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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 25 November 2026, is acknowledged. Examiner acknowledges the amendment filed 30 September 2025, as part of the after-final response, was also incorporated into the claim set filed 25 November 2026. Claims 1 and 4 are amended. Claims 5 and 6 were previously cancelled.
Examiner reminds applicant that amendments should be made relative to the most recent claim set and should include markings to show all changes, per 37 CFR 1.121(c), which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of “canceled” or “not entered” may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1–5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
(3) When claim text in clean version is required. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of “original,” “withdrawn” or “previously presented” will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of “withdrawn” or “previously presented.” Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of “new” and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.
(4) When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim.
(i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” or “not entered.”
(ii) Cancellation of a claim shall be effected by an instruction to cancel a particular claim number. Identifying the status of a claim in the claim listing as “canceled” will constitute an instruction to cancel the claim.
(5) Reinstatement of previously canceled claim. A claim which was previously canceled may be reinstated only by adding the claim as a “new” claim with a new claim number.
In the Response to Restriction/Election, filed 6 November 2024, applicant elected claims 4-14, without traverse. As such, claims 1-3 and 15-20 remain withdrawn.
Claims 1-4 and 7-20 are pending in the instant application, with claims 1-3 and 15-20 withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment, filed 25 November 2026, states the remarks set forth in the Response to the Final Office Action are incorporated and remain valid. Examiner will be addressing the remarks/arguments from the Response to the Final Office Action, filed 30 September 2025.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 30 September 2025, with respect to the objections to the drawings of Figures 1, 2-1 and 2-2 have been fully considered and would be persuasive if a new set of drawings is provided with Figures 1, 2-1 and 2-2 removed. The latest set of drawings is from 15 April 2025 and still contain Figures 1, 2-1 and 2-2 which are objected to. The objections currently stand.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the objection to claim 5 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of claim 5 being cancelled. The objection to claim 5 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, with regard to the 35 USC 112(a) rejection of claims 4-14, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. If the claims are viewed from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), a POSITA would not know what is intended by Life Energy Spectrum (LES) from the claims or the specification. The amendment provides an extremely broad range of a wavelength, which provides no definition as to where the wavelength is coming from (source). The production and utilization of infrared waves (micrometers) is very different from that of an ultra-high frequency band (millimeters). Further, the limitation “derived from the natural world” is extremely unclear. It is unclear if the device is being produced by an organism or some other object found in nature. A POSITA would not know how or what to produce to replicate a Life Energy Spectrum and how to utilize the LES. Finally, the limitation “can be controlled wide-spectrum, high-power solid-state oscillator” is not positively recited and there is no mention of how this is actually accomplished, so a POSITA would not know if the oscillator is required for the method or how to utilize it.
Applicant's arguments, with regard to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 4-14, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner returns to the issue that it is not clear how a life energy spectrum is generated. It is not clear from the claims where the LES comes from, much less contributes to any form of communication. Further exposing a living subject to the LES does not contribute to communication between humans and all living things. Finally, the modulation of at least one of cellular activi1y, genetic expression, or protein expression within the living subject is also not communication. It would be the regulation of biological activities of organisms.
Applicant's arguments, with regard to the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 4-14, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims, as best interpreted, claim an undefined natural phenomenon that produces a wavelength in the range of 0.2 micrometers to 15 millimeters, exposing a living subject to said wavelength and modulating at least one of cellular activity, genetic expression, or protein expression within the living subject by the exposure. The sun does all the claim limitations. It is a natural phenomenon that produces a wavelength in the range of 0.2 micrometers to 15 millimeters. Exposing a living subject to the sun for a period of time modulates at least one of cellular activity, genetic expression, or protein expression within the living subject. The claims, 4 and 7-14, remain rejected as being directed to a non-statutory subject matter.
Applicant's arguments, with regard to the 35 USC 102 rejection of claims 4 and 7-14, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the limitation “generating a life energy spectrum having a wavelength range of 0.2 micrometers to 15 millimeters;”, the limitation only requires something to generate a wavelength in the claimed range. As there are no further limitations defining what is generating the wavelength, it can be broadly interpreted. Further, as there is no limitation defining what is generating the wavelength and no limitation that the wavelength generator is configured to generate a wave across the entire range, the is no requirement for the “generate” step to cover the entire range, merely fall within in. Regardless the sun, does generate wavelengths across the entire claimed range. Regarding the argument, “neither Roelandts nor Klessman teaches or suggests generating a controlled artificial broadband spectrum”, examiner points out that neither the claims nor the specification teach or suggest generating a controlled artificial broadband spectrum. Lines 3-4 of claim 4, recites “the life energy spectrum that derived from the natural world has natural micro-millimeter wave broad spectrum” and is interpreted as the LES is produced by the natural world and is not generated in a controlled, artificial manner. Finally, applicant states “The cited references only discuss general phototherapy and solar spectrum effects, but neither teach nor suggest what the LES fundamentally is, nor how an energy with that wavelength range is produced” and examiner traverses with, as pointed out previously, neither does the instant application, hence the broad interpretation of what is being claimed, rendering Roelandts and Klessman as anticipating the instant application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the latest drawings on file, dated 15 April 2025, still contain Figures 1, 2-1 and 2-2, which are not clear and are blurry. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 3 states “the life energy spectrum that derived” but should read --the life energy spectrum that is derived--.
Claim 4, line 5 states “wide-spectrum, high-power solid-state oscillator” but should read --a wide-spectrum, high-power solid-state oscillator--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 4 recites the steps of generating a life energy spectrum, exposing a subject to the LES, and modulating the effects. The specification and claims lack a written description for how these steps are accomplished. There is no disclosure of what the generates the LES, how it is exposed to a target and how the LES is controlled to modulate the effects. Examiner will also point out that LES is not explicitly defined in the specification or claims, beyond the provided wavelength. Amended claim 4 recites “the amplitude and width of the LES can be controlled through wide-spectrum, high-power solid-state oscillator” but fails to disclose how the LES is produced (“controlled” is not production). The use of “can be” does not positively recite the use of the oscillator. Further, how the oscillator is applied to the LES to control the amplitude and width of the LES to provide a broad spectrum of LES is not provided in the claims or specification.
Claims 7-14 are dependent on claim 4, and the claims 7-14 do not disclose how LES is generated or how the LES generated in claim 4 is combined with the limitations of claims 7-14 to accomplish the limitations of claims 7-14. Further, the limitations of claim 7-14 are not positively recited.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "facilitate communication between humans and all things in nature" in lines 2-3. The limitation renders the claim indefinite since it is not clear how the communication occurs or is facilitated.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the natural world" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "micro-millimeter wave broad spectrum" in line 3. It is unclear what is referred to with “micro-millimeter”. This can mean “micrometer to millimeter” or a “nanometer” (micromillimeter). Further “wave broad spectrum” is unclear from a grammatical standpoint.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the amplitude and width" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7-14 inherit the same deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 4 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 4 and 7-14 recite generating a wavelength, exposing a living subject to the wavelength, and modulating biological processes of the living subject, as the claimed wavelength range of the LES in the visible light to radio waves range, which the sun is known to emit (see Klessman, “In what part of the electromagnetic spectrum does the Sun emit energy?” 2020), the claimed process fails to amount to more than sun exposure. The sun does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Claims 7-14 use the terms “can” and “can be” which do not positively recite the limitations that follow and therefore do not further limit claim 4.
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.
Claims 4 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roelandts ("The history of phototherapy: Something new under the sun?", 2002) as evidenced by Klessman ("In what part of the electromagnetic spectrum does the Sun emit energy?" 2020).
Regarding claim 4, Roelandts discloses that is known that exposing a patient to solar energy (which encompasses wavelength range of 0.2 micrometers to 15 millimeters as evidenced by Klessman, Page 1), which is constantly being generated naturally, for a specified period of time (Page 2) results in healing of a patient (Page 2). As such Roelandts as evidenced by Klessman anticipates claim 4. The limitation “the amplitude and width of the LES can be controlled through wide-spectrum, high-power solid-state oscillator” is not positively recited due to the use of “can be” and therefore does not further limit claim 4.
Regarding claims 7-14, the limitations can be interpreted as functions of healing anticipated by Roelandts and the claims recite “can”/”can be” which do not positively recite the limitations that follow.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc D Honrath whose telephone number is (571)272-6219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Charles A Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHARLES A MARMOR II/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/M.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3791