The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Second Paragraph
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 1-18 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 is rejected because the claimed “therapeutic device” of claim 1 comprises “a face mask” having “a plurality of LEDs”, and the claim then broadly states that “the face mask is configured to operate selectively in a plurality of light therapy modes”. However, there is no recited components that are capable of this operative selectivity, since the entire device is a mask and LEDs. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and unclear how the mask would be capable of operating selectively in a plurality of modes.
Claim 2 is rejected because it recites that the seventh power density within a range of a percentage (about 15%-30%) of each of the first and fourth power densities (similar type of recitation exists regarding the eighth power density). First and most importantly, neither one of the first or fourth power densities are defined, both or one of them could be zero, and if so, then 15%-30% of zero is zero and is not a smaller percentage of zero. Therefore, the breadth of the claim, in certain reasonable interpretations, cannot be met. Secondly, it is unclear how the seventh/eighth would necessarily be within this range of “each” of the other two that is lists, considering the breadth of claim 1 which does not define any power densities with any amount of certainty.
Claims 11-13 are rejected because “the distance” lacks antecedent basis. These claims depend from claim 8, where “a distance” is stated in claim 10.
Claims 12-13 are rejected because it is unclear what “the distance” is that is being claimed. For instance, it is unclear if this is intended to be the distance as recited claim 10, or if this intended to relate to a distance between each LED of the plurality of LEDs.
Claim 15 is rejected because “the at least one of the second spacer and the third space” lack antecedent basis. These claims depend from claim 12, where the recitations in question are found in claim 14.
Claims 17-18 are rejected because “the first and second thermoelectric cooling devices” lack antecedent basis. These claims depend from claim 14, where the recitations in question are found in claim 16.
Any claim not explicitly rejected above is rejected due to its ultimate dependency on claim 1, thereby containing the same issues therein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bae et. al. (KR 102062605 B1).
Bae discloses a therapeutic device, comprising:
A face mask configured to be worn on a face of a user (“a home care beauty LED mask comprising a mark unit 100”, see Abstract; also see Figures 3-4), the face mask comprising a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) configured to emit light toward and to skin on the face of the user with the user wearing the face mask (“An LED unit 300 formed in a predetermined arrangement inside the mask unit 100 to irradiate light having a specific wavelength to the skin”, see page 4, second paragraph);
Wherein each of the plurality of LEDs is configured to emit first light having a first wavelength, second light having a second wavelength, and third light having a third wavelength (“The LED color control sensor module 620 is formed on the left side of the mask unit 100 to change the color of the LED light irradiated from the LED unit 300”, see page 4, 12th paragraph; also see 3rd to last paragraph on page 5 which teaches that “the color of the LED light irradiated from the LED unit 300 every time one touch, red, Changed to yellow, green, sky blue, blue, purple, and white in order to allow the user to select and manage the LED light”, which is at least a first, second and third wavelength, also see page 6 which teaches the health effects of various colors);
The face mask is configured to operate selectively in a plurality of light therapy modes (see following description of specific modes);
In a first light therapy mode of the plurality of light therapy modes, each of the LEDs is configured to emit the second light at first power density, to emit the first light at a second power density, and to emit the third light at a third power density (“a third intensity mode 633 for controlling the intensity of the LED light emitted from the LED unit 300 more strongly than the second intensity mode 632” - page 6, about mid-way down the page);
In a second light therapy mode of the plurality of light therapy modes, each of the LEDs is configured to emit the second light at fourth power density, to emit the first light at a fifth power density, and to emit the third light at a sixth power density (“A second intensity mode 632 for adjusting the intensity of the LED light emitted from the LED unit 300 more strongly than the first intensity mode 631” - page 6, about mid-way down the page);
In a third light therapy mode of the plurality of light therapy modes, each of the LEDs is configured to emit the first light, to emit the second light at seventh power density that is less than each of the first and fourth power densities, and to emit the third light at an eighth power density that is less than each of the third and sixth densities (“A first intensity mode 631 for adjusting the intensity of the LED light emitted from the LED unit 300” - page 6, about mid-way down the page).
It is noted that each one of the recited first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh power densities in claim 1 may be any value, including zero (which would mean that LED is off). However, that is encompassed by the broad nature of the claim as currently written. Therefore, Bae teaches a face mask with LEDs that can be used to produce three or more wavelengths (i.e., colored light), and has at least three modes of operation with different intensities (i.e., power densities) as described above.
Regarding claims 2 and 5, it is noted that Section 2114(II) of the MPEP states (with emphasis in the original), “’Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.’ Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” Also Section 2114(II) of the MPEP states, “A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987.” With these quotes in mind, it is noted that claims 1 and 2 are “a therapeutic device” comprising a face mask and a plurality of LEDs. Bae teaches a face mask and LEDs as well, and Bae teaches “LED intensity control sensor module 630 is formed on the right side of the mask unit 100 to change the intensity of the LED light irradiated from the LED unit 300” (see 5th to last paragraph on page 4). Therefore, Bae is capable of modifying the light intensity as desired, and can modify the LED colors/wavelengths as desired as well. It was described above in the rejection of claim 1 that there are a first, second and third intensity mode taught by Bae which reads on the first, second and third modes of the claim. Based on all of these teachings, the face mask of Bae comprises “a face mask” and “a plurality of LEDs” and is entirely capable of providing light from the LEDs as is claimed in claims 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 3, it is noted that Bae teaches that “it is to provide a cosmetic mask that reinforces the system control and user interface part so that a user can easily select and manage a mode suited to his or her skin condition in real time” (see page 2, 6th-to-last paragraph). As such, the system of Bae allows a user to select whichever mode after at least a first or second mode has been run a predetermined number of times, where the predetermined number of times is equal to zero.
Regarding claim 4, it is noted that the “first intensity mode 631” taught by Bae reads on the “third light therapy mode” as claimed, in that it provides the least intensity of the LEDs. Therefore, this would read on the first light at a power density that is less than the intensity of the other modes, which includes the fifth power density.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae in view of Sadiq (CN 117482406 A).
Bae is described above with respect to claim 1. However, Bae fails to teach a specific number of LEDs. And while there is mention of infrared (see last paragraph on page 1 and discussion of “white mode 627” on page 6), there is no further mention of infrared light.
Sadiq teaches light care device for providing a plurality of types of illumination care to a user, including blue light, red light, green light, and/or near infrared light care (see Abstract; see also Figure 1 illustrating the device as a face mask). Sadiq teaches that “Those skilled in the art can select suitable frames, LED light sets and/or near-infrared light sets, light sources, bandages, and buckles according to specific embodiments and based on various considerations, including the size and shape of the body, the number of light sources used, and the number of channels used. In one embodiment, fifty LED lamps may be used. In other embodiments, less than 10, 10 to 20, 20 to 50, or more than 50 LED lamps may be used” (see page 6, 2nd paragraph). Additionally, Sadiq teaches that “near-infrared light ("NIR light") can improve the appearance of damaged skin as well as fine lines, wrinkles and lax skin due to sunlight” (see 2nd paragraph on page 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize any number of LED lamps, including more than 50, which includes 160 as claimed, within the system and methods of Bae as combined with Sadiq, because “the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced” (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). Also, it would be obvious to incorporate infrared lights into the system of Bae, which may already include them as it is mentioned twice, but if not positively included, then it would be obvious to add them because near-IR light “can improve the appearance of damaged skin as well as fine lines, wrinkles and lax skin due to sunlight”, which would improve the utility and potential “modes” of use for Bae.
Regarding the specific wavelengths in claim 7, it is noted that Bae as combined with Sadiq teaches the colors of light with which these wavelength ranges produce (i.e., blue, red and infrared). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize any wavelength specifically within these claimed ranges since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch,617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980), and the prior art of record already teaches the colors that are produced by these ranges.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae in view of Hebert et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2022/0266051).
Bae is described above with respect to claim 1. However, Bae fails to teach a specific total power density of 128 mW/cm2.
Hebert teaches a wearable biophotonic system (see Title and face mask in Figure 1). Hebert teaches that “Suitable power densities for non-collimated light sources (LED, halogen or plasma lamps) are in the range from about 0.1 mW/cm2 to about 200 mW/cm2… In certain embodiments, the light at the subject's skin is between about 1-40 mW/cm2, or 20-60 mW/cm2, or 40-80 mW/cm2, or 60-100 mW/cm2, or 80-120 mW/cm2, or 100-140 mW/cm2, or 30-180 mW/cm2, or 120-160 mW/cm2, or 140-180 mW/cm2, or 160-200 mW/cm2, or 110-240 mW/cm2, or 110-150 mW/cm2, or 190-240 mW/cm2” (see paragraph 77).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize a power density within the ranges expressed above, including 128 mW/cm2, as taught by Hebert, and to use this in the system and methods of Bae because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch,617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae in view of Binner (US Patent Pub. No. 2020/0001107).
Bae is described above with respect to claim 1. However, Bae fails to teach a spacing from the wearer’s skin.
Binner teaches “a phototherapy system wearable on a portion of a user's face includes a lamp platform and a controller unit disposed on, and electrically coupled to, the lamp platform, and a frame for holding the lamp platform in a fixed orientation on a user's face” (see Abstract). “As mentioned above frame 90 holds wearable lamp platform 15 in a fixed orientation such that the inner surface of the lamp platform and the inwardly facing surface of the controller unit are spaced from the user's face and the spacing between the inner surface of the lamp platform and an adjacent surface of the user's face defines a platform clearance. In some embodiments, the platform clearance is … preferably between about 10 mm and about 40 mm...” (see paragraph 73).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide a fixed orientation spaced from the user’ face (see paragraph 66 of Binner), within the system and methods of Bae in order to ensure that the mask is generally positioned in the same configuration for each session via the frame taught by Binner which provides the spacing, thereby ensuring that the treatment effects the same areas and provides effective results to the user.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae in view of Hebert as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Binner.
Bae in combination with Hebert is described above with respect to claim 8. However, Bae fails to teach a spacing from the wearer’s skin.
Binner teaches “a phototherapy system wearable on a portion of a user's face includes a lamp platform and a controller unit disposed on, and electrically coupled to, the lamp platform, and a frame for holding the lamp platform in a fixed orientation on a user's face” (see Abstract). “As mentioned above frame 90 holds wearable lamp platform 15 in a fixed orientation such that the inner surface of the lamp platform and the inwardly facing surface of the controller unit are spaced from the user's face and the spacing between the inner surface of the lamp platform and an adjacent surface of the user's face defines a platform clearance. In some embodiments, the platform clearance is … preferably between about 10 mm and about 40 mm...” (see paragraph 73).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide a fixed orientation spaced from the user’ face (see paragraph 66 of Binner), within the system and methods of Bae in order to ensure that the mask is generally positioned in the same configuration for each session via the frame taught by Binner which provides the spacing, thereby ensuring that the treatment effects the same areas and provides effective results to the user.
Regarding claim 12, it can be seen in Binner that each LED of the plurality of LEDs is substantially equal for each LED (see Figure 3, illustrating the LEDs 82 equally spaced from one another).
Regarding claim 13, it can be seen in Binner that the LEDs at the top of the face mask are spaced further from the LEDs at the bottom of the face mask than they are to each other. Therefore, this teaches that “the distance of at least one LED of the plurality of LED is different from the distance of at least one other of the plurality of LEDs” as claimed.
Regarding claim 14, it is noted that the glasses which hold the mask on a person’s face and provide the specific spacing include nose arms 94 (see Figure 3). These nose arms are “a second spacer configured to contact skin under eyes of the user”, since the portion of a person’s face that the nose arms of a pair of glasses contacts is “under eyes”.
Regarding claim 15, the second spacer of Binner (i.e., the eye glasses structure, which includes the temple arms 92, nose arms 94, ear latches 95, lenses 96, and connectors 98 described in paragraph 67) includes lenses 96. “Lenses 96 provide protection to the user's eye from treatment lamps 82” (see paragraph 67).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae in view of Kim et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2022/0211162).
Bae is described above with respect to claim 1. However, Bae fails to teach a cooling device(s).
Kim teaches “a skin care apparatus which provides skin care focusing on eye rims, forehead and the like. The skin care apparatus comprises: a main body; and a mounting body for mounting the main body on a user's face” (see Abstract; Figure 1). “The skin care apparatus 1 may include at least some or all of… the temperature control module 40, … the far-infrared ray module 44, the light emitting module 46” (see paragraph 149). Kim also teaches that “the temperature control module 40 may be disposed at a position corresponding to eye rims, temples, forehead, an area between eyebrows, acupuncture points, etc. As an example, the temperature control module 40 may be disposed at a position overlapping the first area A1 in a horizontal direction” (see paragraph 113). As illustrated in Figure 3, areas A1 reside at a location corresponding to the area under each eye of the wearer. “[T]he temperature control module 40 may include an element (e.g., a thermoelectric element) that performs a cooling function” (see paragraph 114). Additionally, “the temperature control module 40 and the light emitting module 46 have been described as separate configurations, but it is only described separately to distinguish functions” (see paragraph 161), which implies that the light and the cooling may operate separately from one another.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide cooling devices under the eyes of the user within a light therapy face mask, as taught by Kim, and to include this within the system of Bae in order to “to generate effects such as alleviating fatigue around the eyes and wrinkles due to a cool-feeling during cooling”, thereby increasing the utility of the mask taught by Bae by providing additional therapeutic options.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae in view of Hebert and Binner as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kim.
Bae in combination with Hebert and Binner is described above with respect to claim 14. However, none of these references teach a cooling device(s).
Kim teaches “a skin care apparatus which provides skin care focusing on eye rims, forehead and the like. The skin care apparatus comprises: a main body; and a mounting body for mounting the main body on a user's face” (see Abstract; Figure 1). “The skin care apparatus 1 may include at least some or all of… the temperature control module 40, … the far-infrared ray module 44, the light emitting module 46” (see paragraph 149). Kim also teaches that “the temperature control module 40 may be disposed at a position corresponding to eye rims, temples, forehead, an area between eyebrows, acupuncture points, etc. As an example, the temperature control module 40 may be disposed at a position overlapping the first area A1 in a horizontal direction” (see paragraph 113). As illustrated in Figure 3, areas A1 reside at a location corresponding to the area under each eye of the wearer. “[T]he temperature control module 40 may include an element (e.g., a thermoelectric element) that performs a cooling function” (see paragraph 114). Additionally, “the temperature control module 40 and the light emitting module 46 have been described as separate configurations, but it is only described separately to distinguish functions” (see paragraph 161), which implies that the light and the cooling may operate separately from one another.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide cooling devices under the eyes of the user within a light therapy face mask, as taught by Kim, and to include this within the system of Bae as combined with Hebert and Binner in order to “to generate effects such as alleviating fatigue around the eyes and wrinkles due to a cool-feeling during cooling”, thereby increasing the utility of the mask taught by Bae by providing additional therapeutic options.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES KISH whose telephone number is (571)272-5554. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00a - 6p 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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/JAMES KISH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights