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
Claims 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites the limitation:
“wherein the light-transmitting layer and the substrate layer are both flexible; and the light source assembly comprises a flexible LED light board or LED light strip”
This should be changed to:
“wherein the light-transmitting layer and the substrate layer are both flexible; and the light source assembly comprises a flexible light emitting diode (LED) light board or LED light strip”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation:
“wherein the light-transmitting layer comprises a convex ring at side facing the substrate layer, and a light-emitting unit is positioned at the center of the convex ring”
This should be changed to:
“wherein the light-transmitting layer comprises a convex ring at a side facing the substrate layer, and a light-emitting unit is positioned at the center of the convex ring”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Debow et al (US 20210023387) hereafter known as Debow.
Independent claim:
Regarding claim 1
A phototherapy pad [see Figs. 11-12 element 140 and para 78… “FIG. 11A is a front view of an exemplary flexible facemask pad 140. FIG. 11B is a back view of the facemask flexible pad 140.”], comprising:
a main body area configured to cover a treatment area [see labelled figure directly below rejection to this claim and para 78… “FIG. 11A is a front view of an exemplary flexible facemask pad 140. FIG. 11B is a back view of the facemask flexible pad 140. The facemask pad 140 has raised portions 3 on the front surface that cover respectively light sources on an internal layer.”], the main body area comprises an upper end, a lower end a first side, and a second side connecting the upper end and the lower end [see labelled upper end of main body area, labelled first side of main body, labelled second side of main body, and labelled lower end of main body in labelled figure(s) directly below rejection to this claim];
a first edge area having a first end connected to the upper end of the main body area and extending laterally along the first side of the main body area towards the lower end [see labelled first edge area and labelled first end of first edge area in labelled figure(s) directly below rejection to this claim]; and
a second edge area having a first end connected to the upper end of the main body area and extending laterally along the second side of the main body area towards the lower end [see labelled second edge area and labelled first end of second edge area in labelled figure(s) directly below rejection to this claim].
PNG
media_image1.png
845
832
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dependent claims
Regarding claims 6-7: see elements 8 in labelled figure(s) directly below rejection to claim 1 above and para 78 [see “Moreover, in this example, coupler housings or rings 8 on the back near the perimeter may receive a belt to hold the facemask pad 140 on the human face. In other words, the belt may thread through the rings and around the back of the human head, for example.”] and Fig. 12. Elements 8 are at least a first and second connection portions as recited in claim 6 and para 78 discloses a fixing belt as recited in claim 7.
Regarding claims 8-9, see Figs. 2 and 11-12 element 2 (i.e. light-transmitting layer), element 10 (i.e. substrate layer), elements 4-5 (i.e. light source assembly) and para 48-56 [see “surface 2A (including the dimples 3) may be clear or translucent to allow for light to pass from the light sources 4 through the layer 2 and dimples 3” and “a light source 4 (e.g., a light emitting diode or LED) disposed underneath on internal circuitry of layer 5 (e.g., an interior layer, internal layer, partially-internal layer, etc.). The layer 5 may be an internal layer or a semi-internal layer. The layer 5 may flexible or rigid circuitry. In the illustrated example, the layer 5 is flexible circuitry.” And “The back layer 10A may have a generally flat exterior surface 10. The surface 10 may be the backside of the flexible pad 1.”] which describe the elements as recited in these claims.
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.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Debow.
Regarding claims 2-5:
Debow discloses the invention substantially as claimed including a first and second transition zone recited in claims 2 and 4 as outlined in the labelled figure directly below the rejection to claim 1 above. Also, Debow discloses a transition zone that extends the width of the transition zones, the higher the transition zone is relative to the upper end of the main body.
However, Debow fails to explicitly disclose what the widths are relative to the height of the transition zones. Therefore, Debow fails to explicitly disclose “height of the first transition zone is less than or equal to the length of the first edge area”, “wherein the length of the first transition zone is greater than the width of the first edge area”, “height of the second transition zone is less than or equal to the length of the second edge area” or “wherein the length of the second transition zone is greater than the width of the second edge area” as recited by claims 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively as outlined above.
It would have been obvious to have the widths of the first and second transition zones extend from less than heights of the first and second transition zones to greater than the heights for the first and second transition zones, respectively because there are a limited number of sizes for the widths to be relative to the heights (i.e. widths extend less than the heights, widths extend same as the heights, widths extend greater than the heights) and these are those limited number of sizes.
Regarding claim 10:
Debow discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as outlined above. Additionally, Debow discloses that element 10 (i.e. light-transmitting layer) comprises raised portions in the form of dimples (i.e. convex rings) [see Figs. 2 and 10-12 elements 3 (i.e. convex rings) at a side with light from the light sources passing through (i.e. light sources positioned at center of ring) [see para 48… “The front layer 2 and surface 2A may have raised portions 3 (e.g., dimples, square cubes, rectangular cubes, irregular cubes, pyramids, etc.) that coincide, respectively, with light sources 4 disposed underneath the front layer 2.”].
However, Debow is silent as to whether the dimples (i.e. convex rings) are on the front side or the back side (i.e. a side facing the substrate layer) of element. Therefore, Debow fails to fully disclose “wherein the light-transmitting layer comprises a convex ring at side facing the substrate layer, and a light-emitting unit is positioned at the center of the convex ring” as recited by claim 10.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Debow by placing the convex rings on the back side of the light-transmitting layer (i.e. a side facing the substrate) thereby fully reciting fully reciting the missing limitation because there are a limited number of sides to place the dimples on the light-transmitting layer (i.e. front side of the light-transmitting layer or back side of the light-transmitting layer) and the back side of the light-transmitting layer (i.e. side facing the substrate) is one of those places.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Debow as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Savage, Jr et al (US 20040138726) hereafter known as Savage.
Debow discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as outlined above. Additionally, Debow discloses that LEDs of a light pad are attached to the rest of the device by placing the LEDs through raised portions of the front layer [see Figs. 2 and 10-12 elements 3 (i.e. raised portions) at a side with the light sources and see para 47-53].
However, Debow fails to disclose “wherein a positioning hole is provided in the light source assembly, and a positioning protrusion is provided on the substrate layer to fit into the positioning hole”
Savage discloses in the analogous art of photo-therapy [see para 21… “The foregoing apparatus and methods may be used to effectively treat an infant for jaundice, to treat any subject for an excess of bilirubin or to provide photo-therapy for a number of illnesses and disorders, including seasonal affective disorders, sleep-related disorders and mood disorders.”] another way known for attach LEDs for light pad includes extending LEDs (i.e. positioning protrusion) from a substrate through a corresponding hole (i.e. positioning hole) [see labelled figure(s) directly below rejection to this claim and para 43-45… “Each LED 30 extends into one of the apertures 18 so that the top 32 of each LED 30 may be essentially flush with the upper surface of light pad 12, as shown in FIG. 3A.”]
Since Debow discloses one independent way of connecting diodes to the rest of the pad (i.e. placing the diodes in raised portions) and Savage discloses another independent way of connecting diodes to the rest of the pad (i.e. placing the diodes on the bottom layer (or substrate layer) to project through positioning holes), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to connect the LEDs using both Debow’s connection and the connection taught by Savage (i.e. thereby fully reciting the missing limitation) because one of ordinary skill would expect the combination of two independent ways to connect the diodes to rest of the pad to lead to a better connection than either independent way of connecting alone.
PNG
media_image2.png
576
806
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Debow as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Barry et al (US 20050177093) hereafter known as Barry.
Debow discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as outlined above and the use of a controller placed on the pad to electrically control the light source assembly [see para 55… “Moreover, the wavelength (nm) of the light may be adjustable via controller or IC 7 (e.g., having a hardware processor and memory with stored code executable by the processor). The layer 5 or IC 7 may include a more rigid circuit board 17 for support and/or physical stability. The board 17 may be a part on the otherwise flexible circuit board 5. A network interface component 16 (e.g., Bluetooth® wireless) may be included. Further, the flexible pad 1 may include a data port or signal port to couple to a computer to receive information and data into memory. Such may be processed by the controller or IC 7, or by other circuitry on the flexible circuitry 5, and so on.”].
However, Debow is silent as to the placement of the controller on the pad shaped as shown in Figs 11-12.
Barry discloses in the analogous art of phototherapy [see para 3… “The herein disclosed invention finds applicability in the field of phototherapy.”] that a known configuration for the placement of a controller that controls light emitting diodes is embedded on a flange of a light pad [see Figs- 3-4 element 60 (i.e. controller) on element 22 (i.e. pad) and para 152… “Embedded in the neoprene belt 22 are a series of light emitting diodes 42, 44, 46, 48 in a tiered relationship, and adjacent thereto are a tiered series of light emitting diodes and between these sets of light emitting diodes is a fiber optic sensory device 50. Disposed on the top layer of the belt is a processing unit 60. In FIG. 5 the device could be programmed so that individual LED's are actuated. For example, LED 42 and 48 could be programmed to be "on" while LED 44 and 46 could be programmed to be "off".]
Since Debow is silent as to the exact location of the controller that controls light emitting diodes in the embodiment disclosed by Figs. 11-12, and Barry discloses a known location for a controller (i.e. control assembly) is embedded on a flange of a pad, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Debow by placing the controller on one of the four flanges (i.e. element 1420 of the pad shown in Figs. 11A-11B of Debow) similarly to that disclosed by Barry because this a known location for a light emitting diode controller on a light pad .
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify Debow in view of Barry by placing controller specifically on either the first or second edge areas (i.e. thereby reciting a control assembly as claimed) because these are subsets of the four flanges.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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, NIKETA PATEL can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN
/SXL/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights