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
Applicant is advised that should claims 5, 10, and 16 be found allowable, claims 6, 11, and 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5, 6, 10, 11, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. These pairs of claims are duplicates that do not further limit. Claim 6 is a duplicate of claim 5; claim 11 is a duplicate of claim 10; and claim 17 is a duplicate of claim 16. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-14, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United Kingdom Patent GB 2496628 to Gruenewald et al.
Regarding Claims 1, 12, and 13, Gruenewald teaches a light therapy device and method for an animal having tissue, a neck, and a shoulder, for increasing mitochondrial membrane potential in an animal having tissue, a neck and a shoulder (Gruenewald Fig. 5(b) and pg. 32 lines 20-25), the device comprising: a. a housing comprising (Gruenewald Fig. 5(a) #11): i. a tissue-facing surface (Gruenewald Fig. 6 surface touching element P); ii. an aperture in the tissue-facing surface (Gruenewald Fig. 5(a) aperture #11a); iii. at least one light source (Gruenewald Fig. 5(a) #12) configured to emit light through the aperture; iv. a power source (Gruenewald Fig. 6 #13); and V. a controller (Gruenewald Fig. 6 #14); wherein the housing is configured to be attached to a band or a harness (Gruenewald Fig. 5(a) #19), and the ban or harness is configured to be secured to the animal (Gruenewald Fig. 5(b) and Fig. 6 and pg. 32 lines 20-25) such that the emitted light impinges the animal's tissue, applying one or more wavelengths of light to an animal's tissue proximate a vein or artery, the vein or artery having mitochondria (Gruenewald applies it to a human or animal which both have veins and arteries having mitochondria, applicant doesn’t claim a specific location on the animal and Gruenewald teaches arms and legs which are have veins and arteries).
Regarding Claim 7, Gruenewald teaches a system for increasing mitochondrial membrane potential in an animal having tissue, a neck and a shoulder, (italics indicate functional language the system/structure of Gruenewald is capable of performing) the system comprising: a. a light source configured to emit light through an aperture of a housing toward a first location, the housing configured to be secured at the first location proximate the animal's tissue proximate to a vein or artery, the vein or artery having mitochondria; and (Gruenewald Fig. 5(a), 5(b), and 6 LEDS #12; housing #11; aperture #11a); a controller and a power source (Gruenewald Fig. 6 #14 and #13) operably coupled to the light source, the controller configured to activate the light source such that the light traverses a pathway to arrive at and penetrate the animal's tissue proximate to a vein or artery, thereby increasing mitochondrial membrane potential in the mitochondria in the vein or the artery (Gruenewald Fig. 5(b) and Fig. 6 and pg. 32 lines 20-25).
Regarding Claims 2, 9, and 14, Gruenewald teaches the light is not visible to an observer when the device is in operation (Gruenewald Fig. 6 light directly on surface of element P only).
Regarding Claims 4 and 8, Gruenewald teaches a dose rate of the emitted light causes no immediate or long-term detectable temperature rise of the animal's tissue and no macroscopically visible changes in tissue structure (Gruenewald abstract LEDs #12).
Regarding Claims 5, 6, 10, 11, 16, and 17, Gruenewald teaches the emitted light is red,
green or violet-blue (Gruenewald abstract).
Regarding Claims 18, 19, 20, Gruenewald teaches a mobile application on a smart phone which operates the light therapy device remotely (Gruenewald Fig. 16, pg. 62 line 20-24; pg. 27 line 1-5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United Kingdom Patent GB 2496628 to Gruenewald et al in view of Korean Patent KR 20200127291 to Park.
Regarding Claims 3 and 15, Gruenewald teaches the band or the harness (Gruenewald Fig. 5(a) #19), but is silent on wherein the band or the harness is secured around the animal's neck loosely enough that the housing falls naturally by gravity to the area where the animal's neck broadens out to the animal's shoulder.
However, Park teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide a band or harness wherein the band or the harness is secured around the animal's neck loosely enough that the housing falls naturally by gravity to the area where the animal's neck broadens out to the animal's shoulder (Park Figs. 1-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Gruenewald with the teachings of Park before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for the animal to wear while living daily life and for desired treatment target area as taught by Park. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known body treatment location for another to obtain predictable results. In addition, “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. The modification is merely an obvious engineering design choice of merely shifting the location of a known element performing the same intended function [In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 1023, 86 USPQ 70, 73 (CCPA 1950)].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art of record is a teaching of the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art of light therapy:
U.S. Patent No. 7,534,255; U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0116274; U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0282229; PCT WO 2013/122870; Korean Patent KR 102161750; Korean Patent KR 20210019928; Korean Patent KR 102604305; Korean Patent KR 20220094418; Korean Patent KR 200401329; U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2024/0108912; U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0241407; U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0323784; U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0170191; U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2008/0269849; U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0109906.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA M VALENTI whose telephone number is (571)272-6895. The examiner can normally be reached Available Monday and Tuesday only, eastern time.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/ANDREA M VALENTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
28 July 2026
Prosecution Insights