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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 12/12/2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Last line: there is a trailing additional period. Please remove additional period.
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 8: “a void is associated” should be changed to “a void of the plurality of voids is associated”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-15 and 19-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an external environment” in line 16, whereas an external environment was already introduced in claim 1 (line 7). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different external environment. Consider changing to “the external environment”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the flexible processor circuitry" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this was intended to be the same as the flexible printed circuit board introduced previously in claim 12.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the flexible processor circuitry" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this was intended to be the same as the flexible printed circuit board introduced previously in claim 19.
*All other claims are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Grob, et al. (US2018/0296854).
Regarding claim 1, Grob teaches (Fig. 1, # 1) a phototherapy apparatus for delivering light to an infant (Abstract; Par. [0001]; Par. [0054]), the device comprising:
(Fig. 1, # 11 – LED carrier, i.e. light source sheet) a light source sheet including a backing, (Fig. 1, # 12, 13) light emitters mechanically supported by the backing, an isolating covering (Par. [0054] – A set 12 of LEDs 13 is arranged in or at the LED carrier 10, wherein in this embodiment all LEDs 13 are arranged inside the LED carrier such that they emit electromagnetic radiation 14 through the top surface 11 (which is transparent for the emitted electromagnetic radiation 14) such that at least part thereof directly impinges on subject 100 and thus provide phototherapy to the subject), and (Fig. 1, see lines connecting LEDs 13 to control unit 15 and position determination unit 16) electrical pathways located on the backing for delivering electrical power to the light emitters (Par. [0025] – battery as power supply, i.e. indicative of electrical pathways), wherein (Fig. 1, # 11, 13, 14) the light emitters are configured to emit light and the isolating covering is configured to electrically isolate the electrical pathways and the light emitters from an external environment (Par. [0054] – A set 12 of LEDs 13 is arranged in or at the LED carrier 10, wherein in this embodiment all LEDs 13 are arranged inside the LED carrier such that they emit electromagnetic radiation 14 through the top surface 11 (which is transparent for the emitted electromagnetic radiation 14) such that at least part thereof directly impinges on subject 100 and thus provide phototherapy to the subject; LED carrier 10 includes isolating covering that isolates light emitters from an external environment); and
(Fig. 1, see space between (i.e. spacing layer) top of LEDs 13 and top surface 11, 14) a spacing layer configured to diffuse the light from the light emitters before the light is emitted from the spacing layer, wherein the spacing layer contains at least one internal void which is positioned to overlap with at least one light emitter (Par. [0054]; Par. [0071]);
(Fig. 1, # 13 – LED, i.e. also acts as a sensor) at least one sensor located adjacent to the at least one light emitter, wherein the at least one internal void that overlaps the at least one light emitter also overlaps the at least one sensor (Par. [0023]; Par. [0056] – single LEDs, groups of LEDs or all LEDs can be operated in those two different modes, in which they either function as a conventional radiation emitting element or as a radiation detection element (similar to a photo detector or photodiode)),
(Fig. 1, # 13) wherein the sensor is configured to identify covered light emitters that are blocked by an obstruction, such that the light emitted by the light emitter is blocked by the obstruction from escaping into an external environment (Par. [0057] – Hence, if an LED outputs a detection signal with a small (or zero) amplitude indicating a small intensity of incident radiation, it is interpreted such that this LED is covered by the subject's body and no ambient radiation (or radiation from a dedicated illumination source (not shown in FIG. 1)) is incident on the LED. On the other hand, if an LED outputs a detection signal with comparably large amplitude indicating a larger intensity of incident radiation, it is interpreted such that this LED is not covered by the subject's body and ambient radiation (or radiation from a dedicated illumination source) is incident on the LED.; Par. [0060]); and
(Fig. 1, # 15 and 16 – control unit and position determination unit, i.e. processor circuitry) processor circuitry configured to control properties of the light emitted by the light emitters by:
receiving from the sensor the identified covered light emitters (Par. [0057] – The phototherapy system 1 further comprises a position determination unit 16 for determining the position of a subject 100 on the top surface 11 of the LED carrier 10 based on the detection signals of one or more LEDs 13 (e.g. of all LEDs) in the detection mode);
(Fig. 1, # 15 and 16) identifying uncovered light emitters as the light emitters that are not the identified covered light emitters (Par. [0057-0059]); and
(Fig. 1, # 15) controlling the determined uncovered light emitters, such that an output power of the uncovered light emitters is reduced compared to an output power of the covered light emitters (Par. [0027] – said control unit may be configured to control an LED to switch off or to switch into the detection mode if the detection signal generated by said LED in detection mode is above said predetermined threshold; Par. [0033]; Par. [0060-0061] – All other LEDs 13 can be switched off (i.e., output power is reduced); Par. [0062]).
Therefore, claim 1 is unpatentable over Grob, et al.
Regarding claim 2, Grob teaches the phototherapy apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
(Fig. 1, # 11 – top surface, i.e., external surface; Examiner notes that surface contacting top of LEDs 13 can be considered internal surface) the spacing layer includes an internal surface and an external surface opposite the internal surface (Par. [0054]);
the spacing layer is made of a flexible material (Par. [0054] – LED carrier can be configured as a bed, mattress, or blanket (i.e., made of a flexible material);
the spacing layer contains a plurality of voids;
the voids are positioned to overlap with the light emitters, such that the light emitted by the light emitters diffuses within the voids; and
a void is associated with a light emitter when the void overlaps the light emitter (Par. [0054] – plurality of voids shown in Fig. 1 for electromagnetic radiation 14 to travel through, with each void being associated with a different LED 13).
Therefore, claim 2 is unpatentable over Grob, et al.
Regarding claim 3, Grob teaches the phototherapy apparatus of claim 2, wherein:
(Fig. 1, # 10 – LED carrier, i.e. light source sheet) the internal surface is mechanically supported by the light source sheet; and the voids extend between the internal surface and the external surface (Par. [0054] – A set 12 of LEDs 13 is arranged in or at the LED carrier 10, wherein in this embodiment all LEDs 13 are arranged inside the LED carrier such that they emit electromagnetic radiation 14 through the top surface 11 (which is transparent for the emitted electromagnetic radiation 14) such that at least part thereof directly impinges on subject 100 and thus provide phototherapy to the subject).
Therefore, claim 3 is unpatentable over Grob, et al.
Regarding claim 7, Grob teaches the phototherapy apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
(Fig. 1, # 13) the sensor includes multiple detectors;
each light emitter includes an associated detector of the multiple detectors positioned to detect whether the light emitter is obstructed (Par. [0056-0057]; Examiner notes that each light emitter can function as a radiation detection element).
Therefore, claim 7 is unpatentable over Grob, et al.
Regarding claim 8, Grob teaches the phototherapy apparatus of claim 7, wherein, (Fig. 1, # 13) for each light emitter, the associated detector is positioned to detect an interaction of the light emitted by the light emitter with an obstruction of the light emitter when the obstruction is present, such that the light emitter is identified as an uncovered light emitter when the interaction of the emitted light is not detected by the associated detector (Par. [0057] – Hence, if an LED outputs a detection signal with a small (or zero) amplitude indicating a small intensity of incident radiation, it is interpreted such that this LED is covered by the subject's body and no ambient radiation (or radiation from a dedicated illumination source (not shown in FIG. 1)) is incident on the LED. On the other hand, if an LED outputs a detection signal with comparably large amplitude indicating a larger intensity of incident radiation, it is interpreted such that this LED is not covered by the subject's body and ambient radiation (or radiation from a dedicated illumination source) is incident on the LED.; Par. [0060]).
Therefore, claim 8 is unpatentable over Grob, et al.
Regarding claim 9, Grob teaches the phototherapy apparatus of claim 7, wherein:
(Fig. 1, # 13) the detector is configured to detect ambient light having a different wavelength than a wavelength of the emitted light;
for each light emitter, when the associated detector detects ambient light, identifying the light emitter as an uncovered light emitter; and
for each light emitter, when the associated detector does not detect ambient light, identifying the light emitter as a covered light emitter (Par. [0057]; – Hence, if an LED outputs a detection signal with a small (or zero) amplitude indicating a small intensity of incident radiation, it is interpreted such that this LED is covered by the subject's body and no ambient radiation (or radiation from a dedicated illumination source (not shown in FIG. 1)) is incident on the LED. On the other hand, if an LED outputs a detection signal with comparably large amplitude indicating a larger intensity of incident radiation, it is interpreted such that this LED is not covered by the subject's body and ambient radiation (or radiation from a dedicated illumination source) is incident on the LED.; Par. [0060]).
Therefore, claim 9 is unpatentable over Grob, et al.
Regarding claim 10, Grob teaches the phototherapy apparatus of claim 1, wherein (Fig. 1, see space between top of LEDs 13 and top surface, i.e. spacing layer, 10) the spacing layer is adhered to the light source sheet (Par. [0054]).
Therefore, claim 10 is unpatentable over Grob, et al.
Regarding claim 16, Grob teaches (Fig. 1, # 1) a method of manufacturing a phototherapy apparatus for delivering light to an infant (Title; Abstract; Par. [0001]; Par. [0054]; Examiner notes that as such a phototherapy apparatus for delivering light to an infant is disclosed, the method of its manufacturing is also considered to be disclosed), the method comprising:
(Fig. 1, # 11 – LED carrier, i.e. light source sheet) receiving a light source sheet including a backing, (Fig. 1, # 12, 13) light emitters mechanically supported by the backing (Par. [0054] – A set 12 of LEDs 13 is arranged in or at the LED carrier 10, wherein in this embodiment all LEDs 13 are arranged inside the LED carrier such that they emit electromagnetic radiation 14 through the top surface 11 (which is transparent for the emitted electromagnetic radiation 14) such that at least part thereof directly impinges on subject 100 and thus provide phototherapy to the subject), and (Fig. 1, see lines connecting LEDs 13 to control unit 15 and position determination unit 16) electrical pathways located on the backing for delivering electrical power to the light emitters (Par. [0025] – battery as power supply, i.e. indicative of electrical pathways), wherein (Fig. 1, # 11, 13, 14) the light emitters are configured to emit light (Par. [0054]);
(Fig. 1, # 11, 13, 14) applying an isolating covering to the light source sheet, such that the electrical pathways and the light emitters are electrically isolated from an external environment (Par. [0054] – A set 12 of LEDs 13 is arranged in or at the LED carrier 10, wherein in this embodiment all LEDs 13 are arranged inside the LED carrier such that they emit electromagnetic radiation 14 through the top surface 11 (which is transparent for the emitted electromagnetic radiation 14) such that at least part thereof directly impinges on subject 100 and thus provide phototherapy to the subject; LED carrier 10 includes isolating covering that isolates light emitters from an external environment); and
(Fig. 1, see space between (i.e. spacing layer) top of LEDs 13 and top surface 11, 14) adhering to the isolating covering a spacing layer configured to diffuse the light emitted from the light emitters, wherein the spacing layer includes voids and the spacing layering is adhered to the isolated covering such that the voids overlap with the light emitters and the light emitted by the light emitters diffuses within the voids before being emitted from the spacing layer (Par. [0054]; Par. [0071]).
Therefore, claim 16 is unpatentable over Grob, et al.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grob, et al. (US2018/0296854) in view of Edmund Optics (“Light Pipes and Homogenizing Rods” – please see attached).
Regarding claim 4, Grob teaches the phototherapy apparatus of claim 3, as indicated above. Grob does not explicitly teach the limitation of instant claim 4, that is wherein the voids comprise hexagonal cutouts.
Edmund Optics teaches light pipes (i.e., homogenizing rods) that are optical components designed for any application that requires homogenized light. Edmund Optics also teaches the limitation of instant claim 4, that is wherein the voids comprise hexagonal cutouts (Edmund Optics – “The majority of Edmund Optics’ Light Pipes are hexagonal in shape. The hexagonal configuration offers 35% less light loss than comparable square Light Pipes.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Edmund Optics’ teaching into Grob’s phototherapy apparatus, as doing so would be an example of using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art would have desired implementing a hexagonal light guide due to its feature of providing more light uniformity (i.e., reducing light loss over square light guides).
Therefore, claim 4 is unpatentable over Grob, et al. and Edmund Optics.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grob, et al. (US2018/0296854) in view of Gardner (US2006/0100675).
Regarding claim 5, Grob teaches the phototherapy apparatus of claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Grob does not teach the limitation of instant claim 5, that is wherein the spacing layer further includes lensing features positioned to overlap with the light emitters, such that the light emitted by the light emitters is received by the lensing features and upon being emitted from the lensing features is at least one of spread more uniformly or has a reduced angular dispersion.
Gardner, directed to analogous art, teaches a device and method for phototherapy of jaundiced infants (Title, Abstract). Gardner also teaches the limitation of instant claim 5, that is wherein (Figs. 3-4, # 10 – LEDs, 14 – transparent gel) the spacing layer further includes lensing features positioned to overlap with the light emitters, such that the light emitted by the light emitters is received by the lensing features and upon being emitted from the lensing features is at least one of spread more uniformly or has a reduced angular dispersion (Par. [0020] – Each lens type LED is preferred to emit light at an angle of 90 to 110 degrees; Par. [0021] – the present invention uses lens type LEDs; Par. [0023]; Par. [0025]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the lenses of Gardner’s phototherapy device into Grob’s device, because doing so would have been an example of using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Grob’s use of LEDs and would have desired to implement lenses paired with the LEDs in order to provide a particular angle (see Par. [0020] of Gardner) or provide higher intensity levels (see Par. [0025] of Gardner).
Therefore, claim 5 is unpatentable over Grob, et al. and Gardner.
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grob, et al. (US2018/0296854) in view of Brawn, et al. (US2019/0083202).
Regarding claim 11, Grob teaches the phototherapy apparatus of claim 10, as indicated hereinabove. Grob does not explicitly teach the limitation of instant claim 11, that is wherein the spacing layer is adhered to the light source sheet by overmolding the spacing layer onto the light source sheet.
Brawn, directed to analogous art, teaches a device for light therapy for remodeling maxillofacial bone (Title, Abstract). Brawn also teaches the limitation of instant claim 11, that is wherein (Figs. 93-94, # 2510 and 2544) the spacing layer is adhered to the light source sheet by overmolding the spacing layer onto the light source sheet (Par. [0656] – For example, during manufacture of the mouthpiece 2510, the silicone can be overmolded onto at least a portion of the electronics assembly 2540 of the mouthpiece 2510, including one or more of the flexible circuit board 2546, light emitters 2544, and the copper tiles 2558. In this manner, the portion of the electronics assembly 2540, such as one or more of the flexible circuit board 2546, light emitters 2544, and the copper tiles 2558, are fully encapsulated or embedded within the molded silicone.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the feature of overmolding the spacing layer, as shown in Brawn’s phototherapy device, into Grob’s phototherapy device, because doing so would be an example of using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art would have desired overmolding the spacing layer since it is a well-known manufacturing technique and in order to fully encapsulate and protect the electronics within the device (see Par. [0656] of Brawn).
Therefore, claim 11 is unpatentable over Grob, et al. and Brawn, et al.
Regarding claim 17, Grob teaches the method of claim 16, as indicated hereinabove. Grob does not explicitly teach the limitation of instant claim 17, that is wherein the adhering of the spacing layer to the isolating covering includes:
overmolding the spacing layer onto the isolating covering, such that the voids are formed in the spacing layer during the overmolding.
Brawn, directed to analogous art, teaches a device for light therapy for remodeling maxillofacial bone (Title, Abstract). Brawn also teaches the limitation of instant claim 17, that is wherein (Figs. 93-94, # 2510 and 2544) the adhering of the spacing layer to the isolating covering includes: overmolding the spacing layer onto the isolating covering, such that the voids are formed in the spacing layer during the overmolding (Par. [0656] – For example, during manufacture of the mouthpiece 2510, the silicone can be overmolded onto at least a portion of the electronics assembly 2540 of the mouthpiece 2510, including one or more of the flexible circuit board 2546, light emitters 2544, and the copper tiles 2558. In this manner, the portion of the electronics assembly 2540, such as one or more of the flexible circuit board 2546, light emitters 2544, and the copper tiles 2558, are fully encapsulated or embedded within the molded silicone.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the feature of overmolding the spacing layer, as shown in Brawn’s method, into Grob’s method, because doing so would be an example of using a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art would have desired overmolding the spacing layer since it is a well-known manufacturing technique and in order to fully encapsulate and protect the electronics within the device (see Par. [0656] of Brawn).
Therefore, claim 17 is unpatentable over Grob, et al. and Brawn, et al.
Claims 12-13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grob, et al. (US2018/0296854) in view of Russell (US 6,290,713 – cited on IDS).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, Grob teaches the phototherapy apparatus of claim 1 and the method of claim 16, as indicated hereinabove. Grob does not explicitly teach the limitation of instant claims 12 and 19, that is wherein the backing is a flexible printed circuit board, and the electrical pathways are electrical traces located on the flexible processor circuitry.
Russell, directed to analogous art, teaches flexible illuminators for phototherapy (Title, Abstract). Russell also teaches the limitation of instant claim 12, that is wherein (Fig. 6, # 86 – conductive traces, i.e. electrical traces) the backing is a flexible printed circuit board, and the electrical pathways are electrical traces located on the flexible processor circuitry (Abstract – the flexible substrate may be a circuit board; Col. 4, lines 26-29 – The illuminator comprises a thin, lightweight flexible substrate having a plurality of conductive traces affixed thereto adapted to connect to an electrical power source; Col. 12, lines 57-67 – an array of conductive traces 86 is provided on the substrate 84 to power the light-generating sources 76).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Russell’s electrical traces and flexible printed circuit board into Grob’s phototherapy apparatus, as doing so would be an example of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. While Grob does not explicitly teach a flexible PCB or electrical traces, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Grob requires a power supply and electrical connection between light sources 13 and the control unit 15 (see Fig. 1 and Par. [0024]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that simple substitution of the battery and electrical connections with a flexible PCB and electrical traces would obtain predictable results of providing power to the light sources of the phototherapy device, as well as providing electrical connection between components.
Therefore, claims 12 and 19 are unpatentable over Grob, et al. and Russell.
Regarding claim 13, Grob teaches the phototherapy apparatus of claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Grob does not explicitly teach the limitation of instant claim 13, that is wherein the isolating covering is a conformal coating applied to the backing.
Russell directed to analogous art, teaches flexible illuminators for phototherapy (Title, Abstract). Russell also teaches the limitation of instant claim 13, that is wherein the isolating covering is a conformal coating applied to the backing (Col. 8, lines 16-34 – The flexible substrate may comprise a reflector … The reflector is desirably perforated in the locations of the light-generating sources and may be coated to reflect an appropriate wavelength or range of wavelengths of light.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Russell’s conformal coating to the substrate (i.e., including the backing), because doing so would be an example of using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art would have desired implementing a coating like the one in Russell’s device in order to reflect appropriate wavelengths of light for the desired treatment (see Col. 8, lines 16-34 of Russell).
Therefore, claim 13 is unpatentable over Grob, et al. and Russell.
Regarding claim 20, Grob, in view of Russell, renders obvious the method of claim 19, as indicated hereinabove. Russell also teaches the limitation of instant claim 20, that is wherein applying an isolating covering includes applying the isolating covering as a conformal coating to the backing (Col. 8, lines 16-34 – The flexible substrate may comprise a reflector … The reflector is desirably perforated in the locations of the light-generating sources and may be coated to reflect an appropriate wavelength or range of wavelengths of light.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Russell’s conformal coating to the substrate (i.e., including the backing), because doing so would be an example of using a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art would have desired implementing a coating like the one in Russell’s device in order to reflect appropriate wavelengths of light for the desired treatment (see Col. 8, lines 16-34 of Russell).
Therefore, claim 20 is unpatentable over Grob, et al. and Russell.
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grob, et al. (US2018/0296854) in view of Mersch (US 2014/0148879).
Regarding claim 14 and 18, Grob teaches the phototherapy apparatus of claim 1 and the method of claim 16, as indicated hereinabove. Grob also teaches the limitation of instant claims 14 and 18, that is wherein (Fig. 1, # 10) the light source sheet includes a light emitting surface and a back surface opposite the light emitting surface (Par. [0054]). Grob does not teach the limitation of instant claims 14 and 18, that is wherein the apparatus and method are further comprising a thermal conductive layer, wherein:
the thermal conductive layer is thermally connected to the back surface, such that the thermal conductive layer draws thermal energy away from the light source sheet.
Mersch, directed to analogous art, teaches (Figs. 1 and 14) a light and bioelectric therapy pad (Title; Abstract; Par. [0052]; Par. [0087]). Mersch also teaches the limitation of instant claim 14, that is wherein the apparatus is further comprising (Fig. 14, # 24 – heat dissipating layer, i.e. thermal conductive layer) a thermal conductive layer, wherein: the thermal conductive layer is thermally connected to the back surface, such that the thermal conductive layer draws thermal energy away from the light source sheet (Par. [0087]; Par. [0112] – The light therapy pad structure typically includes a thermally-insulating clear silicone layer between the LEDs and the skin, to minimize conductive heat toward the skin, and a thermally conductive silicone layer on the outside surface of the LEDs and substrate, to draw heat away from the light pad toward the back surface, to optimize convective and radiant cooling of the light therapy pad.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the thermal conductive layer of Mersch into the phototherapy apparatus and method of Grob because doing so would be an example using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art would have desired implementing Mersch’s thermal conductive layer into Grob’s device because doing so would draw heat away from the light pad toward the back surface in order to optimize convective and radiant cooling of the light therapy pad (see Par. [0112] of Mersch).
Therefore, claims 14 and 18 are unpatentable over Grob, et al. and Mersch.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grob, et al. (US2018/0296854).
Regarding claim 15, Grob teaches the claimed invention except for the limitation wherein the spacing layer has a thickness of at least 5 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at the spacing layer thickness (i.e., the space between the top of the LEDs 13 and the top surface 11 in Fig. 1 – see annotated Fig. 1 below), recognizing that the thickness of the spacing layer is directly correlated to the thickness of the phototherapy blanket/mattress/bed, which is a desirable characteristic, 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. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
PNG
media_image1.png
277
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
Therefore, claim 15 is unpatentable over Grob, et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jayavanth, et al. (US 9,669,235)
Hill, et al. (US 2019/0022406)
Behler, et al. (US 11,344,743)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL TAYLOR HOLTZCLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-6626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. 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, Jennifer 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.
/MICHAEL T. HOLTZCLAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights