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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 31-33 and 36-37 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/22/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B (Figs. 17-25A; Claims 28-30 and 35) in the reply filed on 06/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application No. 63/026,319 and 17/323,155, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. In particular, the prior-filed applications do not provide adequate support or enablement for the subject matter of claim 27 involving an external vacuum source. Therefore, the effective filing date for claim 27 is the filing date of the instant application, 10/21/2024.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings do not reference the “air mover” recited in claim 26. The drawings are also objected to because the drawings do not reference the “external vacuum source” recited in claim 27. 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 10/21/2024, 10/24/2024, and 04/28/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Abstract, Line 3: “at least therapeutic light source” should be changed to “at least one therapeutic light source”.
Page 24, line 22: “works actively remove air” should be changed to “works to actively remove air”.
Page 25, line 5: “Inner paneling 24” should be changed to “Inner paneling 22”.
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 26, 28-30, 34-35, and 38 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.
The limitation an “air mover” renders claim 26 indefinite. It is unclear what constitutes an “air mover” and the specification does not provide any clarification on what is considered an air mover. The Examiner ponders whether the “slits” shown in the figures and mentioned on Page 25 (line 6) of the Specification correspond to an “air mover”. Please consider providing further clarification and/or correction.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the first side" and “the second side” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner ponders whether these terms were intended to correspond to “a first leg portion” and “a second leg portion” introduced earlier in the claim. Please consider providing further clarification and/or correction.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "the aperture" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner believes this claim was intended to depend from claim 23, and will be examined as such hereinbelow. This is because claim 23 introduces the aperture.
Claim 35 recites the limitation “a patient” in line 6, whereas a patient was already introduced in a claim that claim 35 depends from (claim 22). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different patient. Consider changing to “the patient”.
*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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Whitehurst (US 2004/0127961).
Regarding claim 22, Whitehurst teaches (Figs. 20a and 21) a therapeutic light assembly for reducing infectious agent counts at a critical treatment site or open surgical site of a patient (Par. [0049] – A method of treatment for … viral infections …; Pars. [0077-0078]), comprising:
(Figs. 20a and 21, # LL, LF, LR; see annotated Figure below) a housing containing a therapeutic light source configured to be positioned proximate a critical treatment site or an open surgical site of a patient and emit light at the critical treatment site or open surgical site with the patient lying down, wherein the housing includes an inner panel curved about a housing axis and an outer panel concentric with the inner panel curved about the housing axis, wherein the therapeutic light source is held between the inner panel and the outer panel and configured to apply radially inward directed therapeutic light targeting the critical treatment site or the open surgical site (Pars. [0077-0078] – FIG. 21 shows a seventeenth embodiment, similar to that of FIGS. 20a and 20b, except that it is arranged for facial and/or scalp treatment of a patient when lying down.); and
a power source operatively connected to power the therapeutic light source (Par. [0048] – The number of diodes in series, in each column, is selected so that the total forward operating voltage is as close as possible to, but less than, the power supply output voltage, in this case 48 V. This arrangement avoids wasteful in-circuit heating and maximizes the operating efficiency of the electrical system.; Examiner notes that this is indicative of a power source).
PNG
media_image1.png
484
360
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figs. 20a and 21
Therefore, claim 22 is unpatentable over Whitehurst.
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.
Claims 23, 34-35, and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitehurst (US 2004/0127961) in view of Sentilles (US 5,871,522 – cited on IDS).
Regarding claim 23, Whitehurst teaches the therapeutic light assembly of claim 22, as indicated hereinabove. Whitehurst does not explicitly teach the limitation of instant claim 23, that is wherein the inner panel includes an aperture at least partially aligned with the therapeutic light source configured to allow the therapeutic light source to shine through the inner panel.
Sentilles, directed to analogous art, teaches an apparatus and method for projecting germicidal ultraviolet radiation onto a preselected target area on the body of a patient undergoing surgery (Title; Abstract). Sentilles also teaches the limitation of instant claim 23, that is wherein (Figs. 2 and 5, # 47 – apertures, 49 – focusing lamps, i.e. therapeutic light source) the inner panel includes an aperture at least partially aligned with the therapeutic light source configured to allow the therapeutic light source to shine through the inner panel (Col. 5, lines 8-11 – wherein the inner panel includes an aperture at least partially aligned with the therapeutic light source configured to allow the therapeutic light source to shine through the inner panel; Col. 6, lines 16-26 – Visible light aiming and focusing lamps 49 are mounted in the collimator housing 39 on opposing sides of the collimator 41, and apertures 47 are positioned in the front face 51 of the collimator housing to allow the light beams produced by visible light lamps 41 to project outwardly.)
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 Sentilles’ apertures for the therapeutic light source into Whitehurst’s therapeutic light assembly, 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 Sentilles’ apertures into Whitehurst’s therapeutic light assembly in order to project light beams outwardly in a direction towards the treatment area (see Col. 6, lines 16-26 of Sentilles).
Therefore, claim 23 is unpatentable over Whitehurst and Sentilles.
Regarding claim 34, Whitehurst, in view of Sentilles, renders obvious the therapeutic light assembly of claim 23* (as noted hereinabove, it is believed that this claim was intended to be dependent on claim 23, which introduces the aperture. The claim is being examined as if it were dependent on claim 23 instead of claim 22), as indicated hereinabove. Sentilles also teaches the limitation of instant claim 34, that is wherein (Figs. 2 and 5, # 47 and 49) the therapeutic light source includes a plurality of therapeutic light sources and wherein the aperture defined in the inner panel includes a plurality of apertures defined in the inner panel, each aperture aligned with a respective therapeutic light source (Col. 5, lines 8-11 – wherein the inner panel includes an aperture at least partially aligned with the therapeutic light source configured to allow the therapeutic light source to shine through the inner panel; Col. 6, lines 16-26).
Therefore, claim 34 is unpatentable over Whitehurst and Sentilles.
Regarding claim 35, Whitehurst, in view of Sentilles, renders obvious the therapeutic light assembly of claim 34, as indicated hereinabove. Whitehurst also teaches the limitation of instant claim 35, that is wherein (Figs. 20a and 21, # LL, LF, LR) the housing is arc shaped about the housing axis and defining a first leg portion, a second leg portion, and a top portion extending between the first leg portion and the second leg portion, wherein the plurality of therapeutic light sources […] are located in each of the first leg portion, the second leg portion, and the top portion, wherein with the housing axis parallel to a vertical axis of the patient, the housing is configured to surround a patient on three sides and at least the top portion is configured to be placed directly over the critical treatment site or the open surgical site (Pars. [0077-0078]). It is noted again that Sentilles was relied on for teaching the plurality of apertures, as seen hereinabove in the rejection of claim 34. The combined teaching of Whitehurst and Sentilles would teach the plurality of apertures located in each of the portions since Whitehurst teaches the portions including the therapeutic light sources, and Sentilles teaches the apertures corresponding with the therapeutic light sources.
Therefore, claim 35 is unpatentable over Whitehurst and Sentilles.
Regarding claim 38, Whitehurst, in view of Sentilles, renders obvious the therapeutic light assembly of claim 34, as indicated hereinabove. Whitehurst also teaches the limitation of instant claim 38, that is wherein (Figs. 20a and 21, # LL, LF, LR) the plurality of therapeutic light sources includes a plurality of […] LEDs associated with a circuit board within the housing, wherein the plurality of […] LEDs are grouped into strips, wherein each strip includes between 3 or 4 LEDs, wherein the strips are around the housing circumferentially about the housing axis (Par. [0048] – The number of diodes in series, in each column, is selected so that the total forward operating voltage is as close as possible to, but less than, the power supply output voltage, in this case 48 V.; Pars. [0077-0078]). Whitehurst does not explicitly teach the limitation of instant claim 38, that is wherein UV light is emitted.
Sentilles, directed to analogous art, teaches an apparatus and method for projecting germicidal ultraviolet radiation onto a preselected target area on the body of a patient undergoing surgery (Title; Abstract). Sentilles also teaches the limitation of instant claim 38, that is wherein UV light is emitted (Title; Abstract; Col. 2, lines 50-59).
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 Sentilles teaching of emitting UV light into Whitehurst’s therapeutic light assembly because doing so would be an example of using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. In particular, one of ordinary skill in the art would have desired emitting UV light in Whitehurst’s light assembly because of UV light’s beneficial germicidal effects (see Col. 2, lines 50-59 of Sentilles).
Therefore, claim 38 is unpatentable over Whitehurst and Sentilles.
Regarding claim 39, Whitehurst teaches the therapeutic light assembly of claim 22, as indicated hereinabove. Whitehurst does not explicitly teach the limitation of instant claim 39, that is wherein the therapeutic light assembly is further comprising an optical lens in optical communication with the therapeutic light source configured to focus or redirect the therapeutic light to the critical treatment site or the open surgical site. While Whitehurst doesn’t explicitly teach a lens, it is noted that Whitehurst does teach a therapeutic light source comprising an array of LED's coupled to a light guide for delivering the light to the area to be treated (Par. [0016]).
Sentilles, directed to analogous art, teaches an apparatus and method for projecting germicidal ultraviolet radiation onto a preselected target area on the body of a patient undergoing surgery (Title; Abstract). Sentilles also teaches the limitation of instant claim 39, that is wherein (Fig. 5, # 44) the therapeutic light assembly is further comprising an optical lens in optical communication with the therapeutic light source configured to focus or redirect the therapeutic light to the critical treatment site or the open surgical site (Col. 6, lines 16-26 - … configured by conventional focusing tubes 42 and lens 44 to produce a sharply focused field of light at points located between 36 inches and 44 inches from the front face 51).
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 Sentilles’ teaching of implementing a lens into a therapeutic light assembly into Whitehurst’s light assembly because doing so would be an example of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that both Whitehurst and Sentilles teach optical elements (i.e., waveguide/lightguide in Whitehurst; lens in Sentilles) in order to focus light to a particular area to be treated. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Sentilles’ lens could replace Whitehurst’s waveguide in order to obtain similar predictable results of focusing light on a treatment area.
Therefore, claim 39 is unpatentable over Whitehurst and Sentilles.
Regarding claim 40, Whitehurst teaches the light assembly of claim 22, as indicated hereinabove. Whitehurst does not explicitly teach the limitation of instant claim 40, that is wherein the therapeutic light source is selected from a group consisting of UV light, UV-C light, Far UV-C light, infrared light, near infrared light, low level laser light, and White light. Whitehurst does teach that the emission spectra of the LED's may be substantially limited to the range 550 to 660 nm, and preferably to one of the ranges 590 to 640 nm, 560 to 644 nm, 650 to 660 nm, and 550 to 570 nm (Abstract).
Sentilles, directed to analogous art, teaches an apparatus and method for projecting germicidal ultraviolet radiation onto a preselected target area on the body of a patient undergoing surgery (Title; Abstract). Sentilles also teaches the limitation of instant claim 40, that is wherein the therapeutic light source is selected from a group consisting of UV light, UV-C light, Far UV-C light, infrared light, near infrared light, low level laser light, and White light (Title; Abstract; Col. 2, lines 50-59).
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 Sentilles teaching of emitting UV light into Whitehurst’s therapeutic light assembly because doing so would be an example of using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. In particular, one of ordinary skill in the art would have desired emitting UV light in Whitehurst’s light assembly because of UV light’s beneficial germicidal effects (see Col. 2, lines 50-59 of Sentilles).
Therefore, claim 40 is unpatentable over Whitehurst and Sentilles.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitehurst (US 2004/0127961) in view of Tapper, et al. (US 2016/0045763).
Regarding claim 41, Whitehurst teaches the light assembly of claim 22, as indicated hereinabove. Whitehurst does not explicitly teach the limitation of instant claim 41, that is wherein the power source includes a battery power source operatively connected to the housing.
Tapper, directed to analogous art, teaches devices and methods for delivering light-based skin therapy treatments for improving skin health, such as anti-aging enhancement or acne prevention, using light-emitting diode (LED) light therapy (Par. [0002]). Tapper teaches the limitation of instant claim 41, that is wherein (Figs. 1-3 and 5, # B) the power source includes a battery power source operatively connected to the housing (Par. [0086] – The platform A is comprised of a wall structure 10 encasing the plurality of therapeutic lamps such as red and blue LEDs 12 and circuitry 14 for communicating power to the lamps via cable 80 and connector 83 from the battery pack B; Par. [0091]).
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 Tapper’s battery into Whitehurst’s light assembly because doing so would provide the well-known benefit of reducing number of electrical connections (i.e., wires) and the need to be connected to a wall power outlet. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the desirable benefit of implementing a rechargeable battery in place of some other wired configuration.
Therefore, claim 41 is unpatentable over Whitehurst and Tapper, et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record (namely Whitehurst and Sentilles) does not disclose or fairly suggest either singly or in combination the claimed invention of dependent claim 24, when taken as a whole, comprising, in addition to the other recited claim elements, a conduit is defined between the inner panel and the outer panel, and further comprising an evacuator operatively connected to the housing and in fluid communication with the conduit and the critical treatment site or the open surgical site via the aperture, wherein the evacuator is configured and adapted to evacuate untreated air or smoke from the critical treatment site or the open surgical site. The Examiner notes that Rastegar, et al. (US 2010/0094265 – cited on IDS) was found during a search of the prior art for this limitation. Rastegar is directed to analogous art and teaches a method for automated treatment of an area of skin of a patient with laser energy (Abstract). Rastegar also teaches (Fig. 1, # 111) a smoke evacuation vacuum head 111 that is provided to evacuate the generated smoke and debris resulting from the debridement or other operations (Par. [0073]). However, the Examiner finds that it would not be reasonable to combine the teachings of Rastegar with the combined teachings of Whitehurst and Sentilles because such a combination would not reasonably disclose the structural arrangement of a conduit between the inner and outer panel with the evacuator operatively connected to the housing and in fluid communication with the conduit and the critical treatment site or the open surgical site via the aperture. No other prior art reference could be found that teaches or renders obvious the limitations of instant claim 24. Due to their dependency on claim 24, instant claims 25-30 are also considered to contain potentially allowable subject matter.
Therefore, in view of the prior art and its deficiencies, claims 24-30 as a whole are rendered novel and non-obvious, and thus, contain allowable subject matter as claimed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Barolet, et al. (US 2011/0202116) – The photoactivating light sources 154 (see Figs. 10-11, 21, and 30) are on the outside of the inner panel, and not between the inner and outer panel as required by claim 22
Jones (US 2014/0288351)
Whitehurst (US 2012/0123507)
Johnson, et al. (US 2013/0274839) – Fig. 12
Weadock, et al. (US 2010/0234794) – Fig. 3
Wertz, et al. (US 5,047,072)
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