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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's request filed on 12/11/2025 has been accepted.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and under examination. As per the amendments filed on 12/11/2025, claims 1, 8, 10, 14, 16, and 20 are amended.
Priority
The instant application (filed on 02/18/2025) is a non-provisional application filed under 35 USC 111(a). Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for domestic priority based on provisional application 63/554,498 filed on 02/16/2024. As explained by Applicant, the Examiner notes the instant application was filed within 12 months of the provisional application.
The examiner notes the provisional application (via claims, specification, or drawings) does not disclose the flexible textile cable assembly with anchor strips (independent claims 1 and 14), metallic flexible textile material (Claim 5), a help button (Claim 6), a non-woven coated substrate on the flexible PCB assembly (Claim 12), the back panel being made of a metallic material (Claim 15), or non-conductive fasteners (Claims 3 and 16).
Therefore, the effective filing date of instant claims 1-20 is 02/18/2025 (the filing date of the instant application).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 8 (Rejections under 35 USC 112), filed 12/11/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claim 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claim 20 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 8-11 (Rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103), filed 12/11/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered. Regarding independent claims 1 and 14, Applicant argues:
Responsive to the Examiner's comments in the Advisory Action dated Dec. 2, 2025, Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 14 to further clarify the structure of the flexible textile cable assembly, incorporating details from the specification regarding the textile-based anchor strips including fabric layers with conductive pathways (see Spec., 0100-0102, 0105, 0117; FIG. 13). These amendments are supported by the original disclosure and do not introduce new matter. The amendments to claims 1 and 14 distinguish the claims over the cited references by adding recitation of the first and second anchor strips in more detail. Some of the added subject matter in these amended claims was recited in dependent claims 10 and 16. As such, portions of claims 10 and 16 have been deleted as being redundant in view of the amendments to their respective base claims 1 and 14. However, although the subject matter added to claims 1 and 14 makes those portions of claims 10 and 16 redundant, the added subject matter goes significantly beyond what was recited in claims 10 and 16. Specifically, that the anchor strips are "textile based," and include "fabric layers with conductive pathways."
Belkowski lacks the specific "textile-based" structure with "fabric layers" for conductive pathways. Its traces are on resilient non-fabric substrates (rubber/neoprene), not fabric-embedded. The amendment clarifies that the flexible textile cable assembly is a fabric-integrated system, avoiding Belkowski's potential rigidity from polymer traces. Rosenfeld's conductors are polymer printed, not "fabric layers with conductive pathways" using textile-based anchors. The amendments require fabric integration for the anchors themselves, distinguishing from Rosenfeld's non-fabric traces.
As taught in para. 0100, in describing FIG. 13, the specification indicates that the flexible textile cable assembly "provides power to the flexible substrate assembly," and "includes a first anchor strip 1301 and a second anchor strip 1303." Each of the anchor strips feature conductive elements for connecting to corresponding elements of the flexible substrate. Further, as recited in para. 0105, the anchor strips of the flexible textile cable assembly provide connection points for the cover. Additionally, in para. 0117, the specification indicates that the anchor strips comprise fabric layers, and in one embodiment there can be two such fabric layers. The word "textile," given its ordinary meaning, is "cloth," and especially a "woven or knit cloth."1 The word "fabric as used in para. 0117 is consistent with the ordinary meaning of "textile." Thus, the claim term "flexible textile cable assembly" includes fabric.
Applicant submits that the amendment clarifying the structure of the "flexible textile cable assembly" supports a fabric-integrated structure. As indicated previously hereinabove, "textile" commonly refers to materials made from woven, knitted, or felted fibers (e.g., fabrics), and in e-textile contexts, the amendments denote conductive pathways formed within fabric layers. This is distinct from a flexible printed circuit board, which is understood to be a thin, flexible polymer film (e.g., polyimide) with etched copper traces, or a wiring harness, which is a bundle of insulated wires. Belkowski explicitly describes its electrical connections as a "flexible circuit board or wiring harness" embedded in a synthetic rubber composite (Belkowski, 0030), without any mention of textile-based structure. Thus, Belkowski's structure is not "textile" in composition or function.
The specification describes the "flexible textile cable assembly" as an integrated component of the overall textile material, comprising "first anchor strip" and "second anchor strip" positioned along opposite sides of the flexible substrate assembly to provide positive and negative electric potentials (Spec., 0100-0102; FIG. 13). The amended claims indicate that these anchor strips are formed by fabric layers with conductive pathways. The flexible textile cable assemblies are depicted and described as textile-based power rails, enabling seamless integration into the "flexible textile material" (Spec., 0087; FIGS. 2A, 2B) to maintain the device's non-shape-retaining, blanket-like conformance (Spec., 0059; FIG. 1). Nowhere does the specification equate the cable assembly to a non-textile flexible printed circuit board or wiring harness; instead, it emphasizes fabric compatibility for washability and flexibility (Spec., 0055, 0087). Interpreting "textile cable assembly," as amended, to encompass Belkowski's flexible printed circuit board would impermissibly broaden the term beyond the specification's teachings. Rosenfeld does not remedy the deficiency of Belkowski. (11/12/2025 Remarks, p. 8-10)
This argument is persuasive. Belkowski does not disclose the flexible textile cable assembly described in the following amended limitation common to claims 1 and 14:
Wherein the flexible textile cable assembly comprises a first textile-based anchor strip including fabric layers with conductive pathways positioned along a first side of the flexible substrate assembly and configured to provide a first electrical potential to the plurality of LEDs, and a second textile-based anchor strip including fabric layers with conductive pathways positioned along a second side of the flexible substrate assembly, opposite the first side, and configured to provide a second electrical potential to the plurality of LEDs.
Therefore, the rejections of claims 1 and 14 are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made newly in view of Russell (US 6,290,713 B1) and Augustine (US 2008/0230530 A1).
Regarding dependent claims 2-13 and 15-20, Applicant argues:
The remaining claims are dependent on either claim 1 or claim 14, and as such would be allowable as a matter of law if their respective base claim is allowable. In the interest of compact prosecution, all arguments presented herein in support of patentability are without prejudice or disclaimer. Additionally, merely example distinctions from the references have been discussed.
Other distinctions may exist and the right to discuss these additional distinctions in a later response or on appeal is reserved, if appropriate, in this or another related application. By not responding to additional statements made by the Examiner, such as what is taught by each cited reference or alleged to be obvious in view of the cited references, Applicant does not acquiesce to the Examiner's additional statements. The example distinctions discussed herein are sufficient to overcome the mentioned rejections. (11/12/2025 Remarks, p. 11-12)
This argument is persuasive. The rejections of dependent claims 2-13 and 15-20 are similarly withdrawn due to the shared arguments presented for the withdrawn claim 1 and 14 rejections.
Summary: The prior art rejections of claims 1-20 are withdrawn. 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections for claims 1-20 newly in view of Russell and Augustine are added.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 4, and 11-13 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Belkowski (US 2024/0033536 A1) (cited previously) in view of Russell (US 6,290,713 B1) and Augustine (US 2008/0230530 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Belkowski discloses a light therapy device ([0002]), comprising:
• a flexible textile material ([0031] – “back portion of mat 102 may be flexible (e.g., not rigid) and may be composed, at least in apart, of a nylon, spandex, polyurethane foam composite, and/or the like to provide flexibility and foldability for mat”) having a length and width large enough to cover a torso of an average human (Figure 4A, [0070] – depicts the mat able to cover the user; [0054] – dimensions of the mat provided). Note the flexible textile material is being interpreted as a structural element making up the outer layers of the blanket with the naming convention stating the structural element’s material composition;
• a flexible substrate assembly ([0005] – flexible middle portion, [0030] – “At least a portion of mat 102 may be composed of a styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) composite (e.g., a middle portion between the clear portion and a back portion, as further discussed herein). The SBR composite may be coated with neoprene, polychloroprene, chloroprene rubber, and/or any applicable synthetic material”) coupled to and interior of the flexible textile material ([0030] – positioned in the middle between the front and back layers);
• a flexible cable assembly coupled to an interior of the flexible textile material ([0030] – “According to an implementation, the SBR composite layer may include or may be attached to a flexible printed circuit board (PCB) that connects, powers, and/or controls dual LEDs 106”, [0056] – power transmitted through the entire mat);
• a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) electrically coupled to the flexible substrate assembly ([0005] – “a flexible middle portion between the flexible clear portion and the flexible back portion; and a plurality of dual light emitting diodes (LEDs) positioned in the flexible middle portion and configured to emit light at a first wavelength and a second wavelength”), wherein the plurality of LEDs is arranged and configured to emit at least one of red light and near-infrared light ([0073] – red and near infrared light ; [0054] – note many rows of dual LED’s are used),
• wherein the light therapy device is void of structures that prevent the light therapy device from flexing across the length and width of the flexible textile material ([0005] – all layers are described as flexible) to conform to the shape of the torso of the average human (Fig 4A – mat is able to cover an adult and is illustrated as deforming around the user similar to a flexible blanket, [0054] – dimensions of the mat provided) in a non-shape-retaining manner ([0031] - Mat 102 as a whole is described as foldable and storable: “the nylon, spandex, polyurethane foam composite, and/or the like may also be flexible such that it may allow a user to fold mat 102 and/or store mat 102 in small or tight spaces.” This would indicate mat 102 is flexible enough to maintain a folded shape during storage and be materially non-shape retaining).
However, Belkowski does not disclose a flexible textile cable assembly coupled to an interior of the flexible textile material wherein the flexible textile cable assembly comprises a first textile-based anchor strip including fabric layers with conductive pathways extending along a first side of the flexible substrate assembly and configured to provide a positive electric potential, and a second textile-based anchor strip including fabric layers with conductive pathways extending along a second side of the flexible substrate assembly, opposite the first side, and configured to provide a negative electric potential.
The heating blanket in Augustine would be considered “reasonably pertinent” (see MPEP 2141.01(a)1) to the claimed invention because Augustine teaches a power transmission arrangement on the periphery of a blanket where the arrangement powers treatment elements in the central portion of the blanket in order to enhance the ease of cleaning the blanket and electrical safety ([0006-0009] – cleaning and safety). While Augustine does not teach in the field of light therapy, Augustine is pertinent to the construction of a powered treatment blanket.
Augustine teaches two bus bars (Fig. 2A – 315) on opposite ends of the blanket which are coupled to heating elements 310 central to the blanket (Fig. 2A, [0040]). The heating elements are either described as “a conductive fabric or a fabric incorporating closely spaced conductive elements such that heating element 310 has a substantially uniform watt density output” ([0038]). Bus bars are described as flexible ([0046]). A voltage is applied across the heating element(s) between the two bus bars to provide a particular heating pattern ([0067]). A conductive fabric is used to connect the bus bars with the heating element(s) 310 ([0039-0040]).
Augustine also discloses “the electrical insulation material layer could be made of polymeric film, a polymeric film reinforced with a fibrous material, a cellulose material, a glass fibrous material, rubber sheeting, polymeric or rubber coated fabric or woven materials or any other suitable electrically insulating material” ([0041]). Augustine describes the use of woven or non-woven non-conductive fabric ([0039], [0057]). Insulation 318 is provided around the bus bars to prevent unintentional shorting and thermal damage between bus bars 315 and heating element 310 when the blanket is folded ([0057], [0061]). The bus bar, insulative coating, and conductive fabric in Augustine are interpreted as equivalent to a textile-based anchor strip including fabric layers with conductive pathways extending along a side of the flexible substrate assembly in the instant application.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Belkowski’s multilayered phototherapy mat device by incorporating the parallel bus bars (which apply a voltage across treatment elements in the center of the blanket via conductive fabric pathways) where the bus bars are otherwise covered with an insulating fabric in Augustine. This would have been obvious because both Belkowski and Augustine discuss a therapy blanket power transmission arrangement and Augustine provides a solution/improvement with the placement of the bus bars and insulating fabric to enhance the ability to clean the blanket and safely provide therapy via electrical/thermal insulation. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the device of Belkowski by incorporating the parallel bus bars covered with an insulating fabric in Augustine.
Russell, in the same field of endeavor of flexible phototherapy (Col 1, Lines 5-10), teaches a pole interface near the edge of the light source array with conductive tracings which allow negative and positive voltages to connect to the rows of light sources (Fig. 9, Col 14, Lines 61-67 and Col 15, Lines 1-12). While these poles are not necessarily situated on opposite sides from each other, the poles as depicted in Russell would serve the same function whether on the same or opposite sides.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Belkowski’s multilayered phototherapy mat device by incorporating the positive and negative poles in contact with traces for each row of LED’s in Russell. This would have been obvious because both Belkowski and Russell discuss flexible phototherapy devices with rows of LED’s and Russell provides a solution/improvement by applying positive and negative voltages via a trace for simplifying powering rows of many light sources. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the device of Belkowski by incorporating the positive and negative poles (where poles are similar to the bus bars in Augustine) in contact with traces for each row in Russell.
Regarding Claim 4, the light therapy device according to Claim 1 is obvious over Belkowski in view of Russell and Augustine, as indicated hereinabove. Belkowski further discloses wherein the flexible textile material comprises: a front cover of a semi-transparent material ([0005] – a flexible clear layer on the front of mat, [0029] – “A clear portion of mat 102 may be flexible (e.g., not rigid) and may be composed, at least in part, of clear polyvinylchloride (PVC) material that may provide electrical insulation and/or a barrier between dual LEDs 106 of mat 102 and a user”) configured to diffuse ([0029] – “one or more properties of light emitted from dual LEDs 106 may be modified as the light passes through the PVC material. For example, a refractive index of the PVC material may modify one or more properties of the light emitted via dual LEDs 106”) at least a portion of the at least one of red light and near-infrared light emitted by the plurality of LEDs ([0073]).
Regarding Claim 11, the light therapy device according to Claim 1 is obvious over Belkowski in view of Russell and Augustine, as indicated hereinabove. Belkowski further discloses comprising:
• a controller electrically coupled to the flexible cable assembly and the flexible substrate assembly ([0035] – attached or integrated controller where the controller must inherently be in electrical communication with the PCBs in order to control the LEDs, [0030] - where the PCBs are embedded in and attached to the middle layer: “According to an implementation, the SBR composite layer may include or may be attached to a flexible printed circuit board (PCB) that connects, powers, and/or controls dual LEDs 106”),
configured to control emission ([0036]) of the at least one of red light and near-infrared light from the plurality of LEDs ([0073]),
the controller having a display screen configured to display information ([0040] – a GUI would require a display screen), indicating at least one of treatment time, light emission mode, local area network pairing status, and treatment start/stop status ([0040] – treatment duration and light properties are adjusted and viewable on the GUI).
Belkowski does not disclose the flexible textile cable assembly as defined in claim 1.
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Russell and Augustine yields the flexible textile cable assembly in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12, the light therapy device according to Claim 1 is obvious over Belkowski in view of Russell and Augustine, as indicated hereinabove. Belkowski further discloses wherein the flexible substrate assembly comprises:
• a nonwoven coated substrate ([0030] – “At least a portion of mat 102 may be composed of a styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) composite (e.g., a middle portion between the clear portion and a back portion) … The SBR composite may be coated with neoprene, polychloroprene, chloroprene rubber, and/or any applicable synthetic material”),
• a plurality of flexible printed circuit boards (PCBs) on the nonwoven coated substrate ([0030] –
“the SBR composite layer may include or may be attached to a flexible printed circuit board (PCB) that connects, powers, and/or controls dual LEDs 106”); and
•a plurality of electrically conductive connectors each attached to one of the plurality of flexible PCBs ([0056] – power connectors used to transmit power between the power source and PCB’s throughout the mat).
Regarding Claim 13, the light therapy device according to Claim 1 is obvious over Belkowski in view of Russell and Augustine, as indicated hereinabove. Belkowski further discloses further comprising:
• a controller electrically coupled to the flexible cable assembly and the flexible substrate assembly ([0035] – attached or integrated controller; the controller must inherently be in electrical communication with the PCBs in order to control the LEDs, [0030] - where the PCBs are embedded in and attached to the middle layer),
configured to control emission ([0036]) of the at least one of red light and near-infrared light from the plurality of LEDs ([0073]), and
• having a built-in rechargeable battery ([0069]) configured to provide power to the light therapy device ([0056] – “According to an implementation, mat 202 may include one or more repeaters to transmit power (e.g., from a battery or power source) across the entire mat 202”).
Belkowski does not disclose the flexible textile cable assembly as defined in claim 1.
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Russell and Augustine yields the flexible textile cable assembly in claim 1.
Claims 2-3, 10, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Belkowski (US 2024/0033536 A1) in view of Russell (US 6,290,713 B1), Augustine (US 2008/0230530 A1), and Rosenfeld (US 2020/0230433 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, the light therapy device according to Claim 1 is obvious over Belkowski in view of Russell and Augustine, as indicated hereinabove. Belkowski discloses multiple layers combined to form a single device ([0005]). However, Belkowski does not disclose at least one attachment mechanism removably coupling the flexible substrate assembly and the flexible textile cable assembly to the interior of the flexible textile material. Belkowski does not explicitly describe the mechanism for attaching the layers to each other and whether this attachment is removable.
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Russell and Augustine yields the flexible textile cable assembly in claim 1.
Rosenfeld, in the same field of endeavor of providing a flexible and wearable phototherapy device ([0020]), teaches a phototherapy garment with multiple layers ([0021] – a multi-layer cloth with three layers) where these layers are attached using a variety of methods, including those in a removable manner ([0021]). Rosenfeld discloses the application of the layered garments as a blanket ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Belkowski’s multilayered phototherapy mat device by incorporating the attachment mechanism between layers in Rosenfeld. This would have been obvious because both Belkowski and Rosenfeld discuss control of phototherapy garments and Rosenfeld provides a solution/improvement to attach and reposition layers in a removable manner (with specific mechanisms for attachment). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the device of Belkowski by incorporating the attachment mechanism between layers in Rosenfeld.
Regarding Claim 3, the light therapy device according to Claim 2 is obvious over Belkowski in view of Russell, Augustine, and Rosenfeld, as indicated hereinabove. Belkowski discloses multiple layers combined to form a single device ([0005]). However, Belkowski does not disclose the at least one attachment mechanism is a non-conductive snap structure.
As stated in claim 2, the proposed combination with Rosenfeld yields a phototherapy garment with multiple layers ([0021]) where these layers are attached using a variety of methods, one of which is specifically a snap structure applied in a removable manner ([0021] – snap attachments listed among a number of options). Rosenfeld discloses the application of the layered garments as a blanket ([0020]). The snaps are interpreted as being non-conductive because Rosenfeld only explicitly describes conductive materials as being used to power the light sources ([0007, 0013]). The attachment between layers is a mechanical (not electrical) constraint which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as able to use a variety of non-conductive fastener materials.
Regarding Claim 10, the light therapy device according to Claim 1 is obvious over Belkowski in view of Russell and Augustine, as indicated hereinabove. Belkowski further discloses comprising: a connector coupled to the flexible textile material and the cable assembly ([0056] – connectors used to transmit power between the power source and PCB’s (which would be included in the cable assembly) throughout the mat), wherein the cable assembly is electrically coupled to the substrate assembly ([0030] - “the SBR composite layer may include or may be attached to a flexible printed circuit board (PCB) that connects, powers, and/or controls dual LEDs 106”); and the connector is configured to receive a cable coupled to a controller docking station, thereby electrically coupling the controller docking station to the nonwoven coated substrate assembly ([0035] – attached or integrated controller where the controller must inherently be in electrical communication with the PCBs in order to control the LEDs, [0030] - where the PCBs are embedded in and attached to the middle layer). Belkowski does not disclose the flexible textile cable assembly as defined in claim 1.
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Russell and Augustine yields the flexible textile cable assembly in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14, Belkowski discloses a wearable LED treatment system ([0002]) comprising:
• a flexible substrate assembly ([0005] – flexible middle portion, [0030] – “At least a portion of mat 102 may be composed of a styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) composite (e.g., a middle portion between the clear portion and a back portion, as further discussed herein). The SBR composite may be coated with neoprene, polychloroprene, chloroprene rubber, and/or any applicable synthetic material”);
• a flexible cable assembly physically and electrically coupled to the flexible substrate assembly ([0030] – “According to an implementation, the SBR composite layer may include or may be attached to a flexible printed circuit board (PCB) that connects, powers, and/or controls dual LEDs 106”);
• having a length and width large enough to cover a torso of an average human (Figure 4A, [0070] – depicts the mat able to cover the user; [0054] – dimensions of the mat provided);
• a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) physically and electrically coupled to the flexible substrate assembly ([0005] – “a flexible middle portion between the flexible clear portion and the flexible back portion; and a plurality of dual light emitting diodes (LEDs) positioned in the flexible middle portion and configured to emit light at a first wavelength and a second wavelength”), wherein the plurality of LEDs is arranged and configured to emit at least one of red light and near-infrared light ([0073] – “As disclosed herein, mat 102 may include dual LEDs 106 configured to emit red light, near infrared light, and/or a combination of the two”);
• a power source electrically coupled to the flexible cable assembly ([0056] – “According to an implementation, mat 202 may include one or more repeaters to transmit power (e.g., from a battery or power source) across the entire mat 202”).; and
• a flexible textile cover including:
a front panel having a semi-transparent portion configured to diffuse ([0029] – “Alternatively, or in addition, one or more properties of light emitted from dual LEDs 106 may be modified as the light passes through the PVC material. For example, a refractive index of the PVC material may modify one or more properties of the light emitted via dual LEDs 106”) at least a portion of the at least one of red light and near-infrared light emitted by the plurality of LEDs ([0073]); and
a back panel ([0031] – “back portion of mat 102 may be flexible (e.g., not rigid) and may be composed, at least in apart, of a nylon, spandex, polyurethane foam composite, and/or the like to provide flexibility and foldability for mat”).
• wherein the wearable LED treatment system is void of structures that prevent the light therapy device from flexing across the length and width of the flexible textile material ([0005] – all layers are described as flexible) to conform to the shape of the torso of the average human (Fig 4A – mat is able to cover an adult and is illustrated as deforming around the user similar to a flexible blanket, [0054] – dimensions of the mat provided) in a non-shape-retaining manner ([0031] - Mat 102 as a whole is described as foldable and storable: “the nylon, spandex, polyurethane foam composite, and/or the like may also be flexible such that it may allow a user to fold mat 102 and/or store mat 102 in small or tight spaces.” This would indicate mat 102 is flexible enough to maintain a folded shape during storage and be materially non-shape retaining).
However, Belkowski does not disclose wherein the flexible textile cable assembly comprises a first textile-based anchor strip including fabric layers with conductive pathways positioned along a first side of the flexible substrate assembly and configured to provide a first electrical potential to the plurality of LEDs, and a second textile-based anchor strip including fabric layers with conductive pathways positioned along a second side of the flexible substrate assembly, opposite the first side, and configured to provide a second electrical potential to the plurality of LEDs.
Additionally, Belkowski does not disclose a back panel with fasteners configured to removably couple and decouple the flexible textile cable assembly to the flexible textile cover.
The heating blanket in Augustine would be considered “reasonably pertinent” (see MPEP 2141.01(a)1) to the claimed invention because Augustine teaches a power transmission arrangement on the periphery of a blanket where the arrangement powers treatment elements in the central portion of the blanket in order to enhance the ease of cleaning the blanket and electrical safety ([0006-0009] – cleaning and safety). While Augustine does not teach in the field of light therapy, Augustine is pertinent to the construction of a powered treatment blanket.
Augustine teaches two bus bars (Fig. 2A – 315) on opposite ends of the blanket which are coupled to heating elements 310 central to the blanket (Fig. 2A, [0040]). The heating elements are either described as “a conductive fabric or a fabric incorporating closely spaced conductive elements such that heating element 310 has a substantially uniform watt density output” ([0038]). Bus bars are described as flexible ([0046]). A voltage is applied across the heating element(s) between the two bus bars to provide a particular heating pattern ([0067]). A conductive fabric is used to connect the bus bars with the heating element(s) 310 ([0039-0040]).
Augustine also discloses “the electrical insulation material layer could be made of polymeric film, a polymeric film reinforced with a fibrous material, a cellulose material, a glass fibrous material, rubber sheeting, polymeric or rubber coated fabric or woven materials or any other suitable electrically insulating material” ([0041]). Augustine describes the use of woven or non-woven non-conductive fabric ([0039], [0057]). Insulation 318 is provided around the bus bars to prevent unintentional shorting and thermal damage between bus bars 315 and heating element 310 when the blanket is folded ([0057], [0061]). The bus bar, insulative coating, and conductive fabric in Augustine are interpreted as equivalent to a textile-based anchor strip including fabric layers with conductive pathways extending along a side of the flexible substrate assembly in the instant application.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Belkowski’s multilayered phototherapy mat device by incorporating the parallel bus bars (which apply a voltage across treatment elements in the center of the blanket via conductive fabric pathways) where the bus bars are otherwise covered with an insulating fabric in Augustine. This would have been obvious because both Belkowski and Augustine discuss a therapy blanket power transmission arrangement and Augustine provides a solution/improvement with the placement of the bus bars and insulating fabric to enhance the ability to clean the blanket and safely provide therapy via electrical/thermal insulation. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the device of Belkowski by incorporating the parallel bus bars covered with an insulating fabric in Augustine.
Russell, in the same field of endeavor of flexible phototherapy (Col 1, Lines 5-10), teaches a pole interface near the edge of the light source array with conductive tracings which allow negative and positive voltages to connect to the rows of light sources (Fig. 9, Col 14, Lines 61-67 and Col 15, Lines 1-12). While these poles are not necessarily situated on opposite sides from each other, the poles as depicted in Russell would serve the same function whether on the same or opposite sides.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Belkowski’s multilayered phototherapy mat device by incorporating the positive and negative poles in contact with traces for each row of LED’s in Russell. This would have been obvious because both Belkowski and Russell discuss flexible phototherapy devices with rows of LED’s and Russell provides a solution/improvement by applying positive and negative voltages via a trace for simplifying powering rows of many light sources. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the device of Belkowski by incorporating the positive and negative poles (where poles are similar to the bus bars in Augustine) in contact with traces for each row in Russell.
Rosenfeld, in the same field of endeavor of providing a flexible and wearable phototherapy device ([0020]), teaches a phototherapy garment with multiple layers ([0021] – a multi-layer cloth with three layers) where these layers are attached using a variety of methods, including those in a removable manner ([0021] – suitable attachment mechanisms listed). Rosenfeld discloses the application of the layered garments as a blanket ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Belkowski’s multilayered phototherapy mat device by incorporating the attachment mechanism between layers in Rosenfeld. This would have been obvious because both Belkowski and Rosenfeld discuss control of phototherapy garments and Rosenfeld provides a solution/improvement to attach and reposition layers in a removable manner (with specific mechanisms for attachment). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the device of Belkowski by incorporating the attachment mechanism between layers in Rosenfeld.
Regarding Claim 16, the wearable LED treatment system according to Claim 14 is obvious over Belkowski in view of Russell, Augustine, and Rosenfeld, as indicated hereinabove. Belkowski discloses multiple layers combined to form a single device ([0005]). However, Belkowski does not disclose the at least one attachment mechanism is a non-conductive snap structure.
As stated in claim 14, the proposed combination with Rosenfeld yields a phototherapy garment with multiple layers ([0021]) where these layers are attached using a variety of methods, one of which is specifically a snap structure applied in a removable manner ([0021] – snap attachments listed among a number of options). Rosenfeld discloses the application of the layered garments as a blanket ([0020]). The snaps are interpreted as being non-conductive because Rosenfeld only explicitly describes conductive materials as being used to power the light sources ([0007, 0013]). The attachment between layers is a mechanical (not electrical) constraint which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as able to use a variety of non-conductive fastener materials.
Regarding Claim 17, the wearable LED treatment system according to Claim 14 is obvious over Belkowski in view of Russell, Augustine, and Rosenfeld, as indicated hereinabove. Belkowski further discloses comprising: a controller electrically coupled to the flexible cable assembly and the flexible substrate assembly ([0035]), configured to control emission ([0036] – description of controller used to set phototherapy) of the at least one of red light and near- infrared light from the plurality of LEDs ([0073]). Belkowski does not disclose the flexible textile cable assembly as defined in claim 14.
As stated in claim 14, the proposed combination with Russell and Augustine yields the flexible textile cable assembly in claim 14.
Regarding Claim 18, the wearable LED treatment system according to Claim 17 is obvious over Belkowski in view of Russell, Augustine, and Rosenfeld, as indicated hereinabove. Belkowski further discloses comprising: a transceiver configured to couple the controller to a wireless network ([0040] – a transceiver in the mat connects to a mobile application via a wireless network).
Regarding Claim 19, the wearable LED treatment system according to Claim 18 is obvious over Belkowski in view of Russell, Augustine, and Rosenfeld, as indicated hereinabove. Belkowski further discloses wherein the transceiver is included in a smartphone or a tablet ([0040], [0049] – a mobile application on a mobile device is in communication with the mat).
Regarding Claim 20, the wearable LED treatment system according to Claim 14 is obvious over Belkowski in view of Russell, Augustine, and Rosenfeld, as indicated hereinabove. Belkowski further discloses wherein ones of the plurality of LEDs are operable to produce light at wavelengths selected from the group consisting of light at a wavelength of between about 800 nanometers and 1 millimeter, light at a wavelength of between about 600 nanometers and 750 nanometers, and a combination thereof ([0027] – ranges of 600 nm-750 nm and 750-1000 nm are provided). MPEP 2144.05 states “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” The total range of 600-1000 nm contains wavelengths which are within each of the ranges presented in the claim. There is no evidence of an “unexpected result or criticality” on the analysis from the discussed range interpretations.
Claim 5 is rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Belkowski (US 2024/0033536 A1) in view of Russell (US 6,290,713 B1), Augustine (US 2008/0230530 A1), and Leclerc (US 2007/0208395 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, the light therapy device according to Claim 1 is obvious over Belkowski in view of Russell and Augustine, as indicated hereinabove. Belkowski further discloses the need to address dissipation of heat from LED’s ([0030] – “The SBR composite (e.g., neoprene) may provide high temperature resistance and protection from the heat generated by dual LEDs 106”). However, Belkowski does not disclose wherein the flexible textile material is at least partially metallic and is capable of diffusing heat generated by the plurality of LEDs.
Leclerc, in the same field of endeavor of providing a flexible and wearable phototherapy device ([0003]), teaches a metallic heat sink used to dissipate the excess heat from the LED’s ([0109]). The heat sink “may reduce the likelihood of light source 502 overheating and/or may otherwise extend the lifetime of light source 502 so that light source 502 lasts longer with a higher optical output per electrical input (efficiency) than if there were there no heat sink” ([0109]). The use of the device in a blanket structure is disclosed ([0127]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Belkowski’s multilayered phototherapy mat device by incorporating the metallic heat sink layer in Leclerc. This would have been obvious because both Belkowski and Leclerc discuss problems due to heating with LEDs and Leclerc provides a solution/improvement to dissipate heat to preserve the lifespan of the device’s electrical components. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the device of Belkowski by incorporating the heat sink layer in Leclerc.
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Augustine further yields metallic coatings can be applied to threads from polymeric or natural fibers ([0045]). This suggests the metallic heat sink in Leclerc can be partially integrated into fabric.
Claim 15 is rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Belkowski (US 2024/0033536 A1) in view of Russell (US 6,290,713 B1), Augustine (US 2008/0230530 A1), Rosenfeld (US 2020/0230433 A1), and Leclerc (US 2007/0208395 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, the wearable LED treatment system according to Claim 14 is obvious over Belkowski in view of Russell, Augustine, and Rosenfeld, as indicated hereinabove. Belkowski further discloses the need to address the dissipation of heat from LED’s ([0030] – “The SBR composite (e.g., neoprene) may provide high temperature resistance and protection from the heat generated by dual LEDs 106”). However, Belkowski does not disclose wherein the back panel is made of a metallic material and is capable of diffusing heat generated by the plurality of LEDs.
Leclerc, in the same field of endeavor of providing a flexible and wearable phototherapy device ([0003]), teaches a metallic heat sink used to dissipate the excess heat from the LED’s ([0109]). The heat sink “may reduce the likelihood of light source 502 overheating and/or may otherwise extend the lifetime of light source 502 so that light source 502 lasts longer with a higher optical output per electrical input (efficiency) than if there were there no heat sink” ([0109]). The use of the device in a blanket structure is disclosed ([0127]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Belkowski’s multilayered phototherapy mat system by incorporating the metallic heat sink layer in Leclerc. This would have been obvious because both Belkowski and Leclerc discuss problems due to heating with LEDs and Leclerc provides a solution/improvement to dissipate heat to preserve the lifespan of the device’s electrical components. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Belkowski by incorporating the heat sink layer in Leclerc.
Claim 6 is rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Belkowski (US 2024/0033536 A1) in view of Russell (US 6,290,713 B1), Augustine (US 2008/0230530 A1), Kuhns (US 2020/0253813 A1), and Kneuer (US 2009/0149927 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, the light therapy device according to Claim 1 is obvious over Belkowski in view of Russell and Augustine, as indicated hereinabove. Belkowski further discloses comprising:
• a controller electrically coupled to the flexible cable assembly and the flexible substrate assembly ([0035]) configured to control emission ([0036] – description of controller used to set phototherapy) of the at least one of red light and near-infrared light from the plurality of LEDs ([0073]), the controller having:
a select mode button configured to select a light emission mode of the plurality of LEDs ([0036] – adjustment by setting parameters or selecting a treatment modality);
a settings button configured to open up a settings menu ([0036] - there are different settings such as wavelength, intensity, and timing which can be adjusted by category from a display);
a play button configured to start/stop emission mode of the plurality of LEDs ([0036] – “The input receptors may include a power button to configure mat 102 between an on or off state”)
a time button configured to select a treatment time ([0037] – Timer).
Belkowski discloses the use of buttons for the user to adjust control settings ([0036]). Belkowski does not disclose the flexible textile cable assembly as defined in claim 1. Additionally, Belkowski does not disclose the use of a pause feature on the start/stop button or a help button configured to open up help menus.
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Russell and Augustine yields the flexible textile cable assembly in claim 1.
Kuhns, in the same field of endeavor of providing phototherapy ([0008]), teaches a graphical interface with a pause button that temporarily stops the treatment when pressed (Figure 7, [0066] – “The touch screen 705 may further facilitate or allow or include a mechanism that will allow the user to reset the delivered dose counter and start and pause the ongoing dosing by way of other tabs or buttons 715”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Belkowski’s multilayered phototherapy mat device by incorporating the pause button in Kuhns. This would have been obvious because both Belkowski and Kuhns discuss control of phototherapy devices and Kuhns provides a solution/improvement to stop the light therapy in a manner to retain settings without powering down the device. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the device of Belkowski by incorporating the pause button in Kuhns.
Kneuer, in the same field of endeavor of providing phototherapy ([0046]), teaches a GUI containing a button which accesses help information for understanding the GUI ([0042] – “a Help icon for accessing help information for the GUI”). Kneuer teaches a phototherapy control portion on the GUI ([0086]), thereby establishing the specific application of the help menu button to the field of a phototherapy device control display.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Belkowski’s multilayered phototherapy mat device by incorporating the help menu in the control display in Kneuer. This would have been obvious because both Belkowski and Kneuer discuss control of phototherapy and Kneuer provides a solution/improvement to provide information about the features of the control display to facilitate more informed device operation. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the device of Belkowski by incorporating the help menu in the control display in Kneuer.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Belkowski (US 2024/0033536 A1) in view of Russell (US 6,290,713 B1), Augustine (US 2008/0230530 A1), Kuhns (US 2020/0253813 A1), Kneuer (US 2009/0149927 A1), and Cassano (US 2023/0405349 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, the light therapy device according to Claim 6 is obvious over Belkowski in view of Russell, Augustine, Kuhns, and Kneuer, as indicated hereinabove. Belkowski further discloses the ability of the user to adjust phototherapy settings at the time of treatment ([0036]) or use preset therapies developed based on stored information from prior sessions or determinations from a machine learning program ([0047]). Belkowski discloses control of red and near infrared light ([0073]). Belkowski does not disclose the preset modes include red and near-infrared light in continuous and pulsed waveforms at preset time durations and where the custom mode selection includes red and near-infrared light in continuous and pulsed waveform at customizable time durations.
Cassano, in the same field of endeavor of providing a flexible and wearable phototherapy device ([0007]), teaches near-infrared light sources can be placed into different groupings which can operate independently under different waveform parameters, such as being pulsed or continuous ([0104]). The use of near-infrared to describe the light sources is meant to encompass light between 600-1600 nm wavelengths, which would place the near-infrared light as falling within the red or infrared wavelengths, with controlled time durations to provide particular irradiation dosages ([0029]). Therefore, both red and infrared light wavelengths could be separated between light source groupings and operate separately in either a pulsed or continuous fashion. Cassano also describes the use of the phototherapy device as able to be incorporated into a blanket structure ([0160]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Belkowski’s multilayered phototherapy mat device by incorporating the groups of light sources which can be controlled independently (with parameters such as pulsed or continuous light emissions) in Cassano. This would have been obvious because both Belkowski and Cassano discuss control of a garment providing phototherapy and Cassano provides a solution/improvement to create multiple groupings of light sources to further customize treatment with different combinations of settings (such as wavelength, duration, and pulsing). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the device of Belkowski by incorporating the groups of light sources which can be controlled independently in Cassano.
Regarding Claim 8, the light therapy device according to Claim 7 is obvious over Belkowski in view of Russell, Augustine, Kuhns, Kneuer, and Cassano, as indicated hereinabove. Belkowski discloses the ability of the user to adjust phototherapy settings at the time of treatment ([0036]) or use preset therapies developed based on stored information from prior sessions ([0047]) or determinations from the machine learning program ([0047]). Belkowski does not disclose the light emission mode comprises: substantially continuous red-light emission with pulsed near-infrared light emission.
As stated in claim 7, the proposed combination with Cassano yields near-infrared light sources can be placed into different groupings which can operate independently under different parameters, such as being pulsed or continuous ([0104]). The use of near-infrared to describe the light sources is meant to encompass light between 600-1600 nm wavelengths ([0029]), which would place the near-infrared light as falling within the red or infrared wavelengths.
Regarding Claim 9, the light therapy device according to Claim 7 is obvious over Belkowski in view of Russell, Augustine, Kuhns, Kneuer, and Cassano, as indicated hereinabove. Belkowski further discloses wherein the controller comprises:
• a power button ([0036])
• a pairing button configured to at least one of turn on and off local area network pairing with a third-party device ([0040] – “Alternatively, mat 102 may be connected to a user device (e.g., via a network, wired, or other wireless connection”). In this instance, an intention to establish a connection between the third party device using a wireless network would inherently be part of the process for connecting to an application. Belkowski discloses the use of buttons to control signals into and out of the controller ([0036] – “Mat 102 may include one or more input receptors which may be knobs, buttons, touch points (e.g., haptic response points), electronic signal receiver (e.g., via a controller) or the like, that may be accessible to a user or a machine learning output”), which could be applied to control the connection between the mat (through the controller) and the third-party device with the application.
Belkowski does not disclose a power button configured to at least one of enter and exit a standby state.
As stated in claim 6, the proposed combination with Kuhns yields a graphical interface with a pause button that temporarily stops the treatment when pressed (Figure 7, [0066] – “The touch screen 705 may further facilitate or allow or include a mechanism that will allow the user to reset the delivered dose counter and start and pause the ongoing dosing by way of other tabs or buttons 715”).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is 703-756-1345. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00 am to 5:00 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 on 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.
/Benjamin A. Schmitt/
Examiner
Art Unit 3796
/CARL H LAYNO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights