third optical system”, and “a fourth optical system”. Applicant requested that the Examiner indicate precisely what additional illustration would be required in the event that Examiner maintains the drawing objection. Examiner notes that any additional illustration provided should include an illustration of the missing features without the introduction of new matter.
Regarding point (ii), Examiner notes that the emphasized section of 37 CFR 1.83(a) (“…However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the form of a graphical drawing symbol of a labeled representation), still requires that the features be illustrated in the drawings. Regardless, Examiner notes that the features missing would not be described as “conventional” as they are specific components of the low power laser therapy device (see claims 9-11).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/29/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant makes the following arguments in regard to the rejections of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
Applicant argues that the term “beam expander” carries a well-understood meaning in the art. Further arguing that the term is unambiguous on its face and requires no amendment.
Applicant argues that the claimed features related to the pyramidal and circular symmetrical structures are clear as drafted. Further arguing that, if questions were to arise, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to look to the specification to readily ascertain their meaning.
Applicant argues that “circular symmetrical shapes”, discussed in claim 9, refer to the overall geometry of the optical structures and not their cross-sectional profile. Further arguing that the description makes this clear and one of ordinary skill in the art would have no difficulty understanding the scope of the claim.
Regarding point (i), Examiner acknowledges that “a beam expander” carries a well-understood meaning in the art. Examiner notes that the rejection made in the Non-Final Rejection (4/29/2026) was not in relation to the word “beam expander” being unclear, but rather that applicants use of the word “beam expander” appears to be inconsistent with its accepted meaning. As discussed in the Non-Final Rejection (04/29/2026), Applicants beam expander does not appear to expand light, but instead serve as a defined region or channel for light to pass through.
Regarding point (ii), Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated in the Non-Final Rejection (4/29/2026) the limitations “and their center points fall into an apex point of a regular triangle” (claim 9) and “…and their center points fall into an apex points of a square” (claim 10) are unclear. Applicant states that one of ordinary skill would be able to look to the description to ascertain their meaning, however, Examiner notes, that the specification does not provide a definition for “an apex point of a regular triangle” or “an apex point of a square”. The specification simply states that optical systems can be arranged such that “their centers fall on the apex point of a regular triangle” (see Applicant’s Specification [0034]). Examiner notes that because squares and triangles do not have “apex points” one of ordinary skill in the art would be left to infer what applicant means by the limitation “apex points”.
Regarding point (iii), Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in Applicant’s Fig. 1, the optical system (i.e., combination of light source, beam expander and first light scattering elements), is not entirely circular in shape. For example, Fig. 1 shows the “beam expander” having a conical shape and the “light source” having a rectangular shape. Applicant argues that the description makes this clear, however the only instances of the term “circularly symmetrical” in Applicant’s specification do not appear to provide additional clarification [0054, 0056] on how the overall geometry of the optical structures are “circularly symmetrical”.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 04/29/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection. Given that Liu and Liu II are still being relied upon, Examiner addresses the following arguments:
Applicant makes the following statement “with respect to the beam expander, the Examiner appears to take the position that this feature is disclosed by the protruding structures 41”. Further arguing that the protruding structures cannot serve as both the first light scattering elements, second light scattering element and, simultaneously, the beam expander.
Applicant argues that Liu II does not remedy the features absent from Liu I, even if Liu II were combined with Liu I.
Regarding point (i), Examiner notes for the record that the protruding structures 41 are not being relied upon to teach the claimed “beam expander”. As indicated in the Non-Final Rejection (4/29/2026), the claimed beam expander is mapped to the “middle rectangle” shown in FIG. 5e. Looking at FIG. 5e it can be seen that the middle rectangle does includes sections of protruding structures, however, the middle rectangle and protruding structures 41 are separate features (Examiner notes Fig. 5c shows an illustration of the “middle rectangle” without protruding structures). See Examiner FIG. 3 below for an illustration of all components: beam expander, first light scattering element, and second light scattering element.
PNG
media_image1.png
465
971
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding point (ii), as indicated above (see paragraph above regarding point (i)) Liu discloses “a beam expander”, “a first light scattering element”, and “a second light scattering element”. Examiner notes that Liu II is only being relied upon to teach the use of a laser light source as indicated in paragraphs 29-31 of the Non-Final Rejection (4/29/2026).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
“a second optical system” (claims 9-11)
“a third optical system” (claims 9-11)
“a fourth optical system” (claim 11)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
While not necessarily unclear, it is conceivable that the following terms could be interpreted in ways other than the manner in which they are interpreted herein.
The limitation “wherein the fisheye lens is integral to the first scattering element” is being interpreted as requiring the fisheye lens be located on the surface of the first light scattering element, placed in contact with the first light scattering element or held in contact with the first light scattering element, as described in Applicant’s specification [0039].
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In re claim 15, the limitation “…wherein the power of each one of the light sources (10) is between 100 mW and 600 mW”, should read “…wherein the power of each one of the light sources is between 100 mW and 600 mW”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 and 3-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In re claim 1,
Applicant’s use of the term “a beam expander” appears to be inconsistent with its accepted meaning i.e., an optical device that takes a beam of light and expand its width. As best understood, based on the specification, the “beam expander” claimed by Applicant does not expand the laser light but rather serves as a defined region or channel for the light to pass through. For the purposes of examination, as best understood, the limitation “a beam expander” will be interpreted as a region or channel in which light passes through. Examiner notes that dependent claims (2-15) inherit the same deficiencies.
Examiner notes that dependent claims 3-19 inherit the same deficiencies.
In re claim 5, the limitation “wherein said pyramids each have a quadratic base” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what applicant means by “quadratic base” given that this is not an ART recognized term. For examination purposes, as best understood, the limitation “wherein said pyramids each have a quadratic base” will be interpreted to mean that each pyramid must have a base with four sides.
In re claim 9,
The limitation “wherein the three optical systems have circular symmetrical shapes” is incorrect. Looking at Applicants FIG. 1 it can be seen that the optical system (i.e., beam expander and laser light source) is not entirely circular in shape. Specifically, the beam expander and light source are illustrated as having a conical and rectangular in shape respectively (FIG. 1). Therefore, as best understood, based on Applicant’s specification, the limitation “wherein the three optical systems have a circular symmetrical shape” is being interpreted as requiring the optical system to have a circular cross section.
The limitation “…and their centre points fall into an apex point of a regular triangle” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what applicant means by “apex points of regular triangle”, given that 2-D shapes do not have “apex points” (Examiner notes that the term “apex” is used to refer to the highest vertex opposite a defined base). As best understood, based on Examiner FIG. 2 below, the limitation “and their centre points fall to an apex points of a regular triangle” is being interpreted to mean that together the center points of each optical system form a triangle where each center point is one corner (i.e., vertex) of the triangle.
Examiner notes that dependent claim 10 inherits the same deficiencies.
PNG
media_image2.png
371
718
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re claim 11,
Regarding the limitation “wherein the four optical systems have circularly symmetrical shapes”, see above (In re claim 9 (i)).
The limitation “and their centre points fall to an apex points of a square” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what applicant means by “apex points of a square”, given that 2-D shapes do not have “apex points” (Examiner note that the term “apex” is used to refer to the highest vertex opposite a defined base). As best understood, based on Examiner FIG. 1 above, the limitation “and their centre points fall to an apex points of a square” is being interpreted to mean that together the center points of each optical system form a square, where each center point is one corner (i.e., vertex) of the square.
In re claim 15, the limitation “which comprises at least one pilot LED light source emitting light in a visible range of wavelength and being switched together with said laser light sources and/or wherein the power of each one of the laser light sources (10) is between 100 mW and 600 mW”, is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear how there can be multiple “laser light sources” when the parent claim (claim 1), only discloses a single laser light source (“a laser light source”). For the purposes of examination, as best understood the limitation, “which comprises at least one LED light source emitting light in a visible range of wavelength and being switched together with said laser light sources and/or wherein the power of each one of the laser light sources (10) is between 100 mW and 600 mW”, will be interpreted as requiring a single laser light source instead of multiple laser light sources.
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.
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, 3-8, 12, 14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (WO 2018/059526), in view of Liu et al. (US 2014/0039473; herein referred to as Liu II), in view of Beckman et al. (US 2015/0112411).
In re claim 1, Liu discloses a *low power therapy device (abstract: “phototherapy device”; [0037]), which comprises:
an optical system (Fig. 5e: 40), wherein the optical system comprises:
a light source (21; [0041]: “LED module”);
a beam expander (Fig. 5e: middle rectangle) in front of said light source (Fig. 5e; regarding limitation “a beam expander”, see above section Claim Rejections 112 (In re claim 1 (ii)));
a raster arrangement of first light scattering elements (41 on top surface of the middle rectangle) on a frontal surface of the beam expander (Fig. 5e; [0052]); and
a housing around the optical system (exterior walls of 40, shown in greater detail in Fig. 2),
wherein the housing comprises a mouth opening (top space of 40) covered by a closing member (Fig. 5e: top surface of 40 formed with raised structures; [0052]),
wherein, in front of the optical system, a second light scattering element ([0052]: “raised structures” on top surface of 40 (indicated by marker 41 on top of Fig. 5e) fills said mouth opening (Fig. 5e), and
wherein the beam expander and the first and second light scattering elements are made from a non-polarizing transparent material ([0048]: “diffusion model 40 can be made of a high transmission low absorption material including…PMMA (polymethyl methacrylate) material”).
Liu lacks:
a laser light source.
a fisheye lens; and
wherein the fisheye lens is positioned between the first light scattering elements and the second light scattering element.
Liu II discloses a therapy device (FIG. 1) that like Liu is capable of delivering low powered laser energy [0063] to a patient’s skin (40). Liu II further discloses the laser energy being generated by a radiation source (14). As discussed in Liu II, the radiation source could be any device capable of generating energy including a laser, a LED, a flashlamp, an ultrasound device, or a RF device [0050].
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 light source of Liu, to be a laser, as taught by Liu II. One would have been motivated to make this modification because the light source of Liu and laser of Liu II are functionally equivalent. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the ability to choose the light source (i.e., LED or laser) that would best meet their needs.
Regarding the limitation “a fisheye lens”
Beckman discloses a phototherapy device (FIG. 4), that like the proposed combination, is capable of delivering laser energy to a patient’s skin [0031]. The phototherapy device includes two optical systems (172, 180; FIG. 6 shows a single optical system in greater detail) that each comprise: a beam expander (FIG. 6: 174), a wide-angle lens (404), a diode element (406), and a light emitting diode (170). As shown in FIG. 6, the wide-angle lens is positioned upstream from the light emitting diode which is understood to increase collimation and spatial coherence [0059].
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 optical system of the proposed combination to include a fisheye lens, as taught by Beckman. One would have been motivated to make this modification to increase collimation and spatial coherence.
Regarding the fisheye lens being “…positioned between the first scattering element and the second scattering element”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to position the fisheye lens between the first scattering element and the second scattering element, since there are a finite number of locations on the optical system of Liu in which the fisheye lens could be placed. Examiner notes that a person of ordinary skill in the art looking incorporate a fisheye lens into the proposed combination (specifically one upstream of a light emitting diode as taught by Beckman) would consider two locations (all mapping directed to Examiner FIG. 3):
1) in between the three light sources (21) and the “first light scattering elements” or
2) in between the “first light scattering elements” and “second light scattering element”.
Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to place the fisheye lens in between the first light scattering elements and the second light scattering element, as such location makes it possible to address all three light sources using a single fisheye lens. Accordingly, such a modification would yield “…a fisheye lens positioned between the first scattering element and the second scattering element.”
*Regarding the limitation “a low power laser therapy device” is it apparent that the laser therapy device of Liu is “low power” given that the laser therapy device is used to skin which can burn if exposed to too much light energy (Liu, [0037]). However, in so far as this is not explicitly stated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the laser therapy device of Liu, to be a low power laser therapy device, as taught by Liu II. One would have been motivated to make this modification to prevent a patient’s skin from being damaged during phototherapy (Liu, [0037]).
In re claim 3, see above (In re claim 1; Claim Interpretation section ).
In re claim 4, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Liu)
wherein the arrangement of the first light scattering element comprises a raster arrangement of pyramids arranged in rows and columns (Fig. 5e; [0052]: “shape of the raised structure 41 can be pyramidal”).
In re claim 5, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Liu)
wherein the pyramids have a quadratic base (Fig. 4; [0052]: “shape of the raised structure 41 can be pyramidal”; regarding the limitation “quadratic base” see above section Claim Rejections 112 (In re claim 5)).
The proposed combination does not yield, -and their apex angles are between 85°and 95°.
Regarding the limitation “…and their apex angles is between 85°and 95°”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the apex angles of said pyramids be between 85°and 95°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In re claim 6, regarding the limitation “wherein a height of said pyramids is between 0.6 and 1.3 mm.”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a height of said pyramids be between 0.6 and 1.3 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In re claim 7, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Liu) wherein the second light scattering element is integral to the closing member ([0052]: “raised structure 41 can be formed on the diffusion model…”; Examiner notes that the raised structure 41 is disposed on the top surface of 40, i.e., the closing member).
In re claim 8, regarding the limitation “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.”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have an axial distance between the first and second light scattering elements be between 1.5 to 2.5 times of a height of the pyramids, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In re claim 12, regarding the limitation “wherein a material of the first and second light scattering elements or of the beam expander is polymethyl methacrylate.”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the first and second light scattering elements and/or the beam expander out of polymethyl methacrylate since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use or purpose. See MPEP 2144.07.
In re claim 14, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Liu II)
wherein the laser light source is configured to emit light in an infrared range of wavelength ([0018]: “treatment device may provide radiation at a wavelength of 808 nm”; Examiner notes that infrared range is defined as wavelengths between 750 nm and 1 mm),
wherein the laser light source is preferably configured to emit light at 808nm ([0018]: “treatment device may provide radiation at a wavelength of 808 nm”).
In re claim 17, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Liu), wherein the second light scattering element comprises a raster arrangement of pyramids arranged in rows and columns (Fig. 5e; [0052]: “shape of the raised structure 41 can be pyramidal”).
In re claim 18, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Liu), wherein the second light scattering element has an inner surface on which the raster arrangement of pyramids is arranged to face towards the first light scattering element (see Fig. 5e which shows second light scattering elements facing first light scattering elements).
In re claim 19, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Liu),
wherein the second light scattering element comprises a plurality of pyramids (Fig. 5e; [0052]: “shape of the raised structure 41 can be pyramidal”).
The proposed combination does not yield,
wherein the second light scattering element comprises a plurality of semi-spheres, frustums and/or swellings.
Regarding the limitations “semi-spheres, frustums and/or swellings” 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 second light scattering element to comprise a plurality of semi-spheres, frustums and/or swellings, since the courts have held that a change in shape alone without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), [t]he court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.” MPEP § 2144.04-IV-B.
Claims 9-11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (WO 2018/059526), in view of Liu et al. (US 2014/0039473; herein referred to as Liu II), in view of Beckman et al. (US 2015/0112411), in view of Rózsa (WO 2019/211638; herein referred to as Rózsa II).
In re claim 9, the proposed combination does not yield
a second optical system, and
a third optical system,
wherein the three optical systems have circularly symmetrical shapes and their centre points fall to an apex point of a regular triangle.
Rózsa II discloses an analogous low power laser therapy device (Fig. 1, Fig. 2), with four circularly shaped optical systems ([12a, 18a], [12b, 18b], [12c,18c], and [12d, 18d]), enclosed in a housing (Fig. 1; pg. 4, lines 34-pg. 5, line 1). As described in Rózsa II, the use of multiple optical systems orients a treatment light in such a way that causes an increase in both the penetration depth and size of the treatment area (Fig. 3, Fig. 4: 25; pg. 5 line 32- pg. 6 line 12). Rózsa II further discloses that the laser device could optionally include only three optical systems if desired. (pg. 6, lines 24-25).
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 laser therapy device of the proposed combination to have a second optical system and a third optical system, as taught by Rózsa II. One would have been motivated to make this modification, to be able to use laser therapy device to treat conditions that require light to penetrate deep into the skin (pg. 2, lines 25-27; pg. 6, lines 13-16). Accordingly, such a modification would yield “…and their centre points fall into an apex point of a regular triangle”.
In re claim 10, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Rózsa II)
wherein the three optical systems beam expanders (18a, 18b, 18c) comprise a common central portion (Fig. 2; Examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitation “…beam expanders comprise a common central portion” is being interpreted as requiring the beam expanders to be located in a common area.) and
wherein the three optical systems comprise a common body (Fig. 1; Examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitation “a common body” is being interpreted as a shared housing or structure that encloses all three optical systems).
In re claim 11, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Rózsa II) comprising:
a second optical system (12b, 18b)
a third optical system (12c, 18c);
a fourth optical system (12d, 18d),
wherein the four optical systems have
circularly symmetrical shapes (Fig. 1, Fig. 2; See above section Claim Rejections 112 (In re claim 9 (i))) and
their centre points fall to an apex points of a square (Fig. 2; see above section Claim Rejections 112 (In re claim 11 (iii))), and
wherein adjacent beam expanders of the respective beam expanders of the four optical systems contact each other at respective single points (Fig. 2; see darker “+” in middle which represents points at which said beam expanders touch).
For substantially the same reasons as discussed In re claim 9 above, 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 laser therapy device of the proposed combination to have four optical systems, as taught by Rózsa II.
In re claim 13, the proposed combination does not yield wherein an inner surface of the housing comprises a light reflecting layer.
Rózsa II further discloses the inner surface (21) of the housing being coated with a light reflective layer (pg. 5, line 1-2).
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 housing of the proposed combination to have a reflective inner surface, as taught by Rózsa II. One would have been motivated to make this modification to help ensure that the light leaving the closing member is uniformly scattered (Rózsa II, pg. 5, lines 1-7).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (WO 2018/059526), in view of Liu et al. (US 2014/0039473; herein referred to as Liu II), in view of Beckman et al. (US 2015/0112411), in view of Rózsa (WO 2019/211638; herein referred to as Rózsa II), in view of Canitano et al. (US 2006/0129211).
In re claim 15, the proposed combination does not disclose
which comprises at least one pilot LED light source emitting light in a visible range of wavelength and being switched together with said laser light sources and/or
wherein the power of each one of the laser light sources (10) is between 100 mW and 600 mW.
Rózsa II further discloses arranging a LED light source between a laser light source (12a, 12b, 12c, 12d) of each optical system (pg. 4, lines 12-14). As discussed in Rózsa II, each LED light source serves to provide a visual indication that the laser light sources are functioning properly (pg. 4, lines 12-14).
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 laser therapy device of the proposed combination to comprise at least one LED light source emitting a light in a visible range of wavelength and being switched together with said light sources, as taught by Rózsa II. One would have been motivated to make this modification to have a visual indication that the laser light sources are on and functioning properly (pg. 4, lines 12-14 and pg. 2, lines 1-5).
Regarding the limitation “pilot”, Canitano, like the proposed combination, discloses a device that delivers low level laser therapy to a patient (abstract; Fig. 2). The device includes a set of pilot LEDs (92) that are activated prior to laser therapy delivery [0044].
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 LED of the proposed combination to be a pilot LED, as taught by Canitano. One would have been motivated to make this modification because use of pilot LEDs in low power laser devices is known in the art. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the ability to select a type of LED that would best meet their needs.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the power of each one of the laser light sources (10) is between 100 mW and 600 mW”. Rózsa II further discloses each of the laser light sources preferably having a power of 500 mW (pg. 6, lines 20-21) because 500 mW is enough power to sufficiently treat large areas without overheating the device (pg. 6, lines 20-24).
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 power of each one of the laser light sources to be between 100 mW and 600 mW, as taught by Rózsa II. One would have been motivated to make this modification because powers within this range are strong enough to treat large areas of the skin without causing the device to overheat (Rózsa II pg. 6, lines 20-24).
Examiner notes that although the limitation “wherein the power of each one of the laser light sources (10) is between 100 mW and 600 mW” is yielded by the proposed combination, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the power of each of the laser light sources be between 100 mW and 600 mW, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In re claim 16, see above (In re claim 15).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Roersma et al. (US 2006/0293728) discloses a handheld device (Fig. 3) that delivers low does of electromagnetic radiation to control/eliminate hair growth (abstract). As shown in FIG. 3, the handheld device has two optical systems that each comprise a light source (106) and a wide-angle lens (107).
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-7052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7-4pm CT.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)-270-5625. 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.
/OLIVIA WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/DAVID HAMAOUI/SPE, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights