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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 recites “…a 15 min period …” at Ln. 2, but should recite -- a 15 minute period --. Appropriate correction is required
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 recites “…based on feedback from target …” at Ln. 2, but should recite -- based on feedback from said target --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 23 recites “…a sufficient does of UVB…” at Ln. 2, but should recite -- a sufficient dose of UVB--. 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 3, 17, 20-22 and 28, and Claims 18 and 23 by dependency, 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.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 recites “wherein said dose is no greater than 0.1 to 0.15 SED of said UVB in a 15 min period.” A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “no greater than,” and the claim also recites “0.1 to 0.15 SED” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 recites “wherein said controller is responsive to at least one feedback signal of wearable of at least one occupant of space subjected to said emitted light….” It is grammatically unclear what “said controller” is responsive to.
For purposes of this Office Action, the above limitation is being interpreted to mean that the controller is responsive to feedback of a wearable device which emits light.
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 recites “wherein algorithm could be implemented to use camera image of user skin tone to adjust the dosage.”
It is unclear what “algorithm” (i.e., “wherein algorithm”) is in reference to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term.
It is grammatically unclear from the use of the term “could be” whether or not such implementation as recited is affirmatively required by the claim.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the doseage.”
For purposes of this Office Action, the above limitation is being interpreted to mean that the recited system affirmatively implements use of camera image via an algorithm.
Regarding Claim 21, Claim 21 recites “wherein feedback signals include individual UVB exposures.” It is unclear whether the recited “feedback signals” are the same “feedback signals” as recited at Claims 17 or different feedback signals. If different “feedback signals,” it is unclear in what sense the “feedback signals” “include in … UVB exposures.”
Regarding Claim 22, Claim 22 recites “…said plurality of targets…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term.
Regarding Claim 28, Claim 28 contains the trademark/trade name “Vigor”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a particular product whose brand name is Vigor and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0171321 A11 to Bae et al. (“Bae”).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Bae teaches:
A lighting system for emitting emitted light, said light system comprising: (Abstract, “A light irradiation device includes a first light source emitting first light in a visible wavelength band and a second light source emitting second light...”);
a first light source for emitting UVB light; (Para. [0077], “In an exemplary embodiment, the second light source emits light that induces and catalyzes the synthesis of specific functional substances in a human body. Light emitted by the second light source, that is, the second light, may include various wavelength bands capable of inducing the synthesis of specific functional substances in the human body. For example, the second light may be ultraviolet light, visible light, and/or infrared light. The wavelength band of the second light may partly overlap with the wavelength band of the first light. However, the second light source emits light in a wavelength band that is at least partly different from the wavelength band of the first light;” Para. [0078], “In an exemplary embodiment, the second light may be in an ultraviolet wavelength band and, in particular, may be in the wavelength band of ultraviolet B of the ultraviolet wavelength band.”);
Bae’s “second light source” corresponds to the “a first light source” of Claim 1.
a second light source for emitting a second light, wherein said emitted light comprises a combination of said second light and said UVB light; (Para. [0076], “Referring to FIG. 2, the first light source emits light in the wavelength range of about 380 nm to about 780 nm, as the first light. The first light source operates as a light irradiation device that illuminates a predetermined area. The first light emitted from the first light source may include light in the ultraviolet or infrared region. However, the intensity of the first light is very weak, and most of the first light is distributed in the visible wavelength band.”);
Bae’s “first light source” corresponds to the “a second light source” of Claim 1.
and a controller for said first light source configured to deliver a dose of said UVB to at least one target sufficient to cause vitamin D synthesis in said target. (Para. [0115], “The controller 50 may control whether to emit light from the first and second light sources 30 and 40, the amount of light, the intensity of light, the emission time of light, or the like. Features of light may be controller by the controller 50 in various manners. For example, the controller 50 may adapt a method of continuously emitting light, a method of sequentially decreasing or increasing the intensity of light, a blinking method, a mixed method, or the like;” (Para. [0029], “…and a controller receiving the location information from the location information receiver and controlling a dose of light emitted from the light source, in which the controller calculates the dose of light to be emitted from the light source based on the location information and controls the light source to emit light of the calculated dose;” Para. [0079], “In an exemplary embodiment, the target to which light is applied may be an organism, for example, a plant or an animal, which is capable of synthesizing a specific functional substance when the target is exposed to predetermined light. In particular, the target to which light is applied may correspond to a human body. When the human body is exposed to the predetermined ultraviolet light, vitamin D, which is one of the functional substances, may be synthesized in the human body. To this end, the ultraviolet light applied to the human body may be in a wavelength band of ultraviolet B. When the human body is exposed to light in the wavelength band of ultraviolet B, 7-dehydrocholesterol in skin cells synthesizes cholecalciferol (i.e., Vitamin D3).”).
Regarding Claim 29, Bae discloses the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Bae additionally discloses:
wherein said UVB light has a peak wavelength of 290-315 nm (Para. [0009], “The second light may include light in a wavelength band of about 280 nm to about 315 nm.”).
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0171321 A1 to Bae et al. (“Bae”) as applied to Claim 1 above in view of W.S. Mirando et al., “Ultraviolet-irradiated monocytes efficiently inhibit the intracellular replication of Mycobacterium avium intracellulare.” J. Clio. Invest. Volume 89, April 1992, 1282-12872 (“Mirando”).
Regarding Claim 2, Bae discloses the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Bae does not disclose:
wherein said dose is no greater than 0.35 SED of said UVB light in an eight hour period
Mirando describes “…the effect of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the antitimicrobial activities of monocytes for the intracellular pathogen Mycobacterium avium intracellulare (MAI)” (Abstract). Mirando is analogous art.
Mirando teaches:
wherein said dose is no greater than 0.35 SED of said UVB light in an eight hour period (Pg. 1283, Left Column, First Paragraph, “The duration of irradiation ranged from 15 s for a UVB dose of IO J /m2 to 300 s for a dose of 200 J/m2;” Pg. 1284, Tables I, II and III, “UV dose J/m2 … 25…”);
The Examiner notes that Para. [0018] of the Present Specification defines the unit “SED” as “100 J m-2.”
Mirando’s “UV dose J/m2 … 25…” delivered in accordance with Mirando’s methodology set forth at Pg. 1283, Left Column, First Paragraph equates to a dose of .25 SED. Mirando’s does of .25 SED is “no greater than 0.35 SED” as claimed.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bae with the teachings of Mirando (i.e., to modify the device of Bae such that its controller is configured to deliver a dose no greater than 0.35 SED of said UVB light in an eight hour period) in order to facilitate inhibition of MAI microbial activity (Mirando at Abstract).
Regarding Claim 3, Bae discloses the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Bae does not disclose:
wherein said dose is no greater than 0.1 to 0.15 SED of said UVB in a 15 min period (Pg. 1283, Left Column, First Paragraph, “The duration of irradiation ranged from 15 s for a UVB dose of IO J /m2 to 300 s for a dose of 200 J/m2;” Pg. 1284, Tables I, II and III, “UV dose J/m2 … 25…”);
The Examiner notes that Para. [0018] of the Present Specification defines the unit “SED” as “100 J m-2.”
Mirando’s “UV dose J/m2 … 25…” delivered in accordance with Mirando’s methodology set forth at Pg. 1283, Left Column, First Paragraph equates to a dose of .25 SED. Mirando’s does of .25 SED is “no greater than 0.35 SED” as claimed
Mirando describes “…the effect of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the antitimicrobial activities of monocytes for the intracellular pathogen Mycobacterium avium intracellulare (MAI)” (Abstract). Mirando is analogous art.
Mirando teaches:
wherein said dose is no greater than 0.1 to 0.15 SED of said UVB in a 15 min period (Pg. 1283, Left Column, First Paragraph, “The duration of irradiation ranged from 15 s for a UVB dose of IO J /m2 to 300 s for a dose of 200 J/m2;” Pg. 1284, Tables I, II and III, “UV dose J/m2 … 10…”);
The Examiner notes that Para. [0018] of the Present Specification defines the unit “SED” as “100 J m-2.”
Mirando’s “UV dose J/m2 … 10…” delivered in accordance with Mirando’s methodology set forth at Pg. 1283, Left Column, First Paragraph equates to a dose of .1 SED. Mirando’s does of .25 SED is “no greater than 0.35 SED” as claimed
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bae with the teachings of Mirando (i.e., to modify the device of Bae such that its controller is configured to deliver a no greater than 0.1 to 0.15 SED of said UVB in a 15 min period) in order to facilitate inhibition of MAI microbial activity (Mirando at Abstract).
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0171321 A1 to Bae et al. (“Bae”) as applied to Claim 1 above in view of P. Avci et al., “Low-level laser (light) therapy (LLL T) in skin: stimulating, healing, restoring,” Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2013 March; 32(1): 41-523 (“Avci”).
Regarding Claim 4, Bae discloses the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Bae does not disclose:
wherein said second light comprising long red or NIR at a sufficient intensity at said target to be absorbed by cytochrome c oxidase enzymes
Avci describes “Low-Level Laser (Light) Therapy and Its Mechanism of Action” (Pg. 2, Second Paragraph). Avci is analogous art.
Avci teaches:
wherein said second light comprising long red or NIR at a sufficient intensity at said target to be absorbed by cytochrome c oxidase enzymes (Pg. 2, Third Paragraph, quotation omitted for brevity).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bae with the teachings of Avci (i.e., to modify Bae’s “second light” such that it comprises long red or NIR at a sufficient intensity at said target to be absorbed by cytochrome c oxidase enzymes in the manner of Avci) in order to “reduc[e] pain and inflammation, augment[] tissue repair and promot[e] regeneration of different tissues and nerves, and prevent[] tissue damage in situations where it is likely to occur” (Avci at Pg. 2, Second Paragraph).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Bae and Avci renders obvious the entirety of Claim 4 as explained above.
Avci additionally teaches:
wherein said controller is configured to emit said second light before said dose is delivered to said target (Pg. 7, Paras. 2-4, quotation omitted for brevity).
Avci describes use of LLLT in conjunction with UVB light therapy, concluding that LLLT is “…effective, achieving a significant response in the reduction of the· erythema induced by UVB.” To achieve this result, Avchi’s LLLT is administered prior to UVB as claimed.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of combined Bae and Avci with the teachings of Avci (i.e., to emit said second light before said dose is delivered to said target in the manner of Avci) in order to reduce erythema induced by UVB (Avchi at Pg. 7, Para. 4).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Bae and Avci renders obvious the entirety of Claim 4 as explained above.
Avci additionally teaches:
wherein said controller causes said second light to be emitted to saturate said cytochrome c oxidase enzymes of said target prior to delivering said dose of UVB (Pg. 2, Third Paragraph; Pg. 7, Paras. 2-4, quotation omitted for brevity).
Avci describes use of LLLT in conjunction with UVB light therapy, concluding that LLLT is “…effective, achieving a significant response in the reduction of the· erythema induced by UVB.” To achieve this result, Avchi’s LLLT is administered prior to UVB as claimed.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of combined Bae and Avci with the teachings of Avci (i.e., to emit said second light before said dose is delivered to said target in the manner of Avci) in order to reduce erythema induced by UVB (Avchi at Pg. 7, Para. 4).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Bae and Avci renders obvious the entirety of Claim 4 as explained above.
Avci additionally teaches
wherein said controller is configured to emit said second light after said dose is delivered to said target (Pg. 11, Second Paragraph through Pg. 12, First Paragraph)
Avci discussed LLLT as a means of treating UV injury at Pg. 11, Second Paragraph through Pg. 12, First Paragraph. Such LLLT treatment for UV injury entails emitting said second light after said dose is delivered to said target in the manner claimed.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of combined Bae and Avci with the teachings of Avci (i.e., emit said second light after said dose is delivered to said target in the manner of Avci) in order to treat incidental damage from the UVB radiation (Avci at Pg. 11, Second Paragraph through Pg. 12, First Paragraph).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0171321 A1 to Bae et al. (“Bae”) in view of P. Avci et al., “Low-level laser (light) therapy (LLL T) in skin: stimulating, healing, restoring,” Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2013 March; 32(1): 41-52 (“Avci”) as applied to Claim 4 above, and further in view of US 2020/0391049 A1 to Moffat et al. (“Moffat”).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Bae and Avci renders obvious the entirety of Claim 4 as explained above.
The combination of Bae and Avci does not disclose:
further comprising a booth for enclosing target and providing privacy, thereby allowing more skin area of the target to be exposed for receiving said dose
Moffat describes “Systems and methods for operating phototherapy kiosks” (Title). Moffat is analogous art.
Moffat teaches:
further comprising a booth for enclosing target and providing privacy, thereby allowing more skin area of the target to be exposed for receiving said dose (Para. [0015], “As shown in FIG. 1A, a phototherapy kiosk is a device with a radiation emission component for delivering UVR based photo therapy. The phototherapy kiosk includes a phototherapeutic assembly 106, such as a panel including one or more UV radiation assemblies configured to emit UV radiation within a predetermined spectrum…. The phototherapy kiosk can be a booth that is completely or partially enclosed with a lockable or non-lockable door 108 (e.g., a pocket door) so that users have a private and secure environment to disrobe for treatment.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Bae and Avci with the teachings of Moffat (i.e., to include such a booth for enclosing target and providing privacy as taught by Moffat) in order to provide “a private and secure environment to disrobe for treatment” (Moffat at Para. [0015]).
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0171321 A1 to Bae et al. (“Bae”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0209806 A1 to Allen et al. (“Allen”).
Regarding Claim 9, Bae discloses the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Bae does not disclose:
wherein said second light configured to alter said target's circadian rhythm to treat Seasonal affective disorder (SAD)
Allen describes “Systems, Methods And Articles For Enhancing Wellness Associated With Habitable Environments” (Title), which systems/method/articles include control of lighting (Abstract). Allen is analogous art.
Allen teaches:
wherein said second light configured to alter said target's circadian rhythm to treat Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) (Para. [0104], “The illumination subsystem 204 may also be controlled to deliver light therapy, with or without topical photoactive substances. Such may, for example be used to treat a variety of conditions, for instance Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD);” Para. [0105], “Another condition or syndrome commonly referred to as “jet lag” results from the relative shift between the circadian rhythm and the daily solar cycle. The effects are a disruption of sleep and a significant deterioration in mood, concentration, and cognitive performance. Controlled light exposure to help match the solar and circadian light cycles can help alleviate these symptoms.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bae with the teachings of Allen (i.e., to modify the second light of Bae such that it is configured to alter said target's circadian rhythm to treat Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) in the manner of Allen) in order to treat seasonal affective disorder and/or light-induced circadian rhythm abnormalities (Allen at Paras. [0104], [0105]).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Bae and Allen renders obvious the entirety of Claim 9 as explained above.
Allen additionally teaches:
wherein said second light source has at least two modes, a first mode in which said second light is a high EML light to stimulate circadian response, and a second mode in which said second light is a low EML light to minimize a circadian response (Para. [0291], “For proper alignment of the circadian system to the normal day, it is essential that there is a contrast between the EML during the day and during the night, with a greater EML throughout the day and lower at night. The greater the daytime light exposure, the higher the night time light exposure can be without deleterious effects on the circadian system.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of combined Bae and Allen with the teachings of Allen (i.e., to modify the second light of Bae such that it has at least two modes, a first mode in which said second light is a high EML light to stimulate circadian response, and a second mode in which said second light is a low EML light to minimize a circadian response in the manner of Allen) in order to ensure proper alignment of the circadian system to the normal day (Allen at Para. [0219]).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Bae and Allen renders obvious the entirety of Claim 10 as explained above.
Allen additionally teaches:
wherein said dose is delivered when said second light source is in said first mode (Para. [0291], “For proper alignment of the circadian system to the normal day, it is essential that there is a contrast between the EML during the day and during the night, with a greater EML throughout the day and lower at night. The greater the daytime light exposure, the higher the night time light exposure can be without deleterious effects on the circadian system.”).
Allen teaches EML light being higher during the first (i.e., “day”) mode, which is consistent with said dose being delivered when said second light source is in said first mode.
Regarding Claim 12, Bae discloses the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Bae additionally discloses:
wherein said controller is configured to power said first light source to emit said UVB (Para. [0076]; Para. [0115]; Para. [0029]; Para. [0079])
Bae does not disclose:
during high circadian stimulation of said target
Allen describes “Systems, Methods And Articles For Enhancing Wellness Associated With Habitable Environments” (Title), which systems/method/articles include control of lighting (Abstract). Allen is analogous art.
Allen teaches:
during high circadian stimulation of said target (Para. [0291])
Although Allen does not expressly teach administration of UVB, Allen teaches EML light being higher during the first (i.e., “day”) mode at Para. [0291], which is consistent with administration of UVB during high circadian stimulation.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bae with the teachings of Allen (i.e., to figure Bae’s controller to power said first light source to emit said UVB during high circadian stimulation of said target) to ensure proper alignment of the circadian system to the normal day (Allen at Para. [0219]).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Bae and Allen renders obvious the entirety of Claim 12 as explained above.
Allen additionally teaches:
wherein said high circadian stimulation of said target is based on time of day (Para. [0291]; Para. [0355]).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Bae and Allen renders obvious the entirety of Claim 12 as explained above.
Allen additionally teaches:
wherein said second light source has at least a first mode in which said second light is a high EML light to stimulate circadian response, and wherein said dose is delivered when said second light source is in said first mode (Para. [0291]).
Allen teaches EML light being higher during the first (i.e., “day”) mode, which is consistent with said dose being delivered when said second light source is in said first mode.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of combined Bae and Allen with the teachings of Allen (i.e., to modify the second light of Bae such that it has at least a first mode in which said second light is a high EML light to stimulate circadian response, and Bae’s dose is delivered when said second light source is in said first mode in the manner of Allen) in order to ensure proper alignment of the circadian system to the normal day (Allen at Para. [0219]).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Bae and Allen renders obvious the entirety of Claim 12 as explained above.
Allen additionally teaches:
wherein said high circadian stimulation of said target is based on feedback from said target (Para. [0022]; Para. [0291]).
Allen’s “scene request” is such “feedback” as claimed.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of combined Bae and Allen with the teachings of Allen (i.e., to perform high circadian stimulation of said target is based on feedback from the target) in order to ensure proper alignment of the circadian system to the normal day (Allen at Para. [0219]).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Bae and Allen renders obvious the entirety of Claim 15 as explained above.
Allen additionally teaches:
wherein said second light source has at least a first mode in which said second light is a high EML light to stimulate circadian response, (Para. [0291]);
and said controller is configured emit said second light in said first mode to align said target's circadian rhythm with a desired circadian rhythm, and to deliver said dose only after establishing said desired circadian rhythm (Para. [0113]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of combined Bae and Allen with the teachings of Allen (i.e., to configure said second light source such that it has at least a first mode in which said second light is a high EML light to stimulate circadian response, and said controller such that it is configured emit said second light in said first mode to align said target's circadian rhythm with a desired circadian rhythm, and to deliver said dose only after establishing said desired circadian rhythm in the manner of Allen) in order to ensure proper alignment of the circadian system to the normal day (Allen at Para. [0219]).
Claims 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0171321 A1 to Bae et al. (“Bae”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2016/0129279 A1 to Ferolito (“Ferolito”).
Regarding Claim 17, Bae discloses the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Bae does not disclose:
wherein said controller is responsive to at least one feedback signal of wearable of at least one occupant of space subjected to said emitted light, wherein said feedback signal is a measure of the UVB to which said at least one occupant has received over a given period of time
Ferolito describes “A wearable device for therapeutic irradiation of skin…” (Abstract). Ferolito is analogous art.
Ferolito teaches:
wherein said controller is responsive to at least one feedback signal of wearable of at least one occupant of space subjected to said emitted light, wherein said feedback signal is a measure of the UVB to which said at least one occupant has received over a given period of time (Para. [0048]; Para. [0050]; Para. [0099])
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bae with the teachings of Ferolito (i.e., to modify Bae’s controller such that it is responsive to at least one feedback signal of wearable of at least one occupant of space subjected to said emitted light, wherein said feedback signal is a measure of the UVB to which said at least one occupant has received over a given period of time in the manner of Ferolito) in order to allow for use of a wearbale device to detect the proximity of light spreading to the skin (Ferolito at Abstract).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Bae and Ferolito renders obvious the entirety of Claim 17 as explained above.
Ferolito additionally teaches:
wherein said wearable determines dosage based on pigment of skin (Para. [0046], “The wearable device may contain one or more detectors able to measure the presence of, or intensity of, backscattered light. Data from this sensor, or sensors, can be used in a variety of ways, including but not limited to automatic adjustments in light emitter intensity and/or duration for safety or compensation for variations in skin, such as skin pigmentation. Pigmentation can be measured by a variety of methods including but not limited to measuring the reflected light from sources of specific wavelengths or taking a picture of a small portion of the skin using a broad spectrum or white light source…;” Para. [0055]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of combined Bae and Ferolito with the teachings of Ferolito (i.e., to modify the wearable of combined Bae and Ferolito such that it determines dosage based on pigment of skin in the manner of Ferolito) in order to facilitate resolution of pigmentation issues (Ferolito at Para. [0004]).
Regarding Claim 19, Bae discloses the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Bae does not disclose:
wherein said dose is based on skin color
Ferolito describes “A wearable device for therapeutic irradiation of skin…” (Abstract). Ferolito is analogous art.
Ferolito teaches:
wherein said dose is based on skin color (Para. [0046], “The wearable device may contain one or more detectors able to measure the presence of, or intensity of, backscattered light. Data from this sensor, or sensors, can be used in a variety of ways, including but not limited to automatic adjustments in light emitter intensity and/or duration for safety or compensation for variations in skin, such as skin pigmentation. Pigmentation can be measured by a variety of methods including but not limited to measuring the reflected light from sources of specific wavelengths or taking a picture of a small portion of the skin using a broad spectrum or white light source…”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bae with the teachings of Ferolito (i.e., to modify the device of Bae such that its dose is based on skin color in the manner of Ferolito) in order to facilitate adjustment of light intensity based on skin color, thereby increasing efficacy (Ferolito at Para. [0046]).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Bae and Ferolito renders obvious the entirety of Claim 19 as explained above.
Ferolito additionally teaches:
wherein algorithm could be implemented to use camera image of user skin tone to adjust the dosage (Para. [0046]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of combined Bae and Ferolito with the teachings of Ferolito (i.e., to modify the device of combined Bae and Ferrolito such that its algorithm could be implemented to use camera image of user skin tone to adjust the dosage in the manner of Ferolito) in order to facilitate adjustment of light intensity based on skin color, thereby increasing efficacy (Ferolito at Para. [0046]).
Regarding Claim 21, Bae discloses the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Bae does not disclose:
wherein said at least one target comprises multiple targets and wherein feedback signals include individual UVB exposures
Ferolito describes “A wearable device for therapeutic irradiation of skin…” (Abstract). Ferolito is analogous art.
Ferolito teaches:
wherein said at least one target comprises multiple targets and wherein feedback signals include individual UVB exposures (Fig.4; Para. [0007]; Para. [0011]; Para. [0048]; Para. [0050]; Para. [0099]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bae with the teachings of Ferolito (i.e., to modify the device of Bae such that its at least one target comprises multiple targets and wherein feedback signals include individual UVB exposures in the manner of Ferolito) in order to facilitate use of the device at multiple body parts.
Claim 22 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0171321 A1 to Bae et al. (“Bae”) in view of US 2016/0129279 A1 to Ferolito (“Ferolito”) as applied to Claim 21 above, and further in view of W.S. Mirando et al., “Ultraviolet-irradiated monocytes efficiently inhibit the intracellular replication of Mycobacterium avium intracellulare.” J. Clio. Invest. Volume 89, April 1992, 1282-1287 (“Mirando”).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Bae and Ferolito renders obvious the entirety of Claim 21 as explained above.
The combination of Bae and Ferolito does not disclose:
wherein said controller adjusts the output of said first light source such that no one of said plurality of targets receives more than said 0.35 SED in an 8 hour period
Mirando describes “…the effect of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the antitimicrobial activities of monocytes for the intracellular pathogen Mycobacterium avium intracellulare (MAI)” (Abstract). Mirando is analogous art.
Mirando teaches:
wherein said controller adjusts the output of said first light source such that no one of said plurality of targets receives more than said 0.35 SED in an 8 hour period Pg. 1283, Left Column, First Paragraph, “The duration of irradiation ranged from 15 s for a UVB dose of IO J /m2 to 300 s for a dose of 200 J/m2;” Pg. 1284, Tables I, II and III, “UV dose J/m2 … 25…”);
The Examiner notes that Para. [0018] of the Present Specification defines the unit “SED” as “100 J m-2.”
Mirando’s “UV dose J/m2 … 25…” delivered in accordance with Mirando’s methodology set forth at Pg. 1283, Left Column, First Paragraph equates to a dose of .25 SED. Mirando’s does of .25 SED is “no greater than 0.35 SED” as claimed.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Bae and Ferolito with the teachings of Mirando (i.e., to modify the device of combined Bae and Ferolito such that its controller is configured to deliver a dose no greater than 0.35 SED of said UVB light in an eight hour period) in order to facilitate inhibition of MAI microbial activity (Mirando at Abstract).
Claim 23 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0171321 A1 to Bae et al. (“Bae”) in view of US 2016/0129279 A1 to Ferolito (“Ferolito”) and W.S. Mirando et al., “Ultraviolet-irradiated monocytes efficiently inhibit the intracellular replication of Mycobacterium avium intracellulare.” J. Clio. Invest. Volume 89, April 1992, 1282-1287 (“Mirando”) as applied to Claim 22 above, and further in view of Alfredsson L. et al., "Insufficient Sun Exposure Has Become a Real Public Health Problem." Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jul 13;17(14):5014 (“Alfredsson”).
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Bae, Ferolito and Mirando renders obvious the entirety of Claim 22 as explained above.
The combination of Bae, Ferolito and Mirando does not disclose:
wherein said controller signals a target who will not receive a sufficient does of UVB to spend time outside or spend time with an individual therapy lamp
Alfredsson describes “…accumulating evidence on health benefits from sun exposure, which suggests that insufficient sun exposure is a significant public health problem” (Abstract). Alfredsson is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, and is thus analogous art.
Alfredsson teaches:
wherein said controller signals a target who will not receive a sufficient dose of UVB to spend time outside or spend time with an individual therapy lamp (Pg. 2 of 15, Fourth Paragraph through Pg. 3 of 14, First Paragraph, “Reduction of time outdoors has been amplified by skin cancer prevention campaigns to minimize sun exposure (e.g., by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)) [2]. While it is accepted that solar UVR exposure is the main cause of skin cancer [3], evidence is accumulating on the health benefits of sun exposure [3], as well as widespread vitamin D deficiency [3,4], and has revealed a possibly significant public health problem resulting from insufficient sun exposure.... the cutaneous production of vitamin D is dependent on solar UVB exposure…. higher vitamin D concentrations (measured as serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25(OH)D)) are considered as a proxy for sun exposure so that their association with health benefits will be taken as indicating a beneficial effect of sunlight but not necessarily a benefit of vitamin D.”).
Alfredsson teaches that lack of sun exposure causes vitamin D deficit, and that the mechanism by which sun exposure increase vitamin D is via UVB.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Bae, Ferolito and Mirando with the teachings of Alfredsson (i.e., to modify the device of combined Bae, Ferolito and Mirando such that its controller is configured to signal a target who will not receive a sufficient dose of UVB to spend time outside or spend time with an individual therapy lamp) in order to reduce vitamin D deficit via UVB exposure (Alfredsson at Pg. 2 of 15, Fourth Paragraph through Pg. 3 of 14, First Paragraph).
Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0171321 A1 to Bae et al. (“Bae”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of TW I741976 B4 (“TW ‘976”).
Regarding Claim 24, Bae discloses the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Bae does not disclose:
wherein said second light source is an antibacterial (AB) light
TW ‘976 describes a “Light disinfection system and method” (Title). TW ‘976 is analogous art.
TW ‘976 teaches:
wherein said second light source is an antibacterial (AB) light (Paras. [0048] through [0049], describing a light source having an antibacterial effect at a particular wavelength).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bae with the teachings of TW ‘976 (i.e., to use such antibacterial light as taught by TW ‘976 as the second light of Bae) in order to deactivate common pathogens (TW ‘976 at Para. [0004]).
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Bae and TW ‘976 renders obvious the entirety of Claim 24 as explained above.
TW ‘976 additionally teaches:
wherein said AB light is white light with a local peak wavelength of 405nm (Para. [0048]).
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Bae and TW ‘976 renders obvious the entirety of Claim 24 as explained above.
TW ‘976 additionally teaches:
wherein said AB light and said UVB light synergistically suppresses bacteria (Para. [0015]).
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0171321 A1 to Bae et al. (“Bae”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of "Frequently Asked Questions On Light Therapy" pp 1-10. HCSS LUG. Web. 17 February 2021; [retrieved 19 August 2023]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://hcsslug.org/2021 /02/17 /frequently-asked-questions-about-full-spectrum-light-therap/5 (“FAQ Light Therapy”).
Regarding Claim 27, Bae discloses the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Bae does not disclose:
wherein said second light has a CRI of at least 80
FAQ Light Therapy provides answers to “Frequently Asked Questions on Light Therapy” (Title). FAQ Light Therapy is analogous art.
FAQ Light Therapy teaches:
wherein said second light has a CRI of at least 80 (Pg. 8/10, Second Paragraph, disclosing “a CRI of around 80 and 90.”)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bae with the teachings of FAQ Light Therapy (i.e., to modify the device of Bae such that its second light has a CRI of at least 80 in the manner of FAQ Light Therapy) in order to “help with vitamin D synthesis” (FAQ Light Therapy at Pg. 8/10, First Paragraph).
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of Bae and FAQ Light Therapy renders obvious the entirety of Claim 27 as explained above.
FAQ Light Therapy additionally teaches:
wherein said second light source is a Vigor (Pg. 8/10, suggesting that any commercially available light source is viable).
The Present Specification states at Para. [0026] that a “Vigor” light system is “commercially available from Ecosense.”
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Bae and FAQ Light Therapy such that the second light source is a Vigor because so-doing entails only a simple substitution of one known element with another to obtain predictable results.
The prior art contained a device (i.e., that of combined Bae and FAQ Light Therapy) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (i.e., an unspecified commercially available light source) with other components (i.e., a particular light source known by the brand name “Vigor” which the Present Specification states is commercially available).
The substituted components and their functions were known in the art. FAQ Light Therapy describes use of commercially available light sources, and the Present Specification states at Para. [0026] that a “Vigor” light system is “commercially available from Ecosense.”
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0171321 A1 to Bae et al. (“Bae”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20200267814 A1 to Song et al. (“Song”).
Regarding Claim 30, Bae discloses the entirety of Claim 29 as explained above.
Bae does not disclose:
wherein said UVB light has a peak wavelength of 300 nm
Song describes a “LED LIGHTING APPARATUS AND LIGHTING SYSTEM HAVING THE SAME” (Title). Song is analogous art.
Song teaches:
wherein said UVB light has a peak wavelength of 300 nm (Abstract, “A lighting apparatus including a controller including a real time clock, an LED driver, and an LED luminaire including a first light emitting unit including a first LED to emit light having a peak wavelength between 300 to 470 nm and a wavelength converter, and at least one of a second light emitting unit to emit light having a peak wavelength between 286 to 304 nm to cause production of vitamin D…” (emphasis added)).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bae with the teachings of Song (i.e., to use UVB light having a peak wavelength of 300 nm as taught by Song) in order to “cause production of vitamin D” (Song at Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J MUTCHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8012. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/C.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/LYNSEY C Eiseman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
1 US 2020/0171321 A1 is the US equivalent of WO 2020/111877 A1, which was disclosed by Applicant in the IDS dated 6/12/2025.
2 W.S. Mirando et al., “Ultraviolet-irradiated monocytes efficiently inhibit the intracellular replication of Mycobacterium avium intracellulare.” J. Clio. Invest. Volume 89, April 1992, 1282-1287 was disclosed by Applicant in the IDS dated 6/12/2025.
3 P. Avci et al., “Low-level laser (light) therapy (LLL T) in skin: stimulating, healing, restoring,” Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2013 March; 32(1): 41-52 was disclosed by Applicant in the IDS dated 6/12/2025.
4TW I741976 B was disclosed by Applicant in the IDS dated 6/12/2025.
5"Frequently Asked Questions On Light Therapy" pp 1-10. HCSS LUG. Web. 17 February 2021; [retrieved 19 August 2023]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://hcsslug.org/2021 /02/17 /frequently-asked-questions-about-full-spectrum-light-therap/ was disclosed by Applicant in the IDS dated 6/12/2025.
Prosecution Insights