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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see pages 6-8, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 and 10-11 under USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Vidai (WO 2015/068168 A) in view of Tsai (US 20170143934 A1) (previously cited) further in view of Malchano (US 2018/0133507 A1), further in view of Sethi (US 2015/0379880 A1).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vidai (WO 2015/068168 A) in view of Tsai (US 20170143934 A1) (previously cited) further in view of Malchano (US 2018/0133507 A1), further in view of Sethi (US 2015/0379880 A1).
Regrading claim 1, Vidai teaches a system and method for treating eye and brain disorders (title; ) comprising every t seconds showing on a background portion of a screen ([25][68]-[69] a screen presents an image to a user and the image may have an artificial visual stimulus, Fig 3 shows this in the form of a glasses mounted display with a stimulus area; [74][79]-[80][89][0107] the stimulus may be displayed/presented as a background effect to a primary image or a flicker applied to the video frames) a lighter image and a darker image, wherein the lighter image is on average more bright than the darker image ([76] stimulation protocol may take the form of varying frequency or flickers/flashes added to the visual display); showing on non-background portion of the screen a cognitive image allowing user to engage in cognitive training or in cognitive activity ([49] the system may encourage perceptual learning through the visual presentation; Claim 38). Vidai does not disclose wherein the cognitive training activity requires and involves user input.
Vidai teaches a stimulus system wherein a screen presents a learning activity and an additional lighting stimulus but does not explicitly disclose the frequency and timing at which the stimulus may be modulated (examiner notes the system of Vidai is capable of changing stimulus in the manner described [76]) and an unobstructed non-see-through screen.
Tsai teaches a method of treating Alzheimer’s disease [0008]-[0009] where light is changed between a light and dark state at a frequency of 40 Hz so that light and dark states are equally (50%/50%) distributed over the time [0303] [0452] (Tsai teaches a range of frequencies which may be useful in treating Alzheimer’s via light stimulus).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Vidai to make use of the frequencies of flickering light as taught by Tsai because this process may provide a “method for reducing a level of (e.g., an amount or rate) tau phosphorylation in a visual cortex of a subject includes stimulating the subject with a plurality of light pulses at a pulse frequency of about 40 pulses/s, thereby inducing in vivo synchronized gamma oscillations in the visual cortex that reduce tau phosphorylation in the visual cortex” [0017].
Malchano teaches a light therapy device that has multiple embodiments of setups such as an opaque or partially opaque dome including the light source or can be switchable between clear and opaque (eg. Para. 260, 264, 266, 268, 277, 955, 960).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Vidai and Tsai to allow the light therapy display to be opaque to reduce external distractions and facilitating entrainment of regions of the brain (eg. Malchano, Para. 260).
Sethi teaches a visual stimulation on a portable device that can manually administer stimulia via a remote control or a user to choose and create a program through which the device automatically produces stimuli in response to particular criteria detected by the device or another computer linked to the device (Eg. Abstract, Para. 18-19, 23, 67-68, 74, 76, Claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the invention of Vidai, Tsai, and Malchano with a user activatable stimulation program as taught by Sethi since a user controlled stimulation is commonly known in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to use an input like a button (eg. Sethi, Para. 67-69) to control a stimulation as desired.
Regarding claims 2-4, The combined invention of Vidai, Tsai, Malchano, and Sethi teaches the method of claim 1. Further, Tsai teaches where light treatment is changed between a light and dark state at a frequency of 40 Hz so that light and dark states are equally (50%/50%) distributed over the time [0303] [0452]; further Tsai teaches where these parameters are varied 20 Hz, 40 Hz, 80 Hz, continuous light and dark groups of treatment [0452]. Through further routine experimentation within these parameters the system of Tsai could further be modified by one of skill in the art to find the operating conditions of: 33% light, 66% dark and 66% light, 33% dark. Additionally, Malchano teaches variable duty cycles (eg. Para. 112, 115, 118, may be 50% or less but does not discourage/discredit anything over 50%).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Vidai to make use of the different frequencies of flickering light and durations as taught by Tsai because this process may provide a “method for reducing a level of (e.g., an amount or rate) tau phosphorylation in a visual cortex of a subject includes stimulating the subject with a plurality of light pulses at a pulse frequency of about 40 pulses/s, thereby inducing in vivo synchronized gamma oscillations in the visual cortex that reduce tau phosphorylation in the visual cortex” [0017].
Regarding claim 6, The combined invention of Vidai, Tsai, Malchano, and Sethi teaches the method of claim 1. Further, Vidai teaches wherein the screen is connected to or is a part of a computer device ([90] system may receive input from a connected TV, video game console, etc.).
Regarding claim 7, The combined invention of Vidai, Tsai, Malchano, and Sethi teaches the method of claim 1. Further, Vidai teaches wherein the computer device is capable of receiving the user's input ([68] “alternation of the display properties may be triggered by either command signal delivered to the display from a controller (for example a computer or a Smartphone)”).
Regarding claim 10, The combined invention of Vidai, Tsai, Malchano, and Sethi teaches the method of claim 1. Further, Vidai teaches wherein cognitive image comprises at least one of: a puzzle, a Sudoku puzzle, a memory game, a crossword puzzle, an action game, a spatial orientation game, a text, or a video ([91] Vidai teaches at least when the cognitive content is a video).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vidai (WO 2015/068168 A) in view of Tsai (US 20170143934 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Malchano (US 2018/0133507 A1) further in view of Sethi (US 2015/0379880 A1), and further in view of Avidan (US 20080070207 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, The combined invention of Vidai, Tsai, Malchano, and Sethi teaches a system substantially as claimed in claim 1. They do not teach wherein the cognitive training and stimulus are implemented on a TV screen.
Avidan teaches a System and Method for Testing Memory (title) wherein the testing is implemented on an LCD display [0087] which is an analogous to a TV screen.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of treatment of Vidai to be implemented on a LCD screen as taught by Avidan as this modification comprises a simple substitution of one known element (cognitive training implemented on a glasses mounted display) for another (cognitive training implemented on an LCD display) to obtain predictable results (the cognitive training and stimulation of Vidai takes place on a TV screen rather than a glasses mounted screen).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vidai (WO 2015/068168 A) in view of Tsai (US 20170143934 A1) further in view of Malchano (US 2018/0133507 A1), further in view of Sethi (US 2015/0379880 A1), further in view of Awada (US 20070101289 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Vidai teaches a system and method for treating eye and brain disorders (title) comprising every t seconds showing on a first portion of a screen ([25][68]-[69] a screen presents an image to a user and the image may have an artificial visual stimulus, Fig 3 shows this in the form of a glasses mounted display with a stimulus area; [74][79]-[80][89][0107] the stimulus may be displayed/presented as a background effect to a primary image or a flicker applied to the video frames; this first portion of the screen ) a lighter image and a darker image, wherein the lighter image is on average more bright than the darker image ([76] stimulation protocol may take the form of varying frequency or flickers/flashes added to the visual display); showing on a second portion of the screen a cognitive image allowing user to engage in cognitive training or in cognitive activity ([49] the system may encourage perceptual learning through the visual presentation; Claim 38).
Vidai teaches a stimulus system wherein a screen presents a learning activity and an additional lighting stimulus but does not explicitly disclose the frequency and timing at which the stimulus may be modulated (examiner notes the system of Vidai is capable of changing stimulus in the manner described [76]) or wherein the first and second portion of the screen are adjacent without overlap (Fig. 3 appears to show that the two screen portions overlap; examiner notes that the system of Vidai is capable of receiving input from a computer source which one of ordinary skill would recognize to be capable of modifying the display windows sizes and orientations) and an unobstructed non-see-through screen.
Tsai teaches a method of treating Alzheimer’s disease [0008]-[0009] where light is changed between a light and dark state at a frequency of 40 Hz so that light and dark states are equally (50%/50%) distributed over the time [0303] [0452] (Tsai teaches a range of frequencies which may be useful in treating Alzheimer’s via light stimulus).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Vidai to make use of the frequencies of flickering light as taught by Tsai because this process may provide a “method for reducing a level of (e.g., an amount or rate) tau phosphorylation in a visual cortex of a subject includes stimulating the subject with a plurality of light pulses at a pulse frequency of about 40 pulses/s, thereby inducing in vivo synchronized gamma oscillations in the visual cortex that reduce tau phosphorylation in the visual cortex” [0017].
Malchano teaches a light therapy device that has multiple embodiments of setups such as an opaque or partially opaque dome including the light source or can be switchable between clear and opaque (eg. Para. 260, 264, 266, 268, 277, 955, 960).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Vidai and Tsai to allow the light therapy display to be opaque to reduce external distractions and facilitating entrainment of regions of the brain (eg. Malchano, Para. 260).
Sethi teaches a visual stimulation on a portable device that can manually administer stimulia via a remote control or a user to choose and create a program through which the device automatically produces stimuli in response to particular criteria detected by the device or another computer linked to the device (Eg. Abstract, Para. 18-19, 23, 67-68, 74, 76, Claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the invention of Vidai, Tsai, and Malchano with a user activatable stimulation program as taught by Sethi since a user controlled stimulation is commonly known in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to use an input like a button (eg. Sethi, Para. 67-69) to control a stimulation as desired.
The combined invention of Vidai, Tsai, Malchano, and Sethi do not teach wherein the first and second portion of the screen are adjacent without overlap.
Awada teaches a method for displaying multiple windows on a display area wherein the first and second portion of the screen are adjacent without overlap (Figs 6 and 7; [0006] a video may be displayed with another working window adjacent to the video without overlap).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have modified the system of Vidai to make use of adjacent non-overlapping widows to display the video content and a stimulus in separate windows because the “window may, for example, provide a video stream that is being watched by the user while working within another window. It is desirable to be able to maximize use of the viewable display space allocated to a second window when a first window, with dimensions smaller than the maximum display area, is designated to always be open and viewable.” [0006]
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-2317. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 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, Carl Layno can be reached at 571-272-4949. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J LAU/Examiner, Art Unit 3796