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
2. This action is responsive to the amendments filed 3/19/2025. Claims 1, 3, 6-13, and 17 have been amended. No claims were newly added. Claims 2, 16, and 19 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s remarks with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been considered and are withdrawn in light of the amendments. Applicant’s response with respect to the art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Pugh et al. (US Pub.: 2012/0215291 A1, – Previously Cited) and further in view of Rosenthal et al. (International Publication No.: WO 89/08476 A1, – Previously Cited) and further in view of Quevedo et al. (US Pub.: 2010/0121158 A1, – Previously Cited) and further in view of Hudson et al. (US Pub.: 2016/0016004 A1, – Applicant Cited in IDS 11/4/2025).
Regarding claim 1
Pugh teaches a method for treating a patient with a phototherapy, wherein the patient is suffering from a disorder (abstract; paragraph 0002; 0041),
the method comprising:
delivering photons with a photon energy of between 2.82 eV and 2.43 eV on the retina of an eye of the patient subjected to said phototherapy (delivering photons with energy in the claimed range, [0032-0033]; Examiner’s Note: eV, or electroVolts, can be converted to wavelength using the formula E(eV) = 1.24 × 103/λ(nm). The equivalent wavelength for 2.82 eV to 2.43 eV is thus approximately 400-500nm),
wherein the delivering is done with glasses provided with: a support frame for positioning on the ears and the nose of the patient (glasses comprise frame 101 for positioning on ears, see 111, and nose, see 110, Fig. 1);
two transparent spectacle glasses enclosed in the support frame (transparent glasses 103 enclosed in frame 101, Fig. 1), and
at least one light source for emitting light and integrated in the support frame (light source 102 emits light and is integrated in frame 101, Fig. 1),
the light source comprising a photon source emitting the photons with the photon energy of between 2.82 eV and 2.43 eV (light source 102 is a photon source which emits photons with the claimed energy, Fig. 1, Fig. 9 [0032-33]).
Pugh does not teach
wherein the patient is suffering from Parkinson’s Disease
wherein the support frame portion located above the spectacle glass comprises at least one light guiding element adapted to indirectly deliver light originating from the at least one light source substantially from above the spectacle glass to the eyes,
wherein the support frame comprises an inner surface that surrounds each of the two spectacle glasses, wherein the portion of the inner surfaces that is located below the at least one light guiding element are configured to reflect the artificial light that is coming indirectly from the at least one light guiding element onto the eye of the patient,
wherein the glasses are constructed such that during the treatment each spectacle glass is positioned in front of an eye of the patient,
the portion of the inner surfaces of the support frame that surrounds each of the two spectacle glasses and that is located below the at least one light guiding element at least partially reflects to the eye direct or indirect incident light originating from the light source, and the photons are directly and/or indirectly delivered to the eyes substantially from above the spectacle glass.
However, Rosenthal, which teaches a phototherapeutic device and method and thus exists in the applicant’s field of endeavor, teaches
wherein eye glasses are constructed such that during the treatment each spectacle glass is positioned in front of an eye of the patient (spectacle glasses are positioned in front of the patient eyes, Fig. 1, 3 and 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method/device of Pugh to incorporate, wherein eye glasses are constructed such that during the treatment each spectacle glass is positioned in front of an eye of the patient, as taught and suggested by Rosenthal, as this would permit more uniform and precise modulation of light intensity and angle of incidence (p 7 lines 20-25, Rosenthal).
Pugh in view of Rosenthal does not teach
wherein the patient is suffering from Parkinson’s Disease,
wherein the support frame portion located above the spectacle glass comprises at least one light guiding element adapted to indirectly deliver light originating from the at least one light source substantially from above the spectacle glass to the eyes,
wherein the support frame comprises an inner surface that surrounds each of the two spectacle glasses, wherein the portion of the inner surfaces that is located below the at least one light guiding element are configured to reflect the artificial light that is coming indirectly from the at least one light guiding element onto the eye of the patient,
the portion of the inner surfaces of the support frame that surrounds each of the two spectacle glasses and that is located below the at least one light guiding element at least partially reflects to the eye direct or indirect incident light originating from the light source, and the photons are directly and/or indirectly delivered to the eyes substantially from above the spectacle glass.
However, Quevedo, which teaches a phototherapeutic device and method and thus exists in the applicant’s field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the patient is suffering from Parkinson’s Disease (wherein the patient is suffering Parkinson’s Disease [0014; 0019]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Quevedo into combination of Pugh and Rosenthal such that the progression of the disease or symptomatic severity is slowed or reduced, in order to improve patient outlook. Additionally, patients with Parkinson’s Disease have disruptions in their sleep-wake cycle (circadian rhythm) and phototherapy glasses delivering phototherapy at specific times of day would assist in treating/regulating symptoms.
Pugh in view of Rosenthal in view of Quevedo does not explicitly teach
wherein the support frame portion located above the spectacle glass comprises at least one light guiding element adapted to indirectly deliver light originating from the at least one light source substantially from above the spectacle glass to the eyes,
wherein the support frame comprises an inner surface that surrounds each of the two spectacle glasses, wherein the portion of the inner surfaces that is located below the at least one light guiding element are configured to reflect the artificial light that is coming indirectly from the at least one light guiding element onto the eye of the patient,
the portion of the inner surfaces of the support frame that surrounds each of the two spectacle glasses and that is located below the at least one light guiding element at least partially reflects to the eye direct or indirect incident light originating from the light source, and the photons are directly and/or indirectly delivered to the eyes substantially from above the spectacle glass.
However, Hudson, which teaches a phototherapeutic device and method and thus exists in the applicant’s field of endeavor, teaches
at least one light source for emitting light and integrated in the support frame ([0021])
wherein the support frame portion located above the spectacle glass comprises at least one light guiding element adapted to indirectly deliver light originating from the at least one light source substantially from above the spectacle glass to the eyes ([0021;0027]),
wherein the support frame comprises an inner surface that surrounds each of the two spectacle glasses ([0018-0019)], wherein the portion of the inner surfaces that is located below the at least one light guiding element are configured to reflect the artificial light that is coming indirectly from the at least one light guiding element onto the eye of the patient ([0026-0027]),
the portion of the inner surfaces of the support frame that surrounds each of the two spectacle glasses and that is located below the at least one light guiding element at least partially reflects to the eye direct or indirect incident light originating from the light source ([0026-0027]), and the photons are directly and/or indirectly delivered to the eyes substantially from above the spectacle glass ([0026-0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Hudson into combination of Pugh, Rosenthal, and Quevedo in order to provide the predictable results of providing phototherapy in a more comfortable manner as well as making it so a patient can read or do other tasks during treatment time (Hudson, paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 3
Pugh teaches
wherein the treatment is performed or repeated until any one of the symptoms, selected from bradykinesia, pain, akinesia, sleep disturbance, depressed mood, sadness, disturbed melatonin levels during daytime, and/or dystonia, is treated, delayed and/or reduced (treatment is performed until any one of the symptoms including depression is treated [0003]).
Pugh does not teach
Symptoms of Parkinson's Disease
However, Quevedo teaches
Symptoms of Parkinson's Disease ([0014; 0019)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the application of Quevedo into the device and method of Pugh such that the progression of the disease or symptomatic severity is slowed or reduced, in order to improve patient outlook.
Regarding claim 4
Pugh teaches
wherein the photon source has an emission peak wavelength of about 468 nm (450-500 nanometers, inclusive of 468nm [0032]). The examiner additionally notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve such a range through routine experimentation; moreover, the range claimed is not deemed critical (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(a)).
Regarding claim 5
Pugh teaches
wherein the patient is allowed to perform an activity during the treatment such as walking or reading (performing an activity like reading [0039]).
Regarding claim 6
Pugh teaches
wherein photons emitted by the photon source are delivered at the retina of said patient at least once daily for between about 15 minutes and 60 minutes (delivering light for about 30m per day [0005]). The examiner additionally notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve such a range through routine experimentation; moreover, the range claimed is not deemed critical (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(a)).
Regarding claim 7
Pugh teaches
wherein photons emitted by the photon source are delivered at the retina of said patient once daily for about 30 minutes, the delivery of the photons starting between about 0 minutes and four hours of the time of after awakening from overnight sleep (delivering light, i.e. photons, to the retina, for 30m per day [0005]). The examiner additionally notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve such a range through routine experimentation; moreover, the range claimed is not deemed critical (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(a)).
Regarding claim 8
Pugh teaches
wherein the patient is treated for a time period of at least one week (patient treatment is maintained for several weeks [0005]).
Regarding claim 9
Pugh teaches
wherein the photon source emits photons with a photon energy of between 2.76 eV and 2.48, (emitting photons within the claimed range [0032-0033]). The examiner additionally notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve such a range through routine experimentation; moreover, the range claimed is not deemed critical (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(a)).
Regarding claim 10
Pugh teaches
wherein the photon source emits photons with an emission peak wavelength of between 450 nm and 500 nm (450-500nm, see Pugh [0005; 0032]). The examiner additionally notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve such a range through routine experimentation; moreover, the range claimed is not deemed critical (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(a)).
Regarding claim 11
Pugh teaches
wherein the photon source is adapted to emit photons with a full width at half maximum spectral bandwidth of between 16 nm and 35 nm (LEDs, disclosed by Pugh, are known to have a spectral width at half maximum of about 20 nm, see: https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/1-4020-0613-6_17892#:~:text=Spectral%20widths%20of%20LEDs%20are,the%20light%20from%20the%20source.). The examiner additionally notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve such a range through routine experimentation; moreover, the range claimed is not deemed critical (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(a)).
Regarding claim 13
Pugh teaches
wherein the at least one light source is one of a light emitting diode, an organic light emitting diode, or a phosphorescent organic light emitting diode, and comprises the photon source (light source 102 is an LED [0032]).
6. Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pugh and further in view of Rosenthal and further in view of Quevedo and further in view of Hudson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Davis et al. (US Patent No.: 9,352,170 B1, – Previously Cited).
Regarding claim 12
Pugh teaches
wherein the glasses are configured to deliver light (frame 101 is configured to deliver light, [0051])
Pugh in view of Rosenthal in view of Quevedo in view of Hudson does not teach
between 36 lux and 50 lux at the level of an eye the patient, and/or deliver between 4 lux and 6 lux at the level of the retina of the eye of the patient.
Davis, which teaches a phototherapeutic device and method and thus exists in the applicant’s field of endeavor, teaches
between 36 lux and 50 lux at the level of an eye the patient, and/or deliver between 4 lux and 6 lux at the level of the retina of the eye of the patient (Col 4 lines 10-24; Col 2 lines 45-49). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve such a range through routine experimentation; moreover, the range claimed is not deemed critical (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(a)).
Regarding claim 15
Pugh in view of Rosenthal in view of Quevedo in view of Hudson does not teach
wherein the light source further comprises a light emitting diode capable of emitting red with a wavelength of between 660 nm and 700 nm.
However, Davis teaches
wherein the light source further comprises a light emitting diode capable of emitting red with a wavelength of between 660 nm and 700 nm (red light, Col 3 lines 1-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the wavelength disclosed by Davis with the light source of Pugh to achieve the optimally therapeutic application of light. The examiner additionally notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve such a range through routine experimentation; moreover, the range claimed is not deemed critical (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(a)).
7. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pugh and further in view of Rosenthal and further in view of Quevedo and further in view of Hudson and further in view of Wunderer et al. (US Pub.: 2014/0072009 A1, – Previously Cited).
Regarding claim 14,
Pugh in view of Rosenthal in view Quevedo in view of Hudson does not teach
wherein the photon source is a p/n semiconductor material consisting of a p-layer and an n-layer, wherein the p-layer is InGaN and the n-layer is InGaN,
However, Wunderer, which teaches a phototherapeutic device and method and thus exists in the applicant’s field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the photon source is a p/n semiconductor material consisting of a p-layer and an n-layer, wherein the p-layer is InGaN and the n-layer is InGaN (p/n semiconductor consisting of p- and n-layer, wherein the p-layer is InGaN [0021; 0029; 0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the photon source of Pugh with the specific semiconductor material of Wunderer to achieve the more efficient transmission of light. Specifically, given that InGaN semiconductors are among the most common semiconductors used in illumination devices for their heat resistance, it would have been obvious to try the InGaN semiconductor of Wanderer as the specific photon source that was merely disclosed generally by Pugh.
8. Claim 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pugh and further in view of Rosenthal and further in view of Quevedo and further in view of Hudson and further in view of Grethen et al. (US Patent No.: 4,743,410 A, – Previously Cited).
Regarding claim 17
Pugh in view of Rosenthal in view Quevedo in view of Hudson does not teach
wherein the light guiding element has an upper side comprising notches, and wherein each notch preferably extends transversely to the longitudinal direction of the light guiding element.
Grethen, which teaches a light-emitting device and method adapted for even transmission of light and thus exists in the applicant’s field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the light guiding element has an upper side comprising notches, and wherein each notch preferably extends transversely to the longitudinal direction of the light guiding element (light guiding element has an upper side 1 and 2, having notches 3, Fig. 1a-1b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the notched light guide of Grethen with the light guide of Pugh to achieve the more efficient and even transmission of light.
Regarding claim 18
Pugh in view of Rosenthal in view Quevedo in view of Hudson does not teach
wherein each notch has a respective depth, and the respective depths increase in size from a distal edge of the frame to proximal the nose frame part, wherein the increase in respective depths of the notches proximal to the nose frame part is preferably even, and/or wherein a respective distance between a centerpoint of two adjacent notches is constant for each notch.
Grethen teaches
wherein each notch has a respective depth (each of notches 3 has a respective depth, Col 4 lines 20-24), and the respective depths increase in size from a distal edge of the frame to proximal the nose frame part (notches’ depths increase from distal edge to proximal of the nose frame part, Col 4 lines 20-24, Fig. 11b), wherein the increase in respective depths of the notches proximal to the nose frame part is preferably even, and/or wherein a respective distance between a centerpoint of two adjacent notches is constant for each notch (increases in depths of notches are approximately even, Col 4 lines 20-24. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the notched light guide of Grethen with the light guide of Pugh to achieve the more efficient transmission of light.
9. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pugh and further in view of Rosenthal and further in view of Quevedo and further in view of Hudson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baillet et al. (European Publication: EP 2887129 A1, – Previously Cited).
Regarding claim 20
Pugh does not teach
wherein the spectacle glasses are filter lenses for filtering blue light and/or UV light, or the spectacle glasses are filter lenses for filtering red light.
Baillet, which teaches a phototherapeutic device and method and thus exists in the applicant’s field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the spectacle glasses are filter lenses for filtering blue light and/or UV light, or the spectacle glasses are filter lenses for filtering red light (spectacle glasses filter blue light [0010; 0013]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the filter taught by Baillet to the glasses of Pugh in order to minimize light at undesirable regions of the spectrum, whether blue, UV or red ([0007]).
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 11/04/2025 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 DANIEL TEHRANI whose telephone number is (571)270-0697. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights